Free Newsletters

   All InfoWorld Newsletters
Advice Line | Bob Lewis » Common sense isn't necessarily good sense

June 23, 2007 | Comments: (0)

Common sense isn't necessarily good sense



Dear Bob ...

In this week's Keep the Joint Running ("Iacocca's alliterative leadership list," 6/18/2007) you said this about common sense:

Oh, dear. Whether you call it common sense, good instincts, or trusting your gut, the notion is a dangerous one. Too often, "common sense" is nothing more than personal bias, and prevents the very openness to new ideas Iacocca values.

I think you missed the boat on this one. Common sense is not about instinct or trusting your gut. It's about the ability to tell reality from fantasy. I think that the Clinton quote really speaks to that.

Take something out of one your clients as an example. You talked about how every system has constraints and the constraints affect each other. So, performance, stability and cost are three constraints that have to balance each other. Fantasy tells you that you can have a high speed, high stability system at a great cost. Common sense tells you that, as with most things in the real world, that's not happening. If you are lucky, you can get two out of the three.

Yes, sometimes your gut gives you common sense answers, but that's not the point. What is important is the ability to cut through the fluff, whether you do it consciously (better) or not.

- Commonsensical

Dear Commonsensical ...

Thanks for making my point for me. Common sense told you that you can't get a system with high speed, strong stability and a low price. Your common sense is wrong, because you can.

All you have to do is to sacrifice on features and functionality, and accept only limited scalability. Also, when deciding on "speed" you might have to choose between a system that delivers fast response time and another that delivers high throughput rates, instead of getting both.

None of us is born with an understanding of systems optimization. I'm willing to bet you didn't figure out "quicker, cheaper, better - pick two" on your own. I'm pretty sure someone explained it to you early in your career. You learned it and made it part of your worldview.

Calling book learning "common sense" is a peculiar use of the term.

One reason I'm confident you didn't figure this out on your own is that had you done so you'd have figured out that quicker, cheaper, and better each consist of two separate and independent parameters - the other three optimization dimensions I offered above.

For a quick tutorial on the subject, here are three KJR's that cover the ground: "Quicker isn't as simple as it looks," (5/19/2003) "Of costs and thermostats," (5/26/2003), and "Quality matters. How you define quality matters even more," (6/7/2003).

I know this approach is important because I once watched a process re-engineering effort severely damage a company through a dramatic improvement in cycle time (throughput, sadly went through the floor). I know it isn't common sense because I know professional process re-engineering consultants (and one former physicist) who haven't yet built it into their thought processes.

A friend pointed out to me that there is a valid use for "common sense" - situations like driving in the rain and recognizing that slowing down and turning on your windshield wipers might be a good thought.

Yup. Just like they taught us in Driver's Education.

Last nail in the coffin: Imagine someone whirling a ball on a string above their head. They let go of the string. Describe the ball's horizontal trajectory.

Even in this day and age, many expect the ball to follow a curved path. Three centuries ago, Newton gave the world the correct answer with his three laws of motion.

Many of those who know the right answer will explain that it's just common sense.

So will those who don't. The funny thing is, those who don't are the ones who really are using their common sense.

Those who are right are making use of what they studied in school.

- Bob


Powered by ScribeFire.

Posted by Bob Lewis on June 23, 2007 02:45 PM


RATE THIS ARTICLE:





 

  •  
  • COMMENTS




Those who are right are making use of their ability to observe, pay attention to evidence and reason. School is an insignificant contribution.

Posted by: Mark Robinson at June 27, 2007 10:35 AM

Which just goes to show that "common sense" isn't nearly as common (or as sensical) as the term implies.

Posted by: Kotts at June 27, 2007 10:39 AM

Actually, common sense tells me that holding onto that string is the only force keeping the ball from exiting the loop. The string is staight and at any instant pointing in the direction the ball really wants to go. All Newton and his friendly bunch of physicists did is muck up the works with numbers and Greek letters!!

Posted by: Rick Tuttle at June 27, 2007 10:53 AM

Common sense tells us that the Moon goes around the Earth. Common sense also tells us that the Sun goes around the Earth.

Posted by: Lauren Pomerantz at June 27, 2007 11:26 AM

A good book on the subject of decisions based on common sense is 'Blink' by Malcolm Gladwell. It happens to be supportive of your view and delves more deeply into decision making based on so called instincts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blink_(book)

Posted by: Terry Weeks at June 27, 2007 11:41 AM

really? where did you learn to observe, pay attention to evidence and reason? i learned those things in school.

Posted by: keith at June 27, 2007 11:42 AM

Well... Okay... Hmmm...

