“Every intelligent system makes errors”, so said Gerd Gigerenzer.
Here’s a couple of page extracts from a 2005 paper. Not sure if I’ll summarise it or not (it’s really interesting, but tough to capture in a summary…)
The paper:
· Challenges the rationalistic and normative ideal as cognition as purely a logical and rational one, ignoring its sensemaking and ecological goals (** This doesn’t make it illogical or irrational, though)
· Blunders “seem to be unnecessary as well as embarrassing, and every intelligent system would work better without them. In this view, to err is not to think”
· This perspective sees errors as negative and nuisances, with the fewer the better
· This logic relies on using “content-blind” norms, that is, not considering the contextual and ecological goals
· Another perspective sees “errors that need to be made—that is. errors that are indispensable and functional”
· Gigerenzer calls these “”good” errors. Children are known for good errors”
· “The characteristic of a good error is that a person is better off making the error than not making it—for reaching a goal more quickly, or attaining it at all”
· “Making no errors would destroy the intelligence of the system”
· “A good error is a consequence of the adaptation of mental heuristics to the structure of environments”
· “This ecological view is illustrated by visual illusions. Not making good errors would destroy human intelligence”
· “What is correct or erroneous is no longer defined by a syntactic principle, but rather by the success of the heuristic in the real world”
· “Good errors can provide insights into the workings of the mind”
· “To err is not only human but is a necessary consequence of this kind of intelligence”
Ref: Gigerenzer, G. (2005). I think, therefore I err. Social Research: An International Quarterly, 72(1), 195-218.
Study link: https://pure.mpg.de/rest/items/item_2101040/component/file_2562283/content
SafetyInsights.org 