WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:03.160 Imagine this, two people, same qualifications, 00:00:03.580 --> 00:00:06.160 applying for the same job. One gets a resounding 00:00:06.160 --> 00:00:10.560 yes, the other a polite no. Or maybe two similar 00:00:10.560 --> 00:00:13.939 insurance claims, handled by different adjusters, 00:00:14.039 --> 00:00:16.539 resulting in vastly different payouts. Right, 00:00:16.660 --> 00:00:18.179 I see where you're going. And even more striking, 00:00:18.500 --> 00:00:21.559 picture two expert judges. They review nearly 00:00:21.559 --> 00:00:24.820 identical cases, but hand down sentences that 00:00:24.820 --> 00:00:28.149 differ, well, significantly. We sort of assume 00:00:28.149 --> 00:00:31.089 expertise brings consistency, don't we? But what 00:00:31.089 --> 00:00:34.109 if that inconsistency is actually the norm hiding 00:00:34.109 --> 00:00:36.450 in plain sight? A powerful thought, isn't it? 00:00:36.530 --> 00:00:38.890 This kind of variability in judgment, even among 00:00:38.890 --> 00:00:41.310 seasoned professionals, it's far more prevalent 00:00:41.310 --> 00:00:44.229 and impactful than many of us realize. Really? 00:00:44.549 --> 00:00:46.450 Yeah, we tend to focus on deliberate biases, 00:00:47.070 --> 00:00:49.329 on leaning one way or another, but often overlook 00:00:49.329 --> 00:00:53.009 the sheer Well, randomness that creeps into decisions. 00:00:53.530 --> 00:00:55.990 Absolutely, and that silent unnoticed variability 00:00:55.990 --> 00:00:58.710 is the core of our deep dive today. We're exploring 00:00:58.710 --> 00:01:02.130 a concept the authors call noise in human judgment, 00:01:02.850 --> 00:01:04.670 drawing our insights from the Amazon page for 00:01:04.670 --> 00:01:07.439 the book Noise, a flaw in human judgment, by 00:01:07.439 --> 00:01:10.060 Daniel Kahneman, Olivier Saibony, and Cassara 00:01:10.060 --> 00:01:12.340 Sunstein. A significant trio of authors there. 00:01:12.540 --> 00:01:15.180 Indeed. Our source material for this exploration 00:01:15.180 --> 00:01:18.099 is the book's product description, and importantly, 00:01:18.340 --> 00:01:20.420 the customer reviews shared right there on the 00:01:20.420 --> 00:01:23.780 page. OK. So our mission today is to really get 00:01:23.780 --> 00:01:26.500 to grips with what noise is, how it differs from 00:01:26.500 --> 00:01:28.959 the more familiar idea of bias. Which is key, 00:01:28.959 --> 00:01:31.739 I think. Definitely. And understand where this 00:01:31.739 --> 00:01:34.319 unwanted variability shows up, particularly in 00:01:34.319 --> 00:01:36.799 professional context, and maybe most importantly, 00:01:37.000 --> 00:01:39.879 why recognizing it is crucial for making better, 00:01:40.040 --> 00:01:42.579 fairer decisions. I'm here to help us navigate 00:01:42.579 --> 00:01:44.659 these ideas straight from what people are saying 00:01:44.659 --> 00:01:46.959 in those sources. Great. Let's start them by 00:01:46.959 --> 00:01:49.260 unpacking this fundamental concept. The book 00:01:49.260 --> 00:01:52.280 description boldly calls noise the last great 00:01:52.280 --> 00:01:55.159 fault in our collective decision making. That's 00:01:55.159 --> 00:01:58.120 quite a claim. It is. So how do our sources actually 00:01:58.120 --> 00:02:01.260 define noise? And what's that crucial distinction 00:02:01.260 --> 00:02:03.799 between noise and bias that one reviewer found 00:02:03.799 --> 00:02:06.659 particularly