I agree with your assessment of your interpretation of "common sense," but it's not quite the interpretation that I would use. I go back to my days as a college student working as a carpenter during the summer breaks. I came away from those years with a sense of the conflict between "common sense" and "book learning" and how neither was an absolute guarantee of knowing the best solution to a problem. In doing so, I came to understand the difference between those two as the difference between "survival" and "thriving." In situations where surviving is paramount (whether it is literally staying alive or just being in a situation where you must accomplish a goal as efficiently and *quickly* as possible to succeed financially), "common sense" solutions are often the best, because they generally arise from a shared historical experience of what "works." Imagine your Newtonian ball on a string as a rock in a sling aimed at a rapidly advancing Visigoth, and I think you'll agree that the only trajectory that counts is the lethal one. Nevertheless, using only common sense can easily overlook superior solutions that are based on a better understanding of facts and theory. Taking the time (book learning, research) to truly understand the problem or task leads to thriving, because you create the windows of opportunity that allow "common sense" to advance. But neither of these can be said to be the correct approach in a given moment without understanding whether you are currently trying to thrive...or just survive.

Posted by: Jim Carls at June 27, 2007 11:50 AM

I think Bob’s implication that Common Sense is misused is right on target. The problem with Common Sense, it depends on the subject at hand. For example, if you are a handy man, and if you were putting in a screw, which way would you turn, right or left? For those who don’t know, you might benefit from my Fathers wisdom since I apparently had no common sense: Righty Tighty, Lefty Loosy.
Common sense, which is really a form of intuition is taught, through interaction, observation and introspection. You get it through experience, not some inbred knowledge (unless you are from Georgia or Britain where the pickings are slim) and thinking you do, opens you up for major mistakes. As a trouble-shooter who looks at diverse number of systems, the first thing I ask myself – If I don’t know the answer right off, or a preliminary check doesn’t check out – What do I know for a fact and what did I assume, and go from there. I find that my biggest problem, is the assumption factor, by programmers, users anyone that is in the process and their uses of “Common Sense.”

Posted by: Michal White at June 27, 2007 12:59 PM

So Mark Robinson must have performed _all_ the experiments that Archimedes, Galileo, and Newton performed. I didn't. I have seen people perform experiments and not learn identical things. I have seen people take the identical class from the identical teacher and learn different things.
Seems to me there are two different terms, Common means popular, Sense means whatever philosophy I personally choose to regard as important. Adherence to reality (science) isn't that important to _everyone_ which is why we have difference of POVs. (Survival of the human race is not of paramount importance to _everyone_).

Posted by: Mike Moxcey at June 27, 2007 02:59 PM

Common sense, to me, means being able to apply that which I have learned. (Sometimes I have it, sometimes I don't.)

As an Engineer, one of the funniest statements I hear is "Theoretically, it should have worked.", which means the speaker missed something in the theory.

Posted by: Jack Binford at June 27, 2007 06:01 PM

Common sense is neither taught to you or is it intuition. It is observing/experiencing cause and effect and understanding the underlying rules then applying them to future situations.

When you were a child you didn't understand what adults meant when they told you the stove was hot and it would burn you but you learned quickly once you touched it.

It is a pity though that some people never make the connections that seem apparent to others. So Bob, there are alot of people who never finished grade school who know the ball won't curve but fly straight through the largest most expensive window available.

Posted by: ChrisW at June 27, 2007 06:44 PM

I couldn't resist a clarification on the ball on the string experiment for Rick. My book learning says that although the force on the string is radially outward, the released ball will travel in a straight line tangent to the circle it was previously contrained to.

Posted by: W.S. at June 28, 2007 06:23 AM

In order for the ball to move in a straight line and not a curved path, many odd things would have to occur. Namely no outside force such as gravity, wind, magnetism, light pressure, could be acting on the ball. From what I understand of physics, you would have a hard time finding such a place to perform your experiment as even the string used and the person swinging the ball would provide enough gravity to affect the path of the ball.

Posted by: JW at June 28, 2007 07:31 AM

Rick, thanks for proving the point so clearly.

The ball will NOT move parallel with the string if it was free. It will move perpendicular to the line of the string at the moment the string is cut.

Your common sense is wrong :(

Posted by: ChrisM at June 29, 2007 05:30 AM

A friend once observed that there is no such thing as common sense--It is just the sum total of all your experiences and learning.

Posted by: Roger at July 2, 2007 04:37 PM

Three books. Three ways to change the world, your life, or at least Bob Lewis' bank account.

Leading IT: The Toughest Job in the World distills the world of IT leadership into eight learnable skills and gives you concrete, practical techniques for each one of them.

Bare Bones Project Management: What you can't not do makes project management manageable, even for first-time project managers with no formal training in the discipline.

ManagementSpeak: What managers say/What they mean … well, it won't help your career, and won't make you a better manager. Mostly, it will make you chuckle, guffaw, and maybe even chortle. Make friends - it's the perfect gift for anyone who has ever suffered through one of those meetings.

Order your copies today!





Technology White Papers

 

InfoWorld Technology Marketplace

» Technology White Papers Library

Technology White Papers by Topic

Technology White Papers E-mail Alert

Find out when the latest white paper is available:
 
 
» BUY A LINK NOW

Sponsored Technology Links