The Partial Control Fallacy

post by Darmani · 2016-12-14T02:57:24.773Z · LW · GW · Legacy · 2 comments

Contents

2 comments
This is a cross-post from http://pathsensitive.blogspot.com/2016/06/the-partial-control-fallacy.html

 

Around the time I started grad school, I applied for a few prestigious fellowships. Winning is determined by several factors. Some are just an application, while some have a follow-up interview, but the applications all get scored on a rubric that looks roughly like this:
Naturally, I proceeded to pour massive amounts of time into the essays, letting it consume much of my free time for the month of October.

Getting that Fellowship will really help me have a successful graduate career. Writing better essays will help me get the Fellowship. Therefore, to the extent that I care about having a successful graduate career, I should be willing to work hard on those essays.

But if the real goal is a successful graduate career, then at some point shouldn’t I put those essays down and do something else, like reading a few papers or practicing public speaking?

This, I dub the Partial Control Fallacy. It’s where, if there’s some outcome you want, and you only control a couple factors that affect that outcome, you decide how much to try to improve those factors as if you were actually improving the entire outcome. It’s closely connected to the 80/20 principle: it’s when you only have control over that last 20%, but you pretend it’s the whole thing and work on it accordingly. It’s when the 80/20 principle would suggest doing nothing at all.

Here are some more examples:
I think I’ve been guilty of all three of these at one point or another. I don’t want to think about how much time I spent on my Thiel Fellowship application and preparing for my YCombinator interview. Meanwhile, most people who get into either don’t spend much time at all.

In parallel computing, there’s a concept called Amdahl’s law. If your program takes tsteps to run, and you can make s steps faster by a factor of f (say, by splitting them across multiple processors), then the new speed is t-s+s/f, for a speedup of t/(t-s+s/f). Therefore, if you optimize those s steps extremely hard and split them across infinite cores, the best speedup you’ll get is t/(t-s).

Applying that to the above, and you can see that, if I worked infinitely hard on my essays, I could only make my apps 11% better versus not doing anything at all. (At least to the extent that it really does follow that rubric, even if I submit a blank essay.)

Sometimes, that outcome is all you care about it, in which case you’re perfectly justified in trying to eke out every advantage you can get. If you’re in a massively competitive field, like sports or finance, where there’s a really big difference between being #1 and being #2 at some narrow thing, then, by all means, go get that last 1%. Wake up early, get that 7th computer monitor, rinse your cottage cheese. But if you’re putting this kind of effort into something because it’s your terminal goal — well, you’re not doing this for anything else, are you?

I think the solution to this fallacy is always to think past the immediate goal. Instead of asking “How can I get this Fellowship,” ask “How can I improve my research career.” When you see the road ahead of you as just a path to your larger mission, something that once seemed like your only hope now becomes one option among many.

2 comments

Comments sorted by top scores.

comment by NatashaRostova · 2016-12-14T03:12:00.241Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

This also is why I find nearly all university/grad application/acceptance forums to be garbage. Naturally the topics that are discussed are the ones that are shared across the group, when the reality is it is the idiosyncratic aspects that are most up-for-optimization and least discussed.

Your post is very similar to lots of literature on game-theoretic signalling. The seminal paper being this one by a guy called Spence on job-market signalling (http://www.econ.yale.edu/~dirkb/teach/pdf/spence/1973%20job%20market%20signalling.pdf).

Hey, James Miller, you got any other good game theory signalling papers to recommend :P?

Please do read the first 2-3 paragraphs, since I think you'll really like it, even if taking an hour out of your life to read the game/set theory notation isn't on your list of priorities (unless you've already read this paper, which while unlikely, I don't want to assume you haven't!).

Replies from: James_Miller