fascinating? Well, the description 00:02:06.659 --> 00:02:09.759 gives us the core definition. Noise is essentially 00:02:09.759 --> 00:02:12.879 unwanted variability in judgments. Think of it 00:02:12.879 --> 00:02:15.599 like scatter on a target. If you ask several 00:02:15.599 --> 00:02:18.360 people to estimate a value, or maybe if the same 00:02:18.360 --> 00:02:20.319 person estimates it multiple times and the answers 00:02:20.319 --> 00:02:24.229 are all over the map, that spread That inconsistency, 00:02:24.310 --> 00:02:27.289 that's noise. It's deviation around the true 00:02:27.289 --> 00:02:29.610 value, or maybe around the desired consistent 00:02:29.610 --> 00:02:33.129 outcome. OK, so if bias is like always aiming 00:02:33.129 --> 00:02:35.949 off -center but in the same direction, the noise 00:02:35.949 --> 00:02:38.289 is more like the shot scattering randomly around 00:02:38.289 --> 00:02:40.349 where you were aiming, maybe even scattered around 00:02:40.349 --> 00:02:42.870 that off -center point if bias is also present. 00:02:43.090 --> 00:02:45.129 Precisely. That's a great way to put it. Bias 00:02:45.129 --> 00:02:48.330 is a systematic error, a consistent pull or push 00:02:48.330 --> 00:02:51.770 away from accuracy. Noise is random air fluctuations 00:02:51.770 --> 00:02:53.729 that lead to different outcomes, even when the 00:02:53.729 --> 00:02:56.150 inputs are essentially the same. And as one customer 00:02:56.150 --> 00:02:58.569 review highlights, the differentiation around 00:02:58.569 --> 00:03:01.530 noise from bias was fascinating. They clearly 00:03:01.530 --> 00:03:04.430 found that distinction quite insightful. It clarifies 00:03:04.430 --> 00:03:06.409 things. It does. And it's not just that they're 00:03:06.409 --> 00:03:09.030 distinct, they can interact. The sources suggest 00:03:09.030 --> 00:03:11.729 that inconsistency and bias can actually create 00:03:11.729 --> 00:03:14.939 noise. How does that work? Well, imagine if different 00:03:14.939 --> 00:03:17.639 judges have different levels of inherent leniency. 00:03:17.939 --> 00:03:21.080 That's a form of bias, right? But the difference 00:03:21.080 --> 00:03:23.979 in their levels of bias between Judge A and Judge 00:03:23.979 --> 00:03:27.219 B introduces variability in sentencing outcomes 00:03:27.219 --> 00:03:30.840 for similar cases. And that variability is noise. 00:03:31.740 --> 00:03:35.300 So while bias might cause a consistent lean overall, 00:03:35.900 --> 00:03:38.259 noise causes this unpredictable spread. That's 00:03:38.259 --> 00:03:40.819 a critical point that even bias itself, if it's 00:03:40.819 --> 00:03:43.919 inconsistent across people or even time, contributes 00:03:43.919 --> 00:03:46.219 to this problem of noise. So where do the sources 00:03:46.219 --> 00:03:47.800 tell us this phenomenon is really prevalent? 00:03:47.860 --> 00:03:49.860 Where does it pop up? Well, sources point to 00:03:49.860 --> 00:03:51.780 several areas where subjective judgments are 00:03:51.780 --> 00:03:55.139 made, and noise is likely, well, rampant, actually. 00:03:55.520 --> 00:03:57.840 The book description and reviews specifically 00:03:57.840 --> 00:03:59.900 mentioned judicial sentencing. It's a particularly 00:03:59.900 --> 00:04:03.080 high stakes example, obviously. Hugely. One reviewer 00:04:03.080 --> 00:04:05.240 mentions being struck by the idea that judges, 00:04:05.780 --> 00:04:08.639 despite all their training and experience, can 00:04:08.639 --> 00:04:12.400 sometimes let arbitrary events affect how they 00:04:12.400 --> 00:04:15.000 sentence another human being. Arbitrary events? 