One Reason Why Your Smart Friend Keeps Making The Same Mistake
You know someone who is smart. And keeps walking into the same wall.
Not a foolish person. A capable one. Good judgment in most things. But in one corner of their life, the same mistake. Over and over. In a slightly different way each time.
You’ve tried pointing it out. They nod. They agree. And then they do it again.
Which is strange.
Smart people learn.
So why does this one thing never get fixed?
- - -
There’s a way spies think. It comes in four steps: Data. Analysis. Decision. Action.
First you collect the data. Then you analyze it. You judge where it came from and whether it can be trusted, and you fit it together with what you already know. That analysis points to a decision. And the decision leads to an action.
It’s really just the scientific method, with your feet moving. You form a picture of what’s true. You act on it. Then you watch what happens. And you start over with what you learned.
Each step rests on the one before it. The action is only as good as the decision. The decision is only as good as the analysis. And the analysis is only as good as the data underneath it.
So when a smart person acts wrong, the trouble started somewhere back up the chain.
The decision is almost never where things go wrong. Walk back from the action, past the decision, past the analysis, and you land at the very first step. The data.
What data did they take in before any of the thinking started?
- - -
I have a business partner who keeps hiring the wrong people.
He’s one of the most generous, hard-working men I know. He gets in early. He does what he says. He treats people well. And he can’t understand why the people he hires don’t do the same.
The problem isn’t the analysis. Once he has a picture of someone, he reasons about them carefully. It isn’t the decision. Given his picture, hiring them is the right call. It isn’t the action. He moves quickly and commits.
It’s the data. The very first step.
When he meets a candidate, he doesn’t ask the questions that would illuminate problems. He judges every candidate through himself. He sees someone who says the right things and assumes they’ll do the work the right way.
Because he would. He hears ambition and assumes it’s honest. Because his is. The incompetence doesn’t register. The hidden agenda doesn’t register. Not because he’s careless. Because those things aren’t in him. So he doesn’t look for them in anyone else.
He doesn’t look for the data that matters.
Which means his data is bad before he starts. But everything he builds on top of it is sound. The analysis is careful. The decision follows. The action is decisive. A clean chain, running on a cracked first link.
Six months later the new hire has underdelivered. Or worked an angle. And he’s blindsided. Again. He’ll tell you he just has bad luck with people.
He doesn’t have bad luck. He has a strength that doubles as a blind spot.
The same generosity that makes him good makes him blind to the data that says some people aren’t.
- - -
A spy is trained to do one more thing. When the answer comes out wrong, he loops back to the data. He collects more. He asks what he missed at the start. He runs the loop again.
A lot of smart people don’t loop back to the data. They only go back to the analysis.
They take the same first impression, the same bad data, and reason about it harder. They build a better case on the same bad data. And because they’re smart, the case is good. Airtight, even. Too well-argued for anyone to knock down. Including them.
That’s why being good at analysis is no protection.
The smarter someone is, the stronger the case they can build on bad data.
And the more certain they become.
Get the Spy's Guide Newsletter→- - -
One of the smartest people who ever lived had the same problem.
Albert Einstein had a hypothesis. The universe was holding still. He tested it against the data of his day. He analyzed that data with the greatest mind of the century. And he made his decision. The universe is not expanding.
Einstein was sure of it.
He later called it the greatest blunder of his life.
But the blunder wasn’t in his thinking. His process was flawless. The analysis was brilliant. The decision followed cleanly.
Einstein simply had bad data. The numbers he started from were wrong.
Then Edwin Hubble got better data. He looked through a stronger telescope and saw what Einstein couldn’t.
The universe was expanding after all. Same question. Better first step. Different answer.
The greatest mind of the age got it wrong, and no amount of smartness fixed it.
Better data fixed it.
- - -
What to do.
First, when you give a smart person advice and it keeps bouncing off, stop arguing the decision. Ask them what they think is going on. What they’re seeing. And whether they’re looking for conflicting data. The break is almost always back in the data. It’s in what they took in. Not in the choice they made.
Second, the next time you’re certain and stuck, don’t go back over your decision. Go back to your data. Don’t ask “was my decision right.” Ask “where did my information come from, and can I trust it?” Ask “Is there conflicting data that I ignored?” Those are the questions a spy asks first.
- - -
A decision sits in a chain. By the time you’re making the decision, the real work of data collection and analysis is already behind you. Done, or not done, several steps back.
Some very smart people forget that. They guard their thinking, polish their logic, and never walk back to the data that decided everything.
Good or bad data is where everything starts.
- - -
The Data-Analysis-Decision-Action chain is one of six frameworks on the Spy’s Guide frameworks page, and it’s from A Spy’s Guide to Thinking.
-John Braddock