Re:Judge: Citibank isn't entitled to $500M it sent to variou...
by diplomatpuppy on Thursday February 18, 2021 @03:05PM
(#26184715)
The local hospital handles the problem like this:
Doctor 1 gathers evidence and makes a preliminary diagnosis and writes it down. Doctor 1 then presents only the evidence to Doctor 2. Doctor 2 comes up with an independent diagnosis and writes it down. They then see if they match.
Re:Judge: Citibank isn't entitled to $500M it sent to variou...
by sokoloff on Thursday February 18, 2021 @05:39PM
(#26186783)
Selecting which evidence to present leaves this process subject to some of the same errors. The evidence that leads doctor 1 to conclude the correct diagnosis is X is going to be passed along and other evidence may not be, so doctor 2 will diagnose the same. (This doesn't even have to be intentional. If I think I'm right, I'll be naturally inclined to provide evidence to that effect.)
Re:Judge: Citibank isn't entitled to $500M it sent to variou...
by hinkley on Thursday February 18, 2021 @03:44PM
(#26185247)
Bleeding person with white coat syndrome gets upset because two doctors and a nurse asked them the same questions.
I mean, it's better than cutting off the wrong leg, but boy is it rough.
There's a psychological defect in the human brain called Anchoring. If you are first presented with the wrong answer to a problem, it affects your ability to objectively come up with the 'right' answer. You will not catch all of the garbage I threw at you because I threw it. "Double" checking is a misnomer because it's not really doubling the number of brains.
Some things should work more like nuclear launch codes. I don't approve your action, I perform the exact same action, and if we both did exactly the same thing, then something happens. If we don't, then nothing happens or you get an error.
Might this problem still have happened? Yes. But the first time it happened would probably have been taken more seriously, instead of what we usually do: deflect, deflect, deflect.