00:04:15.240 --> 00:04:17.360 Like, what? Well, the reviewer implies things 00:04:17.360 --> 00:04:19.439 maybe like the outcome of a local sports game 00:04:19.439 --> 00:04:22.519 or even the weather, subtle irrelevant factors 00:04:22.519 --> 00:04:25.379 potentially contributing to variability in a 00:04:25.379 --> 00:04:27.779 decision that profoundly impacts someone's life. 00:04:27.920 --> 00:04:31.019 Wow. That example of judicial sentencing really 00:04:31.019 --> 00:04:33.319 brings the potential for unfairness into sharp 00:04:33.319 --> 00:04:35.939 focus. It's not just about minor discrepancies, 00:04:36.040 --> 00:04:38.660 is it? It's about decisions with massive consequences 00:04:38.660 --> 00:04:41.959 maybe being swayed by, well, noise. Exactly. 00:04:42.199 --> 00:04:44.060 And the sources broaden this out considerably. 00:04:44.560 --> 00:04:46.800 They state that noise appears in how companies 00:04:46.800 --> 00:04:49.740 recruit employees. Ah, hiring. I can see that. 00:04:50.060 --> 00:04:52.240 Yes. Think of different interviewers evaluating 00:04:52.240 --> 00:04:55.000 the same candidate file. perhaps quite differently. 00:04:55.600 --> 00:04:58.699 It's present in assessing insurance claims. Two 00:04:58.699 --> 00:05:01.019 identical claims could be handled with significant 00:05:01.019 --> 00:05:03.339 variability, depending on who reviews them on 00:05:03.339 --> 00:05:05.860 what day. Right. The source description kind 00:05:05.860 --> 00:05:08.259 of sums it up by saying noise effects. Indeed, 00:05:08.639 --> 00:05:11.500 anything where a judgment has to be made, which 00:05:11.500 --> 00:05:14.259 implies a vast swat of professional activities, 00:05:14.519 --> 00:05:17.779 really. So loan applications, medical diagnoses, 00:05:18.160 --> 00:05:20.660 performance reviews, project feasibility assessments, 00:05:21.779 --> 00:05:24.189 you name it. So it's definitely not confined 00:05:24.189 --> 00:05:27.389 to a few niche areas. It seems pervasive across 00:05:27.389 --> 00:05:29.889 any field requiring human evaluation or prediction. 00:05:30.490 --> 00:05:33.410 And the scale of this problem, as noted in the 00:05:33.410 --> 00:05:35.970 reviews, isn't just about one person versus another, 00:05:36.089 --> 00:05:39.069 is it? No, absolutely not. The sources highlight 00:05:39.069 --> 00:05:41.089 the multi -layered nature of this variability. 00:05:41.730 --> 00:05:44.089 One review explicitly points out that this noise 00:05:44.089 --> 00:05:46.750 exists between different individuals. So you 00:05:46.750 --> 00:05:48.250 and your colleague might judge the same report 00:05:48.250 --> 00:05:50.810 differently. It exists between different organizations. 00:05:51.129 --> 00:05:54.949 Company A might evaluate credit risk using slightly 00:05:54.949 --> 00:05:58.990 different implicit criteria than company B, leading 00:05:58.990 --> 00:06:01.810 to varied outcomes for similar applicants. Right. 00:06:01.910 --> 00:06:04.370 Different company cultures, perhaps. Perhaps. 00:06:04.470 --> 00:06:07.449 And crucially, it exists even within the same 00:06:07.449 --> 00:06:10.230 individual at different times. You might make 00:06:10.230 --> 00:06:12.410 a slightly different decision today than you 00:06:12.410 --> 00:06:15.529 would tomorrow, given the exact same circumstances 00:06:15.529 --> 00:06:17.829 influenced by transient factors you're probably 00:06:17.829 --> 00:06:20.980 unaware of. Your mood? maybe, or what you just 00:06:20.980 --> 00:06:24.279 read? That last part is perhaps the most unsettling, 00:06:24.779 --> 00:06:26.959 that even we are inconsistent with ourselves. 