Listen to the specialists like those in pap government at ur own risks
- From: "truth" <truth@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:41:29 GMT
http://mrwangsaysso.blogspot.com/
Jan 21, 2008
The Modern Risks of Information and Advice
In my earlier post, I wrote about the school principal who had strongly
urged her Secondary 5 students to give up studying for their O-levels and go
to the ITE instead. This incident reminded of Freakonomics, a very
interesting book that I had read some time ago.
Here's the relevant point from Freakonomics. As society grows more complex,
more and more specialists evolve. Doctors, lawyers, financial advisers,
property agents, journalists, religious leaders and car salesmen - all of
them are specialists of a different kind.
The individual cannot possibly be an expert in every field relevant to his
life. So he must often rely on advice from different specialists. For
example, if he is ill, he will consult a doctor. If he wants to buy a car or
sell an apartment, he will talk to a car salesman or a property agent.
The Freakonomics authors warn us that very often, the specialist's
self-interest is not fully aligned with the self-interest of the person
seeking information or advice. In other words, it often does not serve the
specialist to tell you everything that you should know.
For example, it may take too much time for the specialist to tell you
everything you should know, and there is no reward for doing so - therefore
he won't.
Or the specialist might deliberately withhold certain information about his
product / service, because if you knew all its flaws, limitations or
disadvantages, you might not want his product / service any more.
Or he may deliberately slant or angle his advice in certain ways, so that
you will be inclined to make a decision that serves his own self-interest.
And there is usually no equal footing, because the specialist, by virtue of
being a specialist, already knows more than you. He holds the edge.
Let's now consider our education system. Socially, we are conditioned to
think of education as a noble thing, and of educators as noble people.
Certainly this view has some validity - some people would say, a lot of
validity.
But at the same time, we must realise that there are different actors within
the school system. Different actors means different self-interests, and that
means the Freakonomics info/advice problem must arise again.
What's good for the Ministry of Education is not necessarily good for the
principal. What's good for the principal is not necessarily good for the
teachers. What's good for the teachers is not necessarily good for the
students.
And what's good for the students may not necessarily be good for the
teachers, principal or the Ministry of Education.
(Minor digression - here is a brief account of how I, as a student, went
against the government's then-prevailing career advice for young
Singaporeans. I thereby became quite rich and successful).
It is very good for the principal, if the school achieves a high overall
pass score. An ambitious principal may well aim to achieve, say, a 98% or
100% pass score. It is conceivable that such an ambition may heavily shape a
principal's advice to the students or the way the principal runs the school.
For example, the principal may discourage students from exploring knowledge
outside the formal school syllabus (such extra learning may be good for the
students, but will not help the overall pass scores).
Or the principal may prevent the students from taking subjects which the
students are interested in, but which are considered harder to pass (for
example, Further Maths, or Art, or Literature).
Or the principal may seek ways to put extreme pressure on the students to
work as hard as possible, such that a few of the less-resilient students
will inevitably suffer severe stress.
Or the principal may advise the weak students to leave the school and pursue
other options elsewhere (if these students stay, and fail their exams, then
the overall pass scores would be damaged).
And the students may never realise that their education is being shaped, not
by considerations of what is good for them, but of what is good for their
principal.
The Freakonomics authors do not say, of course, that in every case,
specialists are out to hurt the advisee's position. In many situations, the
interests of the advisor and the advisee could be well-aligned - this means
that the advisor has a strong incentive to be genuinely helpful.
What Freakonomics does warn us is that when we receive any specialist
advice, we should pause to ask ourselves - what are all the possible reasons
why the specialist is telling us what the specialist is telling us?
Final food for thought. Here's that Bertrand Russell quote again:
"Passive acceptance of the teacher's wisdom is easy to most boys and
girls. It involves no effort of independent thought, and seems rational
because the teacher knows more than his pupils; it is moreover the way to
win the favour of the teacher unless he is a very exceptional man. Yet the
habit of passive acceptance is a disastrous one in later life. It causes man
to seek and to accept a leader, and to accept as a leader whoever is
established in that position." - Bertrand Russell.
So beware of the specialists in your life, whoever they may be.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Prev by Date: Singapore is a paradoxical society
- Next by Date: Re: China Banks did not fully account for their massive exposure to subprime
- Previous by thread: Singapore is a paradoxical society
- Next by thread: Re: Listen to the specialists like those in pap government at ur own risks
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
