vault backup: 2026-03-23 17:15:27

2026-03-23 17:15:27 -04:00
parent 290b07b078
commit 44ff68ea52
11 changed files with 227 additions and 86 deletions
@@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ Related topic: [[heuristics#Realism vs. Instrumentalism]]
 Naming by use case is intuitive for those without estimating or field experience,
 but has the side effect that those accustomed to the names
 will inevitably _treat them as descriptive_,
-leading to [[ambiguity#Category Mistake|category mistake]].
+leading to [[category-mistake]].
 | Use Case            | Description   |
 | ------------------- | ------------- |
@@ -57,38 +57,3 @@ Assuming a whole has a property because its parts have that property
 [Division](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_division "Fallacy of division")
 Assuming parts have a property because the whole has that property
 ### Category Mistake
 > [!quote] [Category mistake](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake)
 > An example is a person learning that the game of cricket involves team spirit,
 > and after being given a demonstration of each player's role,
 > asking which player performs the "team spirit".
 All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.
 #### Overgeneralization via Hyperspecification
 Or "inappropriate synecdoche[^1]"
 [^1]: **synecdoche:** Using the name of a part to refer to the whole, or vice versa.
 Much of my issue with terminology
 can be blamed on **overgeneralization via hyperspecification**,
 [Proprietary eponyms](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/proprietary_eponym)
 (synonym: [genericized trademark](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/genericized_trademark))
 are usually[^2] an example of such,
 and are prominent in electrical construction.[^3]
 [^2]: I'm not a complete pedant, Cadweld is a perfectly unambiguous substitution.
    "Caddy", "Hilti", and "Vitalink" are my real complaints,
    where the word only gets me marginally closer
    to creating a concrete image in my head.
    The general acceptance of "band-aid"
    compared to the rejection of "coke"
    may be related.
 [^3]: See [Database of American Proprietary Eponyms](https://www.searstower.org/rkrause/brands.html)
    for examples.
@@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
 ### Category Mistake
 > [!quote] [Category mistake](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake)
 > An example is a person learning that the game of cricket involves team spirit,
 > and after being given a demonstration of each player's role,
 > asking which player performs the "team spirit".
 All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.
 #### Overgeneralization via Hyperspecification
 Or "inappropriate synecdoche[^1]"
 [^1]: **synecdoche:** Using the name of a part to refer to the whole, or vice versa.
 Much of my issue with terminology
 can be blamed on **overgeneralization via hyperspecification**,
 [Proprietary eponyms](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/proprietary_eponym)
 (synonym: [genericized trademark](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/genericized_trademark))
 are usually[^2] an example of such,
 and are prominent in electrical construction.[^3]
 [^2]: I'm not a complete pedant, Cadweld is a perfectly unambiguous substitution.
    "Caddy", "Hilti", and "Vitalink" are my real complaints,
    where the word only gets me marginally closer
    to creating a concrete image in my head.
    The general acceptance of "band-aid"
    compared to the rejection of "coke"
    may be related.
 [^3]: See [Database of American Proprietary Eponyms](https://www.searstower.org/rkrause/brands.html)
    for examples.
@@ -81,7 +81,7 @@ Inexcusable, though, is conflating semitone increments with intervals.
 Wikipedia music theory articles frequently link "half step" and "whole step"
 to [minor second](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_second)
 and [major second](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_second) respectively,
-which is a [[ambiguity#Category Mistake|category mistake]].
+which is a [[category-mistake]].
 #### Accidentals
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
 ---
 id:
 aliases: []
 title: Sensitivity
 tags:
  - authorship/original
  - destiny/permanent
  - status/not-started
  - topic/estimating
  - topic/strategy
 ---
 # Sensitivity
 In estimating, **sensitivity** describes the influence of a particular input on the output.
@@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ and something very specific.[^3]
    especially to someone unfamiliar with the specifics of either.
 For lack of a better term I've been thinking of this as an SEO problem,
-but the bigger problem is that it invites [[ambiguity#Category Mistake|Category Mistake]],
+but the bigger problem is that it invites [[category-mistake]],
 whereby the ignorant listener associates traits unique to the example
 to all things that the name could describe.
@@ -30,6 +30,6 @@ That is, quantifying the influence of an input on the output.
 When an estimator says that some factor is not worth consideration ("it's pennies")
 it is usually meant that the estimate is not especially **sensitive** to that factor.
-Sensitivity, I think, is a much quicker concept to grasp
+[[sensitivity|Sensitivity]], I think, is a much quicker concept to grasp
-than [[uncertainty#Value of Information|the value of information]],
+than [[value-of-information|the value of information]],
 even if VOI can explain the same motivations and more completely.
@@ -0,0 +1,57 @@
 ---
 id: 2026-03-23T12:48:49-04:00
 aliases: []
 title: 2026-03-23 12:48:49
 tags:
  - authorship/original
  - destiny/permanent
  - status/draft
  - type/periodic/timestamped
  - occupational
 dg-publish: true
 date-created: 2026-03-23T12:48:49-04:00
 daily: "[[2026-03-23]]"
 weekly: "[[2026-W13]]"
 monthly: "[[2026-03]]"
 quarterly: "[[2026-Q1]]"
 yearly: "[[2026]]"
 ---
 # 2026-03-23 12:48:49
 Joel asked me to give feedback on the project engineer
 I've had shadowing and helping me on [[charlotte-south-end-hotel]].
 They've been exceptionally engaged,
 with an impressive ability to follow along with procedures
 that are based in electrical and general construction considerations
 that they weren't already familiar with.
 I told Joel the same.
 I added that I appreciated that their engagement extends
 to my explanations of my thought processes during takeoff,
 which can be quite abstract.
 I found the PE's receptivity
 a pleasant surprise.