00:06:27.480 --> 00:06:29.519 And this leads to a crucial point highlighted 00:06:29.519 --> 00:06:32.680 in the sources, the complete unawareness of this 00:06:32.680 --> 00:06:35.519 variability. Yes, that lack of awareness is profound. 00:06:35.759 --> 00:06:38.319 The description and reviews both stress that 00:06:38.319 --> 00:06:40.240 the individuals and organizations making these 00:06:40.240 --> 00:06:43.019 noisy judgments are often completely unaware 00:06:43.019 --> 00:06:45.100 that such variability exists at all. We just 00:06:45.100 --> 00:06:46.839 don't see it. We tend to believe our judgments 00:06:46.839 --> 00:06:48.939 are consistent, based purely on the merits of 00:06:48.939 --> 00:06:51.439 the case. We're very good at constructing narratives, 00:06:51.519 --> 00:06:54.180 seeing patterns and explanations, even when the 00:06:54.180 --> 00:06:57.579 reality might just be random scatter. This silent 00:06:57.579 --> 00:07:00.860 nature of noise makes it incredibly insidious 00:07:00.860 --> 00:07:03.699 because, well, if you don't know a problem exists, 00:07:04.040 --> 00:07:07.209 you certainly can't address it. And if judgments 00:07:07.209 --> 00:07:09.569 are subject to such high degrees of unnoticed, 00:07:09.810 --> 00:07:11.990 unwanted variability, what does that mean for 00:07:11.990 --> 00:07:14.769 the outcomes? What's the impact? The sources 00:07:14.769 --> 00:07:17.370 indicate the impact is pretty significant because 00:07:17.370 --> 00:07:20.329 noise leads to inconsistencies. It results in 00:07:20.329 --> 00:07:22.889 judgments that are less accurate and, frankly, 00:07:23.430 --> 00:07:26.189 potentially unfair. Unfair. Reviews mention the 00:07:26.189 --> 00:07:29.230 need for more fairness and accuracy, implying 00:07:29.230 --> 00:07:31.430 that the presence of noise is undermining these 00:07:31.430 --> 00:07:34.149 very goals. In judicial sentencing, it could 00:07:34.149 --> 00:07:37.839 mean disparate outcomes for similar crimes. In 00:07:37.839 --> 00:07:40.040 hiring, it might mean overlooking great candidates 00:07:40.040 --> 00:07:42.800 or hiring less suitable ones just inconsistently. 00:07:43.259 --> 00:07:45.680 In insurance, it could lead to inequitable treatment 00:07:45.680 --> 00:07:48.620 of policyholders. Essentially, the consequence 00:07:48.620 --> 00:07:50.680 is that the judgment isn't truly reflecting the 00:07:50.680 --> 00:07:53.699 underlying reality or the agreed criteria. It's 00:07:53.699 --> 00:07:56.019 partly a product of random noise. This really 00:07:56.019 --> 00:07:58.319 changes how you might think about decision -making, 00:07:58.420 --> 00:08:01.180 doesn't it? It's not just about trying to avoid 00:08:01.180 --> 00:08:03.759 conscious or unconscious bias. It's also about 00:08:03.759 --> 00:08:07.180 identifying and reducing this hidden variability. 00:08:07.779 --> 00:08:09.860 Exactly. The good news is the book isn't just 00:08:09.860 --> 00:08:12.300 diagnosing the problem. It sounds like it promises 00:08:12.300 --> 00:08:15.920 solutions. Exactly. And the authors are serious 00:08:15.920 --> 00:08:18.889 figures in the field, of course. Daniel Kahneman, 00:08:19.269 --> 00:08:21.790 a Nobel Prize -winning economist, renowned for 00:08:21.790 --> 00:08:24.870 his work on judgment and decision -making, particularly 00:08:24.870 --> 00:08:28.230 thinking fast and slow. A landmark book. Absolutely. 