I am very much onboard with making the implicit explicit & putting structure around processes to improve the way we make decisions.
However you lost me with the statement below. Perhaps I can buy a 1-5 scale to talk about my subjective convictions, or even 1-10 (although not sure what a 6 vs a 7 could tell us). I do not think that designing a process on a scale of 1-100 and then comparing a 56 vs 63 on that scale brings anything to the debate other than overcomplicating it. Also, writing this confidence scale as a probability further adds confusion - there is a fundamental difference between "there is a 83% chance of getting number lower than 6 when rolling the dice" and "i am 83% confident that this investment will make money".
Why not simply ask the question on WHY you are highly confident vs going through the intermediate step to quantify the "highly confident" statement to then talk about the differences in our explanations? Arent you achieving the same goal of making the implicit explicit?
"I think that where people miss, where sort of the disconnect is, is just because something is a qualitative judgment, just because it’s a subjective judgment doesn’t mean that you can’t quantify it. So if I say something, if I say, I think something is highly likely, that’s a subjective judgment, right? That’s what I think. But if I say okay, instead of highly likely, if I say, I think it’s six 63% to happen, all I’ve done now is quantified my qualitative judgment. I’ve quantified my subjective judgment, and then now I can tell, like sometimes when I say highly likely, maybe, I mean 63%. Other times maybe, I mean 56%, but it’s a pretty big bucket, and there’s a big difference between 63 and 56. So this allows us to then see, Ooh, Josh is 68% and Annie’s 56%. Let’s have a conversation about why we disagree. Whereas if we were just saying, Oh, I think it’s highly likely we might fool ourselves into thinking that we have agreement when we don’t."
I am very much onboard with making the implicit explicit & putting structure around processes to improve the way we make decisions.
However you lost me with the statement below. Perhaps I can buy a 1-5 scale to talk about my subjective convictions, or even 1-10 (although not sure what a 6 vs a 7 could tell us). I do not think that designing a process on a scale of 1-100 and then comparing a 56 vs 63 on that scale brings anything to the debate other than overcomplicating it. Also, writing this confidence scale as a probability further adds confusion - there is a fundamental difference between "there is a 83% chance of getting number lower than 6 when rolling the dice" and "i am 83% confident that this investment will make money".
Why not simply ask the question on WHY you are highly confident vs going through the intermediate step to quantify the "highly confident" statement to then talk about the differences in our explanations? Arent you achieving the same goal of making the implicit explicit?
"I think that where people miss, where sort of the disconnect is, is just because something is a qualitative judgment, just because it’s a subjective judgment doesn’t mean that you can’t quantify it. So if I say something, if I say, I think something is highly likely, that’s a subjective judgment, right? That’s what I think. But if I say okay, instead of highly likely, if I say, I think it’s six 63% to happen, all I’ve done now is quantified my qualitative judgment. I’ve quantified my subjective judgment, and then now I can tell, like sometimes when I say highly likely, maybe, I mean 63%. Other times maybe, I mean 56%, but it’s a pretty big bucket, and there’s a big difference between 63 and 56. So this allows us to then see, Ooh, Josh is 68% and Annie’s 56%. Let’s have a conversation about why we disagree. Whereas if we were just saying, Oh, I think it’s highly likely we might fool ourselves into thinking that we have agreement when we don’t."