Seeking Truth

The last few posts I've penned for this forum (here and here) have danced around the edges--and occasionally jumped up and down on--the notion that we humans are flawed, cognitively compromised, and subject to some intrinsic constraints on our ability to see, understand, communicate, and act on the truth. Though this is not a new soapbox, I hadn't realized that this notion had taken over my writing and become as strident as it had. Then a good friend asked a simple question, and I found myself wrestling with the consequences of the human cognitive silliness on which I've been recently focused and what it means for truth in general and, perfectly apropos of this forum, truth in our analytic profession.

So, what poser did my wise friend propose? He offered three alternative positions based on the existence of truth and our ability to know it:

1. There is a truth and we can grow to understand it.
2. There is a truth and we cannot understand it.
3. There is no truth for us to understand.

(Technically, I suppose there is a fourth possibility--that there is no truth and we can grow to understand it--but this isn't a particularly useful alternative to consider. As a mathematician and pedant by training and inclination, though, it is difficult to not at least acknowledge this.) 

The question is then where I fall on this list of possibilities. It's an important question, if for no other reason than where we sit is where we stand, and it becomes difficult to hypocritical to conscientiously pursue an analytic profession if we believe either two or three is the case. Strangely, though, I found this a harder question to answer than perhaps I should have, but here is where I landed:

At least with respect to the human physical and social universes with which we contend, there is an objective truth that is in some sense knowable and we, finite and flawed as we are, can discover these truths via observation, experimentation, and analysis.

In retrospect, my position on this question should have been obvious. I've been making statements that human cognition is biased and flawed, averring that this is a truth, and I believe it to be one. We can observe any number of truths in the way humans and the universe we occupy behave. I find, on refection, though that there is a limit to this idea. Specifically, we can probably never know with precision the underlying mechanisms that produce the truths we observe. We may know that cognitive biases exist and we may be able to describe their tendencies, but (speaking charitably) we are unlikely to ever have an incontrovertible cause-and-effect model to allow us to interact with and influence these tendencies in a push-button way.

So, the trouble I have with truth is that we apply truth value to the explanatory models we create. Since these models are artificial creations and not the systems themselves they must, by definition, fail to represent the system perfectly. Newtonian theories of gravity based on mass give way to relativistic theories of gravity based on energy. In some ways one is better than the other, but neither is true in a deep sense. Our models are never true in the larger sense. They may constitute the best available model. They may be "true enough" or " right in all the ways that matter." But both of these conditions are mutable and context-dependent. In a sense, I find myself intellectually drawn to the notion that truth in the contexts that matter to us professionally is an inductive question and not a deductive one.

In the end, I'm actually encouraged by this reflection, though the conclusion that models are and must be inherently flawed results in some serious consternation for this mathematician (soothed only by the clarity with which mathematicians state and evaluate our axiomatic models). I understand better what I'm seeking. I understand better the limitations involved. And, at the risk of beating a dead horse, I am more convinced of the need to put our ideas out in the world. This reflection might never have taken place if not for Admiral Stavridis and his injunction to read, think, and write.

The Zealot and His Disciples

Two years prior to the fateful board meeting, the analyst and the PM were in the same meeting foreshadowing the showdown yet to come. We both had the opportunity to be in that very same room. Let’s listen in. “I’m a believer and a zealot and I will tell you right now that I am here to influence you.” These were the words from the PM as they sat at the conference table, trying to shake off the early morning with coffee. Within 5 minutes they were both feeling like believers as well.

Were they drinking coffee or were they drinking grape Kool-Aid? His words were powerful and resonated with the sound of a corporate hero, someone who had been with the company many years, had fought many battles, and was promoted to his position on the basis of the trust he had gained from the corporate structure. “My job is to produce things of great value for the corporation.” For those of us languishing behind stacks of our paper on our desks we have heard the tales of the great ones, those in the field or the lab either landing the big contract or patenting the next invention that will earn the corporation it’s next billion dollars. And here, this morning standing before them was a legend – or so he said.

