Eray's Wager

 This schema is an explanation for this syntice where I argue that acting with the expectation of worst-case scenario is much more practical, especially in a technical context, than the other way around. I shamelessly call it "Eray's Wager", which is a blatant reference to Pascal's Wager. Here is the schema:

The Schema of Eray's Wager

Explanation

Assuming we are in a context that we need to conduct a process that has at least a little societal side effect. In this case:
  • Assume that we conducted the process as if it will result in the worst case and it resulted so. This means we were right all along. We are also prepared for the current consequences of the process and also prepared for the future consequences since we have gained experience and analyzed the patterns during the process.
  • Assume that we conducted the process as if it will result in the worst case again and it did not. This means we were wrong, but also we are happy at the moment of the current result. We, again, are prepared for the current and future consequences due to the reasons I have mentioned earlier.
  • Assume that we conducted the process as if it will result in the best case and it did not. This means we we were wrong. And, due to the nature of the assumption, we have not been able to gain any experience or analyze the patterns during the process, thus, we are not prepared for the current and future consequences.
  • Assume that we conducted the process as if it will result in the best case, again, and so did it. This means we were right and are happy. However, due to the nature of the assumption, again, we have not been able to gain any experience or analyze the patterns during the process, thus, we are not prepared for the current and future consequences.
The main idea of this schema might imply the reader a crushing feel of pessimism. However, I don't suggest the extremism here. I only argue that there's just a healthy dose of pessimism that should conduct any technical process in this world.

The modern people usually miss the point of planning. You don't plan to succeed, you plan to not fail. The cavemen didn't hunt in groups to hunt down bigger mammoths, they did so not to die, but their intentions had resulted in a success. Thus, we can safely say the success is merely a byproduct of planning.

We build the bridges with the intention of it not collapsing, not that it can support traffic on it. When you look at the bright side, any bridge can support any number of pedestrians or vehicles made by any people, including the children in kindergarten. The real question is: "For how long?", a couple minutes or decades before it collapses or needs immediate maintenance?

Thus, always bring your own healthy dose of pessimism with you, especially in a technical context.

Yorumlar

Bu blogdaki popüler yayınlar