 In my experience training estimating,
 both at Ace and PDI,
 I have to be _very_ careful with my words
 to prevent unintended interpretation.
 More than once I have said casually
 that some low-[[sensitivity]] consideration "doesn't matter",
 finding later that the student has over-generalized the direction
 and is not properly discriminating
 between significantly different cases.
 Other times,
 the student continues to discriminate between nearly identical cases
 even despite repeated instruction
 that consideration of the differences is not worth their effort.
 I think both behaviors indicate an inability for abstract thinking.
 The first case seems like over-abstraction,
 but in practice it is usually rooted in the principle of least effort.
 That is, the student assumes
 that considerations that would be _unpleasant_ to account for
 are the same as those that are not worth accounting for,
 which is a [[category-mistake]].
@@ -27,52 +27,7 @@ The term "uncertainty" refers to the possibility of multiple outcomes.
 In statistical inference and [[strategy]],
 **information** is the resolution of uncertainty.
-### Value of Information
+[[value-of-information]]
 > [!quote]
 > **Value of information** (VOI or VoI)
 > is the amount a decision maker would be willing to pay
 > for information prior to making a decision.
 Suppose information $I$ is available to a decision maker.
 Consider these two scenarios:
 1. the decision maker does not purchase the information
  and makes \$9,000. $P(D)=9000$
 2. the decision maker purchases the information
  and makes \$10,000 $P(D)|I=10000$
 The monetary value of $I$ is the difference between the payout
 without ($P(D)$) and with ($P(D)|I$) the information $I$.
 $$
 \begin{align*}
 V(I) &= P(D)|I - P(D) \\
 &= (10000) - (9000) \\
 &= 1000
 \end{align*}
 $$
 When forecasting, the payout of decisions is unknown,
 thus
 $$
 \mathbb{E}\left[V(I)\right] = \mathbb{E}\left[P(D)\right] - \mathbb{E}\left[P(D)|I\right]
 $$
 ### Expected Value of Perfect Information
 Expected value of perfect information (EVPI)
 is the price that one would be willing to pay
 in order to gain access to perfect information.
 > [!info] Perfect Information
 > Perfect information is hypothetical information
 > that would eliminate all uncertainty.
 The perceived _value_ of decreased uncertainty
 must be weighed against its _cost_.
 ## Types of Uncertainty
@@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
 ---
 id:
 aliases: []
 title: Value of Information
 tags:
  - authorship/original
  - destiny/permanent
  - status/incomplete
  - topic/strategy
  - type/encyclopedia-entry
 ---
 # Value of Information
 In [[decision-theory]],
 the **value of information** (VOI or VoI)
 is a framework for quantifying the impact
 of some reduction in [[uncertainty]].
 It is the amount a rational party would be willing to pay
 to gain access to information prior to making a decision.
 ## Example
 Suppose information $I$ is available to a decision maker.
 Consider these two scenarios:
 1. the decision maker does not purchase the information
  and makes \$9,000. $P(D)=9000$
 2. the decision maker purchases the information
  and makes \$10,000 $P(D)|I=10000$
 The monetary value of $I$ is the difference between the payout
 without ($P(D)$) and with ($P(D)|I$) the information $I$.
 $$
 \begin{align*}
 V(I) &= P(D)|I - P(D) \\
 &= (10000) - (9000) \\
 &= 1000
 \end{align*}
 $$
 When forecasting, the payout of decisions is unknown,
 thus
 $$
 \mathbb{E}\left[V(I)\right] = \mathbb{E}\left[P(D)\right] - \mathbb{E}\left[P(D)|I\right]
 $$
 ### Expected Value of Perfect Information
 Expected value of perfect information (EVPI)
 is the price that one would be willing to pay
 in order to gain access to perfect information.
 > [!info] Perfect Information
 > Perfect information is hypothetical information
 > that would eliminate all uncertainty.
 The perceived _value_ of decreased uncertainty
 must be weighed against its _cost_.
 ## See Also
 * [[sensitivity]]
@@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
 ---
 id:
 aliases: []
 title: XY Problem
 tags:
  - authorship/other-for-now
  - destiny/permanent
  - status/not-started
  - topic/transparency
  - type/encyclopedia-entry
 ---
 # XY Problem
 > [!quote] [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_problem)
 > The XY problem is a communication problem ...
 > where the question is about an end user's attempted solution (X)
 > rather than the root problem itself (Y).
 > [!quote] [How To Ask Questions The Smart Way_ "Questions Not To Ask"](http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html#classic)
 > **Q:** How can I use X to do Y?  
 > 
 > **A:** If what you want is to do Y,
 > you should ask that question without pre-supposing the use of a method
 > that may not be appropriate.
 > Questions of this form often indicate a person who is not merely ignorant about X,
 > but confused about what problem Y they are solving
 > and too fixated on the details of their particular situation.
 > [!quote] [_How To Ask Questions The Smart Way_ "Describe the goal, not the step"](http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html#goal)
 > If you are trying to find out how to do something
 > (as opposed to reporting a bug),
 > begin by describing the goal.
 > Only then describe the particular step towards it
 > that you are blocked on.
 > 
 > Often, people who need technical help
 > have a high-level goal in mind
 > and get stuck on what they think is one particular path towards the goal.
 > They come for help with the step,
 > but don't realize that the path is wrong.
 > It can take substantial effort to get past this.
 > 
 > **Stupid:** How do I get the color-picker on the FooDraw program
 > to take a hexadecimal RGB value?
 > 
 > **Smart:** I'm trying to replace the color table on an image with values of my choosing.
 > Right now the only way I can see to do this is by editing each table slot,
 > but I can't get FooDraw's color picker to take a hexadecimal RGB value.
 > 
 > The second version of the question is smart.
 > It allows an answer that suggests a tool better suited to the task.