Social Uncertainty Principle

12-10-2009

Continuing the previous discussion of object bias and conceptions of time…

As a very rough rule of thumb I like to apply a kind of generalized version of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle:

“the more precisely the position is determined, the less precisely the momentum is known, and conversely…” [via SEP]

Applied to social and economic models, replace “momentum” with any type of progress or change.

The more statistically rigorous we think we understand a market or an organization, the less we know about the human factors surging through it.

When it comes to understanding the human side, the best instrument we have is human judgement and intuition (ironically, how the mind works so well is itself subject to considerable uncertainty).

And conversely, personal impressions and intuitions aren’t enough either; we need hard facts to keep biases and errors in check.

Same with individuals.

The more clearly we think we have someone or something defined, the more attentive we should be to unexpected changes.

It’s really an oscillating process between quantification and qualification: we need hard data and definitions, but those should only guide and discipline our judgement, not determine it.

Bottom line: we have to keep thinking.

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • del.icio.us
  • Tumblr
  • Posterous
  • Digg
  • LinkedIn
  • email
  • Print

More From the Archives:

  • Once again invaluable information to help fill the gaps, and a good nudge for me to prove the duality (wish I had a better background for math, this process is giving me a lot of regrets about that; it's definitely a competence I need to work on... when I have more opportunity).

    I do try to avoid "duality" as much as possible; I don't want to bring in too many of its connotations.
  • ndrwclrk
    This is something I've given lots of thought to over the years. I tend to think about it as the classification of experiences in order to count them is kind of in a mathematical duality with the "thick description" (Geertz's term) of those experiences. There's lots of stuff published on this in the research methods literature, talking about the interplay of quantitative and qualitative methods.

    Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is just one specific example of the Cauchy-Schwartz inequality, which is much more general, and may be a better choice to pin your theory on. Cauchy-Schwartz can be applied anywhere there's a duality (in the mathematical sense). For an easy example of a duality, consider lines and points. Two points define a line. Two lines define a point. In math, the kind of relationship that describes this is a duality. To use Cauchy-Schwartz here, you'd just have to prove that qualitative and quantitative methods are somehow dual, or homologous to that in some way. I've come close, but haven't done it yet!
  • Absolutely, I think I've written almost the exact same thing before. Unfortunately it looks like this could be read as being anti-data; I meant exactly what you said: we need to use both aspects to push each other forward.

    Also I should have noted that I'm mainly referring to applied models. Professional researchers in social science seem well aware of the limitations, but when it comes time to make policies etc there seems to be too much supposed certainty.

    This post was actually longer but I decided to make the "applied" stuff its own post. I'm going to post it right now with some of your comment attached.
  • Interesting metaphor; I hadn't heard this comparison made before. It's certainly true that there needs to be a trade-off between gut judgments and hard facts.

    However, I also think one feeds the other. A person with more raw knowledge will make better intuitive decisions than one with little knowledge. And a person who hones their intuition will be better able to acquire and use raw knowledge effectively.

    This is even more true in a broader scientific sense. The more that is known about how an organization or market works, the more we can derive about its social side (and vice versa), and the more we can predict its future progress.

    As an aside, yeah, there is a lot of uncertainty about how the mind works so well, especially when it comes to intuition. That's one of the things that I'm working on in my studies. :)
blog comments powered by Disqus