The charisma of such a hero – those who brave the depths of the commercial marketplace to take the fight to our enemies – gives us another glimpse of the excitement that is capitalism. Instead of being face to face with the empire builder in the form of someone creating and growing an organization as mentioned previously, we were now being addressed by the PM also known as a Product Manager for a corporate product line. They to are empire builders but typically they have a reason that transcends growth for the sake of the seats on an organizational chart – and they will tell you this fact. They transcend the organization because they bring value with a product – the holy grail of the organization in their minds.

Something of such value that everyone else should bow down before them, as they, guardians for the chalice, the Knights Templar by another name, The Zealot as was his nickname out side of work, enters the room. As the Zealot spoke he gave credit to those above him. “Our CEO is a visionary,” was a powerful sound bite. “The Chief has a profound vision of the future,” was another. It seemed to me, however, that those we label as visionary are the leaders who we believe are preaching closest to our own view of the world. We believe this particular PM indeed has a vision, however after a 50 minute sermon I’m not sure he knew that his vision is really about keeping investment dollars flowing into his program and not about winning a war in the corporate market place.

But this blog is not about a zealot trying to keep his program funded. If we had a nickel for every PM we’ve had to listen to ramble on about their product… rather, this essay is about truth. Maybe the PM is right; maybe he is wrong, the question is can we find out? This essay is about how analysis in an uncertain world can be used to shape decisions – and influence decisions the correct way. The promise of analysis has always been about removing bias, removing uncertainty, and delivering the right answer to a decision maker. What we are calling discovering the truth.

In reality our analysis is used to influence friends, bolster intuition, and defend decisions that were made for reasons other than what was revealed our analysis. Let’s get right down to it. Human beings are trained and equipped from preschool to make simple decisions. They can compare two things. Round pegs and square holes. Right choices and wrong choices. Good people, bad people. It’s easy to compare two things. It’s not easy to compare multiple and complex competing alternatives in an uncertain environment. It is easy to change analytic methods as we continually move between mathematical models. It’s not easy to use the right model or even use it correctly in a such a way as to produce analysis that a decision maker can use in a credible manner that can width stand significant scrutiny.

It’s easier to win friends with political rhetoric then it is to change minds with logical arguments, even with the backing of sound analysis. So friends we tell you today that we are also here to influence you – and run the risk of being exposed for our very own brand of zealotry – perhaps we are indeed worshiping at our own holy grail. But, we have a vision related to the future of analysis and its about discovering the truth. It’s about how we might go about producing useful analysis – analysis that helps a decision maker reach a conclusion for the right reason, not for the wrong reason. It’s about helping the decision maker reach the right conclusion by making them a part of the analysis – not a recipient of the analysis product. It’s about helping the human understand complex alternatives in order to make an informed decision. It’s about discovering the real truth, not the truth handed down to us by some dime store philosopher preaching his form of the Gospel with legions of Cool-aide drinking disciples handing out samples.

Good analysis will discover the truth and make it available to not only the initiated but the casual observer as well. It will be presented in clear and intuitive terms – not cloaked in rhetoric and dressed up by the sales man telling you he knows the truth and has done your thinking for you.

The next principal is simple. The Zealot always believes they must do our thinking for us – “You can’t handle the truth” as Jack Nicholson exclaimed at the end of the movie, A Few Good Men. But you can handle the truth – when the truth is revealed it doesn’t require lipstick to make it look good. When revealed the truth is self evident –it is our job as analysts to strip away the hype and find what truly matters. What are the meaningful measures that must be taken into consideration. Not what are the good things that people want to hear, taste, and smell. Tell them the truth, they can handle it, and they will appreciate it.

The Analyst: Bold--Gusting to Arrogant

A colleague once told me that an analyst must be bold--gusting to arrogant. Those are some of the wisest words I’ve ever heard with regard to this profession –that of the professional analyst. Typically, or stereotypically, we are meek, akin to the computer geek or CPA. We can be seen perhaps lunching with the engineers, all of us sporting pocket protectors with outdated neckties and short sleeve shirts. A great professional analyst, on the other hand, must by definition be bold and not meek. It is their job to question everything, and then with the important knowledge gained, help those who have hired them to either solve their problems or answer their questions.

