Grab a couple of dice. Roll them.
If you get below 5, those are rookie numbers. Shout at the dice, let them know they're underperforming.
If you get above 9, that's what we want to see! They're good dice, and you should acknowledge that.
Repeat that and keep a record. You'll notice that negative feedback often results in better performance on the next roll. Positive feedback, conversely, can make them get lazy.
1/2
reshared this
серафими многоꙮчитїи
•When you truly understand why this method of dice management works, you are ready to give feedback to people.
2/2
reshared this
silverwizard and Alex P. 👹 reshared this.
серафими многоꙮчитїи
•серафими многоꙮчитїи reshared this.
Bill Seitz
•http://webseitz.fluxent.com/wiki/RedBeadExperiment
Red-Bead Experiment
WebSeitzсерафими многоꙮчитїи reshared this.
Semi-author-ized L.J.
•серафими многоꙮчитїи reshared this.
серафими многоꙮчитїи
•Semi-author-ized L.J.
•Jorin
•Prim'(tisse)vert 🌸 likes this.
Yudderick & Co.
•MickeyMaousse
•statistics is the true devil 's science, even experts who should know better will get it wrong often.
See Monty Hall Problem Wikipedia page.
серафими многоꙮчитїи reshared this.
серафими многоꙮчитїи
•серафими многоꙮчитїи reshared this.
cdonnelly
•серафими многоꙮчитїи
•@cdonnellySRE it's a genuine statistical effect! If there's a higher than average score, the chances are the next randomly-chosen one will be closer to the average. Same applies for lower scores - the next random score is more likely to be closer to the average (i.e. higher).
How you end up feeling about that, *that's* the psychological effect. The dice don't care 😀
silverwizard
@cdonnelly @серафими многоꙮчитїи This is something we learned in introduction to Psychology, as like, an important example of what's called The Armchair Effect in how people perceive psychological studies.
The idea is that a lot of people either reject data because they have lived experience, or feel like gathering data is worthless because it is lived experience, and this is the standard example courses use (at the University of Waterloo a decade and a half ago) of something where people often reject the data because of their lived experience.
серафими многоꙮчитїи
•@silverwizard @cdonnellySRE this is interesting but kind of the opposite of what I was getting at if I understand you right: if you follow the procedure and record the data, you absolutely will see a correlation between berating the dice and rolling higher next time!
(Of course this thread was about being misled and is therefore the perfect place for me to grab the wrong end of the stick)
silverwizard
cdonnelly
•silverwizard
cdonnelly
•серафими многоꙮчитїи
•@silverwizard @cdonnellySRE I never actually come out and say it directly in the main toots: I wanted to leave it as a fun little puzzle for people because I certainly find it counterintuitive.
It got a few boosts and I'm now self-consciously wondering how many people were thinking "this guy is trying to show why it's important to give negative feedback (and he's bad at statistics)" or even "this jabroni thinks he can influence dice by shouting". 😂
Alexander Hölken
•What is this even saying? That an individual's workplace performance is a stochastic process? That a skilled-enough manager can do the equivalent of "rolling" a person such that their performance is biased towards being better-than-average?
I mean, I get the surface message, but I don't think it holds up for precisely the reason that people aren't dice.
серафими многоꙮчитїи
•Alexander Hölken
•серафими многоꙮчитїи
•@ahoelken
(a) the dice are not responding to your feedback: they're dice
(b) nonetheless, the stats "show" that your negative feedback was more effective than your positive feedback (this is a genuine thing you can try if your Friday nights are as exciting as mine...)
People are a little stochastic, although that's not really the point: we have good days and bad days influenced by factors that we can't predict well. In fact, the first time I saw this effect referred to it was in the context of actual human beings, and it occurred to me that it would be amusing and maybe clearer to put it in the context of inanimate objects.
It's a really powerful cognitive illusion caused projecting an emotional response onto regression to the mean, and a similar effect can definitely cause people to believe it's in some way effective to mistreat others. To be clear, I don't think it is.
I guess it's not really an analogy, it's a thing you can actually do, and the dice don't even have to represent anything other than their cubical selves.
серафими многоꙮчитїи
•I'm going to link to this excellent explanation (with code!) in case any future travellers get here
https://hcommons.social/@juanrloaiza/112062067415121397
Juan R. Loaiza
2024-03-08 20:57:28