Depends on how these people evaluate you. If by your plans, then big plans help. If by your finished projects, then it helps to plan realistically. But you may use a filter: tell them only about your successful projects and don’t tell about failed ones; a combination of big plans and list of successful projects should impress most. (This places some limits on the planning fallacy, because if it is too big, there may be no successful projects.)
When you are already employed, planning fallacy will help to impress your boss… but how impressed will they be when you miss the deadline? But this may disappear in team work—the boss will remember your optimism and team failure, so you still appear more competent than your colleagues.
When you are already employed, planning fallacy will help to impress your boss… but how impressed will they be when you miss the deadline?
Of course, publicly overestimating your own abilities is not a strategy for every occasion. However, it seems pretty reasonable to assume that such behaviours are prevalent mainly because they have proved themselves to be effective in the past. If you axe such behaviours you may well face employers who are expecting them—and so incur a double downgrading of your percieved abilities.
Eliminating the planning fallacy may not necessarily help to avoid failure—and it could easily have personal negative consequences. Prospective avoiders of this “fallacy” should be aware of the potential costs they may incur.
Something typically only has to be beneficial on average for reinforcement learning to favour it. That is how many heuristics arise. Similarly, traits only need to be adaptive on average for them to be favoured by natural selection. Indeed: adaptation and learning are closely related.
What about that the planning fallacy is demonstrated even when there’s no financial benefit or even public announcement? The planning fallacy derives from the availability heuristic: the events that hold you up are different each time, whereas the ones that take you forward are routine.
The “planning fallacy” page on Wikipedia offers quite a range of explanations—though not the one you mention, AFAICS. I don’t pretend to know enough about the relative importance of these explanations to comment much on the topic—except to say that the “signalling” explanation I mentioned seems as though it is a pretty important one to me.
There’s a standard debiasing approach for the planning fallacy. I don’t know if the availability heuristic has been cited, but it seems to have been described: “When you want to get something done, you have to plan out where, when, how; figure out how much time and how much resource is required; visualize the steps from beginning to successful conclusion. All this is the “inside view”, and it doesn’t take into account unexpected delays and unforeseen catastrophes.”
Depends on how these people evaluate you. If by your plans, then big plans help. If by your finished projects, then it helps to plan realistically. But you may use a filter: tell them only about your successful projects and don’t tell about failed ones; a combination of big plans and list of successful projects should impress most. (This places some limits on the planning fallacy, because if it is too big, there may be no successful projects.)
When you are already employed, planning fallacy will help to impress your boss… but how impressed will they be when you miss the deadline? But this may disappear in team work—the boss will remember your optimism and team failure, so you still appear more competent than your colleagues.
Of course, publicly overestimating your own abilities is not a strategy for every occasion. However, it seems pretty reasonable to assume that such behaviours are prevalent mainly because they have proved themselves to be effective in the past. If you axe such behaviours you may well face employers who are expecting them—and so incur a double downgrading of your percieved abilities.
Eliminating the planning fallacy may not necessarily help to avoid failure—and it could easily have personal negative consequences. Prospective avoiders of this “fallacy” should be aware of the potential costs they may incur.
The fallacy does seem to occur in contexts inconsistent with signalling however—e.g. when I plan how long it will take me to cook a meal, or work out.
Something typically only has to be beneficial on average for reinforcement learning to favour it. That is how many heuristics arise. Similarly, traits only need to be adaptive on average for them to be favoured by natural selection. Indeed: adaptation and learning are closely related.
Even that is not required. See: gambling addiction. Our ability to learn from reinforcement is not calibrated according to the ideal.
Sure: I should have used a different term in place of “beneficial”.
Very true. Although in this case I think it becomes justifiable to call it a ‘fallacy’, since it’s outside conscious control
What about that the planning fallacy is demonstrated even when there’s no financial benefit or even public announcement? The planning fallacy derives from the availability heuristic: the events that hold you up are different each time, whereas the ones that take you forward are routine.
The “planning fallacy” page on Wikipedia offers quite a range of explanations—though not the one you mention, AFAICS. I don’t pretend to know enough about the relative importance of these explanations to comment much on the topic—except to say that the “signalling” explanation I mentioned seems as though it is a pretty important one to me.
There’s a standard debiasing approach for the planning fallacy. I don’t know if the availability heuristic has been cited, but it seems to have been described: “When you want to get something done, you have to plan out where, when, how; figure out how much time and how much resource is required; visualize the steps from beginning to successful conclusion. All this is the “inside view”, and it doesn’t take into account unexpected delays and unforeseen catastrophes.”