Hacker: Humphrey, we have to do something.

Sir Humphrey: With respect Minister, we have to do nothing.

I have to start by saying I am not an expert in „rationality” and „cognitive bias” and all that jazz. Which probably makes me more qualified to speak on it, as the experts have too much bias to think clearly about it. I do not want to talk on the topic in general, but on one specific thing that annoys me. Something I wish more people would realize.

As the title says, nothing is better than something wrong. I think this is one of the most damaging biases people have. The bias towards „something, anything”. It negatively affects science, politics and most other aspects of life. Something must be done. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.

Whenever someone comes up with some plan or other, if you point out that it will not work, the immediate response is „do you have a better plan?” Well, no. Just not that. I rather do nothing that something that does not work, or often makes things worse.

This is how incompetent politicians get elected. The come up with „solutions” to problems people perceive. It matters not the solutions are bunk, and will at most only enrich the political class. If someone points out all the way the solution does not work, “well at least they are trying to do something.” I wish they wouldn’t.

I understand that when there is a serious problem, people desperately want a solution. But it should be a real solution and people should try to control the urge to do something, anything. To use an analogy, imperfect like all analogies, if you have a large grease fire, throwing a bucket of water is doing something. But it can turn out quite worse than doing nothing. Yes, FIRE. But not all fires can be extinguished in the same fashion.

This also greatly affects science. Someone comes up with a theory. Experiments do not really confirm it. Someone else points that out and is asked “well you have a better theory?” No, just not that.

First of all, it is important to know what does not work. You will not waste time and resources in that area of research. Second, it is important to know where there are gaps in knowledge. If you think you know, then you may not look to closely at a certain topic. If you know you don’t know, then you can investigate.

A major issue in science is that negative findings do not get attention or even published. If you find that chocolate has no relation to cancer, it neither causes nor prevents, well this is not as exciting news as “chocolate prevents cancer.” But it is important to know.

A complementary issue in science is the problem of the “elegant” theory. If a theory is wrong, but scientist find it elegant it will be doubly hard to take it down. I have seen this in various debates on string theory recently. Various elements which have no experimental evidence whatsoever but oh so elegant in the minds of physicists.

Sometimes you can say well this is the best theory we have. But if you do not see results, spend a little time and money exploring other directions. A very good example is the amyloid plaque theory in Alzheimer’s. The improvement in disease management has been very little compared to the time and money invested. Most drugs that remove the plaques do not do much. Maybe, just maybe, look at something else, at least with part of the research grants.

More general, in science or politics, people don’t like saying we don’t know. It is okay not to know, we can hardly think we know everything. Just say I don’t know, we don’t have a solution yet.

So glibbies, what biases do you think are damaging and not sufficiently accounted by people?