00:08:28.629 --> 00:08:31.569 Olivier Saboni and Cassar Sunstein are also highly 00:08:31.569 --> 00:08:34.029 respected experts in their own right. The reviews 00:08:34.029 --> 00:08:36.070 mention their previous works, like Nudge, as 00:08:36.070 --> 00:08:38.509 being sort of companion pieces, perhaps. Right. 00:08:38.590 --> 00:08:40.830 Well, one reviewer importantly clarifies that 00:08:41.400 --> 00:08:44.080 Noise don't cover the same ground as thinking 00:08:44.080 --> 00:08:46.720 fast and slow. So it really is tackling a distinct 00:08:46.720 --> 00:08:49.039 area of human judgment errors. That's good to 00:08:49.039 --> 00:08:51.000 know. It's not just a repackaging of their prior 00:08:51.000 --> 00:08:53.879 work. It's something new. So what do the sources 00:08:53.879 --> 00:08:56.600 suggest the book actually offers in terms of 00:08:56.600 --> 00:08:59.460 addressing noise, practical stuff? Yes, it seems 00:08:59.460 --> 00:09:02.379 so. The description states the book shows us 00:09:02.379 --> 00:09:05.179 what we can do to make better judgments. And 00:09:05.179 --> 00:09:07.720 customer reviews really reinforce this, describing 00:09:07.720 --> 00:09:11.340 it as a practical guide to reducing noise. So 00:09:11.340 --> 00:09:13.559 the intention seems to be providing actionable 00:09:13.559 --> 00:09:16.200 methods, not just theory. And while the sources 00:09:16.200 --> 00:09:18.659 obviously don't give us the full blueprint, they 00:09:18.659 --> 00:09:21.039 do hint at the nature of these solutions, don't 00:09:21.039 --> 00:09:24.200 they? They do, yes. The reviews suggest approaches 00:09:24.200 --> 00:09:27.000 that involve introducing more structure into 00:09:27.000 --> 00:09:29.919 decision -making processes. One review talks 00:09:29.919 --> 00:09:32.580 about promoting a balance between rigid bureaucracy 00:09:32.580 --> 00:09:35.299 rules and intuition. Which is interesting. Yeah, 00:09:35.419 --> 00:09:37.940 that suggests it isn't necessarily about eliminating 00:09:37.940 --> 00:09:40.820 human judgment entirely or becoming purely robotic. 00:09:41.080 --> 00:09:43.679 Exactly. It seems more about finding ways to 00:09:43.679 --> 00:09:46.259 channel intuition within a framework that minimizes 00:09:46.259 --> 00:09:49.700 that unwanted variability, kind of guiding judgment 00:09:49.700 --> 00:09:52.139 rather than replacing it. So maybe not strict 00:09:52.139 --> 00:09:54.340 rules for every single tiny aspect of a case, 00:09:54.460 --> 00:09:57.139 but perhaps a more standardized process for evaluating 00:09:57.139 --> 00:10:00.039 the different components. Precisely. That seems 00:10:00.039 --> 00:10:02.620 to be the direction. Another review states quite 00:10:02.620 --> 00:10:05.620 clearly that structured decisions versus random 00:10:05.620 --> 00:10:08.139 assessments are better all round. Better all 00:10:08.139 --> 00:10:11.220 round. Yeah. It reinforces the idea that implementing 00:10:11.220 --> 00:10:14.200 defined steps criteria, maybe using checklists 00:10:14.200 --> 00:10:16.659 or scoring systems frameworks for making judgments, 00:10:17.179 --> 00:10:19.539 yields more consistent and reliable outcomes 00:10:19.539 --> 00:10:22.620 than relying purely on unstructured intuitive 00:10:22.620 --> 00:10:24.860 assessments, which are highly susceptible to 00:10:24.860 --> 00:10:28.019 noise. The book presumably delves into how to 00:10:28.019 --> 00:10:30.019 design and implement these structures effectively. 