Inside View (Planning Fallacy)

DRAWN TO THE INSIDE VIEW

On that long-ago Friday, our curriculum expert made two judgments about the same problem and arrived at very different answers. The inside view is the one that all of us, including Seymour, spontaneously adopted to assess the future of our project. We focused on our specific circumstances and searched for evidence in our own experiences. We had a sketchy plan: we knew how many chapters we were going to write, and we had an idea of how long it had taken us to write the two that we had already done. The more cautious among us probably added a few months to their estimate as a margin of error.

Extrapolating was a mistake. We were forecasting based on the information in front of us—WYSIATI—but the chapters we wrote first were probably easier than others, and our commitment to the project was probably then at its peak. But the main problem was that we failed to allow for what Donald Rumsfeld famously called the “unknown unknowns.” There was no way for us to foresee, that day, the succession of events that would cause the project to drag out for so long. The divorces, the illnesses, the crises of coordination with bureaucracies that delayed the work could not be anticipated. Such events not only cause the writing of chapters to slow down, they also produce long periods during which little or no progress is made at all. The same must have been true, of course, for the other teams that Seymour knew about. The members of those teams were also unable to imagine the events that would cause them to spend seven years to finish, or ultimately fail to finish, a project that they evidently had thought was very feasible. Like us, they did not know the odds they were facing. There are many ways for any plan to fail, and although most of them are too improbable to be anticipated, the likelihood that something will go wrong in a big project is high.

The second question I asked Seymour directed his attention away from us and toward a class of similar cases. Seymour estimated the base rate of success in that reference class: 40% failure and seven to ten years for completion. His informal survey was surely not up to scientific standards of evidence, but it provided a reasonable basis for a baseline prediction: the prediction you make about a case if you know nothing except the category to which it belongs. As we saw earlier, the baseline prediction should be the anchor for further adjustments. If you are asked to guess the height of a woman about whom you know only that she lives in New York City, your baseline prediction is your best guess of the average height of women in the city. If you are now given case-specific information, for example that the woman’s son is the starting center of his high school basketball team, you will adjust your estimate away from the mean in the appropriate direction. Seymour’s comparison of our team to others suggested that the forecast of our outcome was slightly worse than the baseline prediction, which was already grim.

The spectacular accuracy of the outside-view forecast in our problem was surely a fluke and should not count as evidence for the validity of the outside view. The argument for the outside view should be made on general grounds: if the reference class is properly chosen, the outside view will give an indication of where the ballpark is, and it may suggest, as it did in our case, that the inside-view forecasts are not even close to it.

For a psychologist, the discrepancy between Seymour’s two judgments is striking. He had in his head all the knowledge required to estimate the statistics of an appropriate reference class, but he reached his initial estimate without ever using that knowledge. Seymour’s forecast from his inside view was not an adjustment from the baseline prediction, which had not come to his mind. It was based on the particular circumstances of our efforts. Like the participants in the Tom W experiment, Seymour knew the relevant base rate but did not think of applying it.

Unlike Seymour, the rest of us did not have access to the outside view and could not have produced a reasonable baseline prediction. It is noteworthy, however, that we did not feel we needed information about other teams to make our guesses. My request for the outside view surprised all of us, including me! This is a common pattern: people who have information about an individual case rarely feel the need to know the statistics of the class to which the case belongs.

When we were eventually exposed to the outside view, we collectively ignored it. We can recognize what happened to us; it is similar to the experiment that suggested the futility of teaching psychology. When they made predictions about individual cases about which they had a little information (a brief and bland interview), Nisbett and Borgida’s students completely neglected the global results they had just learned. “Pallid” statistical information is routinely discarded when it is incompatible with one’s personal impressions of a case. In the competition with the inside view, the outside view doesn’t stand a chance.

The preference for the inside view sometimes carries moral overtones. I once asked my cousin, a distinguished lawyer, a question about a reference class: “What is the probability of the defendant winning in cases like this one?” His sharp answer that “every case is unique” was accompanied by a look that made it clear he found my question inappropriate and superficial. A proud emphasis on the uniqueness of cases is also common in medicine, in spite of recent advances in evidence-based medicine that point the other way. Medical statistics and baseline predictions come up with increasing frequency in conversations between patients and physicians. However, the remaining ambivalence about the outside view in the medical profession is expressed in concerns about the impersonality of procedures that are guided by statistics and checklists.