My feeling is that people’s planning error stems from the illusion of control. When a person plans, it seems to him on a subconscious level that as he draws up a plan, it will be so, so a person tends to draw up a plan, taking into account the fact that everything went the worst way. You don’t want to create a plan that says “I’m going to be wrong at this point” do you? After all, who will specifically plan to commit a mistake if he can plan that no mistake will be made? It’s like writing a book. There, if you do not plan for the character to make a mistake, he will never make it. That’s only if in books skillful writers strive to follow Murphy’s law, because a story about an ideal character is not interesting and Mary Sue in general, an exhibition of pianos in the bushes, author’s arbitrariness, etc. But in reality, a person wants to avoid mistakes, so he plans that everything will work out. By the way, it worked in the book… And in the head, in the imagination when planning—everything also turned out without errors when they were not added intentionally, so why should it be otherwise in reality? This seems to be the same reason why people, knowing that a box is 70% red and 30% blue, try to bet red 70% of the time, as if the point of randomness isn’t that you can’t plan for it. It must also be related to the inability to respect unknown unknowns, to take them into account when you do not intuitively feel that you do not know something. Perhaps teaching the difference between a map and a territory to an intuitive level by itself, without specifically planning error, should improve the situation.
My feeling is that people’s planning error stems from the illusion of control. When a person plans, it seems to him on a subconscious level that as he draws up a plan, it will be so, so a person tends to draw up a plan, taking into account the fact that everything went the worst way. You don’t want to create a plan that says “I’m going to be wrong at this point” do you? After all, who will specifically plan to commit a mistake if he can plan that no mistake will be made? It’s like writing a book. There, if you do not plan for the character to make a mistake, he will never make it. That’s only if in books skillful writers strive to follow Murphy’s law, because a story about an ideal character is not interesting and Mary Sue in general, an exhibition of pianos in the bushes, author’s arbitrariness, etc. But in reality, a person wants to avoid mistakes, so he plans that everything will work out. By the way, it worked in the book… And in the head, in the imagination when planning—everything also turned out without errors when they were not added intentionally, so why should it be otherwise in reality? This seems to be the same reason why people, knowing that a box is 70% red and 30% blue, try to bet red 70% of the time, as if the point of randomness isn’t that you can’t plan for it. It must also be related to the inability to respect unknown unknowns, to take them into account when you do not intuitively feel that you do not know something. Perhaps teaching the difference between a map and a territory to an intuitive level by itself, without specifically planning error, should improve the situation.