Level of Detail

In the grand tradition of dividing people into two types, today I wish to draw this divide: There are people who work to solve problems, and there are people who want problems solved.

There are many angles within this distinction, from the perspective of the 'political sandbox,' that I can take. One that immediately springs to mind is David Mamet's observation that "socialism is the abdication of responsibility," but that's a theme I've explored many times on this blog. Another is the realities of practical feedback vs the optimism of academic constructs, but again, it's a tale that's been told.

Today's consideration lies in the title phrase: "level of detail." Anyone who's tackled a project of any complexity knows that the devil is in the details. Conceiving a desired outcome is easy. Getting there is hard, and takes a lot more thought, effort, and exploration than ideating the result. Working to solve problems involves descending to level of detail.

Many of those details usually do not make themselves fully known until the tackling has commenced. "Conditions in the field" is a turn of phrase I heard from a builder many moons back, and I've retained it in my brain pan as a reminder of realities: be prepared for things that don't work as intended, be prepared for things you didn't think of, be prepared for ideas that prove wrong (or impossible) once you've gotten to the implementation stage, be prepared for less-than-ideal foundations for your work. Expect to find more and deeper levels of detail as you work, even if the project is old-hat.

It is both a reality and a 'good thing' that most of the problems, projects, and initiatives we set upon are delegated. Division of labor, reliance on experience and expertise, and efficient use of time are fundamental elements of productivity, and productivity is the foundation upon which our living standards are raised. Leonard Read's I, Pencil is a superb parable of this reality (as well as a take-down of the conceit of central planning). Fact is, even the most self-reliant and independent person relies tremendously on others' problem solving efforts. The person who builds his own house in the backwoods of Montana will still rely on the makers of tools, clothing, boots, eyeglasses, and so forth.

The distinction I set forth at the outset of this article remains, however. Even in reliance on countless others' problem solving skills, the problem solver pursues the end result via level of detail. A business owner pulls together countless moving parts in order to create and sell goods and services. A house builder choreographs tradespeople, suppliers, inspectors, financiers, and the like in order to erect a dwelling.

Not everyone is (or wants to be or can be or should be) a business owner or a house builder. Most of us aren't, and we rely on them for goods and services we want. That doesn't automatically put us into the second category, though. If we take on the slightest level of personal responsibility in our decisions regarding goods and services we seek, we, too, are problem solvers. This is the 'level of detail.' If you buy a pair of jeans, it's on you to make sure that they fit, that their workmanship is of sufficient quality, and that their price is acceptable. If you buy a house, the same is true. In the latter case, you're more likely to rely on experts, but it's still you tackling the problem.

In the political sphere, it's obvious and unavoidable that almost all that gets done gets done via proxies. We don't solve political problems, we 'hire' (i.e. elect) people to do so. However, if we go at 'level of detail' in our hiring, we are problem solvers, not demanders that problems be solved.

Unfortunately, too many of our fellow citizens simply say "I want Problem X solved," with no consideration as to level of detail. They don't ask "how" with open eyes and "buyer-beware" skepticism, and instead put blind faith in others.

As in, hire the politicians, expect things fixed, and defend the hiring decision come hell or high water.

This leaves them vulnerable to those willing to over-promise, and those willing to over-promise are often also the sort to point fingers of responsibility away from themselves when they fail to deliver. And, given the realities of cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias, the obvious lessons aren't heeded.

A policy maker (a wise and humble one, at least) considers the alterations to "conditions in the field" from each piece and action of the policy he sets forth, is prepared for unidentified and unintended side effects, weighs opportunity costs, factors elements such as moral hazard and shifting incentives, and corrects as he moves through the process. He understands the "real world" exists, and that makes some things either impossible or a bad idea in practice.

Tell me the last time you saw a politician course-correct after a failed policy.

The rules in that realm are "never admit error," "blame the opposition for failures," "always counterattack," and "double down when challenged."

No one who runs a business will stay solvent for long, let alone thrive, with this sort of behavior. No one who relies on him or her self to survive or prosper will succeed in this fashion. In large structures, some can get away with this for quite a while, but the health of the structure suffers.

This attention to 'level of detail' would not be complete without two final thoughts.

First, the Dunning-Kruger Effect is in full force here. It takes a certain level of humility, usually born of strong cognitive ability, to realize that "you don't know what you don't know" is the baseline condition, and that simply demanding a problem should be solved because you believe it solvable is the thought process of a child.

Second, there's H. L. Mencken:

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.

There's no way around putting in the work. And, the devil is indeed in the details.