Unfortunately, to do this correctly, we must gain considerable knowledge in the pursuit of an answer. Often we become so knowledgeable that our understanding exceeds that of our employers. If we show our cards too early, we can be labeled as arrogant. By definition though, if we indeed have a solution to our employer’s problem, we are smarter, at least on the subject under consideration. Therefore we must be bold to be heard.

If, however, there is something missing, and we are not smarter than our employers and our solution is either inadequate or is rejected, we have either failed to understand the problem completely or we were hired to help with a problem that was not intended to be solved (Let’s call this the Gauntlet for you Clint Eastwood fans). If either happens we work harder, quit, or slip into analyst purgatory. Analyst Purgatory or AP is that waiting room on the way to Hell where we might get a second chance. When we find ourselves, as we inevitably do, staring at the bleak walls of AP, we still have options we can take.

We can join with the devil thereby completely sealing our fate by becoming the chambermaids of our master to assist him with his evil plans. We can become prostitutes by selling our services to the highest bidder, remaining neutral on ethics, but affirming the remainder of our lives will continue to exist in the AP of our creation. We can leave the profession completely. Or, as I would like to be the option you have chosen exhibited by your desire to participate and contribute to this blog, you can attempt to elevate our profession, with me, above the charlatans and whores that practice all around us.

We must pursue truth in everything we do. We must leave no stone unturned in the pursuit of the truth; to strive for less would be to strive for something incomplete, and most likely something to label as incompetent. For if our recommendations are followed, and they are not the truth, what is left is blind luck. We might as well have rolled the dice, kicked up our feet, took a nap, and waited for a paycheck. But to pursue the truth, to really find the answers to the questions we seek, we must be bold, very bold. To do so requires rock solid faith, abundant energy, and complete competence. When you have faith, energy, and competence you are bold – perhaps not yet gusting to arrogant, but you will gust soon, perhaps alienating those around you, perhaps winning the respect you deserve – there will be time for humility after you’ve solved world hunger.

In the mean time there is no room for the incompetent in our profession. Why would those with problems to solve choose to hire the incompetent? That would be the height of irony. It unfortunately, is not just a good question, it is a reality that happens everyday, and there are reasons it happens, some, like the sinister Gauntlet will be addressed in the days and weeks to come. Other reasons will remain a sacred mystery, but most, fortunately are simply the landscape of a profession that has forgotten how to discover the truth.

We are all ignorant when we first come upon a new problem to solve; as we start we know very little about the problem. There are other essays and professional works that can help you discover the problem and how to define things, then later how to solve things. This blog is not about the analysis process proper. This blog is about seeking the truth. So as we begin each problem anew, ignorant but hopefully with motivation, it is our next step that will dictate competence or incompetent behavior. We cannot predict which. Nonetheless, our first principle should be clearly stated here--

Discovering the truth is not easy, but if you strive for it, pursuit of the truth keeps you closer to path of competence rather than the one of incompetence. However, there are no guarantees.

So let’s begin boldly and gust arrogant as we go along.

The Program Manager and the Analyst

The division analyst finished his presentation and returned to his seat. The Chief Executive looked around the room and said, “Gentleman, where was this dissention last year when we decided to fund this program?” He looked at the presenter, who was keeping his eyes glued straight ahead, trying not to lock eyes with the others seated a the table, the ones in the room to whom the executive was addressing. “I say again, where was this dissention when we invested a large percentage of our annual revenue in this program?” The table was dead quiet except for the imperceptible sound of building blood pressure in the Program Manager’s head. “Gentleman”, the executive began again, “It’s very rarely that we see the truth in this company. Sometimes we glimpse the truth, but most of the time we are chasing a target that will not sit still. Today that has all changed with the presentation of this analysis. For your sake, for the sake of this company and our stockholders, I hope it is not to late to turn this ship around.” He thanked the division analyst for his candor and swiftly left through the door in the back of the room. No sooner had the door swung shut than the PM stood and raced around the table to confront the analyst. The analyst only had time to spin his chair toward the approaching manager. Producing a pudgy index finger the now fuming man poked the analyst in the chest and spoke rigidly, “What gives you the right to brief the CEO without my permission? I did not give you my permission.” The analyst looked straight into the PM’s eyes and said, “Sir, I work for this company and the stockholders of this company. Whom do you work for?”