One of the papers presented at last week’s Cognitive Science Society meeting in Chicago, Illinois states that in order to achieve success in chess (and possibly in science and in business also), it is better to think negatively, rather than positively. In other words, thinking of what can go wrong with a plan (Theory Falsification) is more effective than looking for evidence that supports a plan (Theory Confirmation).
The paper, which can be found at this site, goes on to say that chess masters are readily able to falsify their plans…as compared to novice players, who tended to confirm their plans.
Theory Falsification is also built into the architecture of some of the world’s best chess playing machines, such as Deep Blue. IBM’s 30-way Risc-processor Deep Blue beat the world human chess champion Gary Kasparov in 1997. To quote from Deep Blue’s Berkely support site, “we don’t really need to look at all of an opponent’s responses to our bad moves, we just need one refutation”.
The paper also suggests that most people find falsification difficult, and that people are prone to a confirmation bias: they tended to search for confirming evidence and avoid falsifying evidence.
Related posts:
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
I kind of believe this theory. If you worry about all the things that can go wrong, you can avoid them. Meanwhile, then the things that will go right will go right on their own, if that makes any sense.
Of course: scientists should always be looking for the flaws and holes in their arguments. That’s good science.