vault backup: 2026-05-01 22:53:53
This commit is contained in:
@@ -0,0 +1,70 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
id: 2026-05-01T20:37:29-0400
|
||||
title: 2026-05-01 20:37:29
|
||||
tags: []
|
||||
daily: "[[2026-05-01]]"
|
||||
---
|
||||
# 2026-05-01 20:37:29
|
||||
|
||||
Earlier [[2026-05-01|today]]
|
||||
while editing [[orthodox-construction-estimating]]
|
||||
my frustration with the term "detailed takeoff" was reignited
|
||||
and I searched in vain for the term describing its type:
|
||||
|
||||
> a name which presupposes some quality of the subject
|
||||
> which is not inherent to it.[^1]
|
||||
|
||||
[^1]: "Detailed takeoff" is more a victim of the common positive connotation of "detailed",
|
||||
which seems to exist for all adjectives synonymous in the same context like "precise".
|
||||
The common connotation is what's frustrating, I suppose.
|
||||
Surely everyone has seen the comparison of the targets
|
||||
and knows that precision says nothing meaningful about performance.
|
||||
|
||||
My search came up empty,
|
||||
which didn't surprise me,
|
||||
I've never cured a case of [lethologica](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tip_of_the_tongue)
|
||||
with Google or LLM's.
|
||||
(but I keep trying)
|
||||
|
||||
Later I found the answer in [[merrow_2022_contract-strategies]]:
|
||||
Merrow regrets the relevance implied
|
||||
by the [_value-laden_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/value-laden) term
|
||||
[[statistical-significance]].
|
||||
|
||||
***
|
||||
|
||||
It is said often
|
||||
that [[construction-estimating]] in some or all part art,
|
||||
not wholly science.
|
||||
This attitude is a coping mechanism
|
||||
excusing our acceptance of a deeply flawed status quo,
|
||||
and our unwillingness to look for answers
|
||||
to questions that our methods have begged for decades.
|
||||
|
||||
Due to obstacles discussed in [[kahneman_2011_thinking]]
|
||||
repeated in [[hubbard_2020_failure]],
|
||||
construction estimating as a profession
|
||||
suffers from poor conditions for natural improvement of [[estimator-calibration]],
|
||||
namely delayed and uninformative feedback.
|
||||
As a consequence,
|
||||
decisions are made on [[gut-feel]] at best,
|
||||
and superstition at worst.
|
||||
The suitability of estimating methods
|
||||
is judged based on [value](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_(ethics))[^2]
|
||||
and [aesthetic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesthetics).
|
||||
rather than [empirical evidence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence).
|
||||
|
||||
[^2]: [Value judgment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_judgment)
|
||||
|
||||
***
|
||||
|
||||
What makes a good estimator
|
||||
(besides their ability to click all the little circles on a drawing)
|
||||
is their judgement, the quality of their assumptions.
|
||||
Herein lies the paradox of [[orthodox-construction-estimating]]:
|
||||
_assumptions are only necessitated by its incompatibility with [[uncertainty]]._
|
||||
|
||||
***
|
||||
|
||||
Construction estimating is pure science,
|
||||
acceptability is the art.
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user