00:10:30.480 --> 00:10:32.299 Okay, let's bring this back directly to you, 00:10:32.340 --> 00:10:34.840 our listener. As a mid -senior professional, 00:10:34.980 --> 00:10:37.220 you are constantly making judgments and decisions. 00:10:37.399 --> 00:10:39.940 It's a core part of the job. Where might this 00:10:39.940 --> 00:10:43.240 concept of noise be lurking in your professional 00:10:43.240 --> 00:10:45.399 world? Yeah, think about the areas where your 00:10:45.399 --> 00:10:47.960 role involves subjective evaluation. Are you 00:10:47.960 --> 00:10:49.720 involved in reviewing performance appraisals? 00:10:49.919 --> 00:10:52.539 Common one. Are you assessing project proposals 00:10:52.539 --> 00:10:55.919 or budgets? evaluating vendor pitches, trying 00:10:55.919 --> 00:10:58.419 to predict market trends or sales figures. Lots 00:10:58.419 --> 00:11:00.659 of areas. Anytime you have to assess something 00:11:00.659 --> 00:11:03.220 based on information and arrive at a conclusion, 00:11:03.759 --> 00:11:05.659 your judgment is potentially subject to noise. 00:11:06.320 --> 00:11:10.220 Just ask yourself, would you and a trusted colleague 00:11:10.220 --> 00:11:13.379 grade the same piece of work identically? Or 00:11:13.379 --> 00:11:15.580 even, would you yourself arrive at precisely 00:11:15.580 --> 00:11:18.139 the same sales forecast if you did the analysis 00:11:18.139 --> 00:11:21.340 again from scratch next week? Probably not identically. 00:11:21.519 --> 00:11:25.000 Probably not. And that difference? Yeah. That's 00:11:25.000 --> 00:11:28.019 noise. And the sources highlight this powerful 00:11:28.019 --> 00:11:30.659 aha moment that seems to come with recognizing 00:11:30.659 --> 00:11:33.519 noise. One customer review really captures it, 00:11:33.539 --> 00:11:35.259 I thought. They said, everything is really so 00:11:35.259 --> 00:11:37.559 noisy, yet we hardly notice. You will be more 00:11:37.559 --> 00:11:39.220 attentive to what's being done to you and what 00:11:39.220 --> 00:11:42.259 you equally do to others unknowingly. That reviewer 00:11:42.259 --> 00:11:44.179 perfectly articulates the shift in perspective 00:11:44.179 --> 00:11:46.200 the book seems to offer, doesn't it? You move 00:11:46.200 --> 00:11:48.360 from assuming judgments are based purely on merit 00:11:48.360 --> 00:11:51.379 or clear intention to seeing the unseen forces 00:11:51.379 --> 00:11:54.220 of variability at play. You start noticing how 00:11:54.220 --> 00:11:57.059 your own judgments might fluctuate, perhaps based 00:11:57.059 --> 00:11:59.539 on mood or fatigue, and also how the judgments 00:11:59.539 --> 00:12:02.529 you receive from others Feedback evaluations 00:12:02.529 --> 00:12:05.690 could be influenced by factors unrelated to your 00:12:05.690 --> 00:12:07.889 actual performance or the quality of your work. 00:12:08.210 --> 00:12:10.250 It makes you more critical, maybe. Both of your 00:12:10.250 --> 00:12:13.350 own cognitive processes and the systems you operate 00:12:13.350 --> 00:12:17.220 within. And this aha moment, it's more than just 00:12:17.220 --> 00:12:19.659 intellectual curiosity, isn't it? It has real 00:12:19.659 --> 00:12:21.820 implications for fairness and effectiveness in 00:12:21.820 --> 00:12:24.299 the workplace. And for those in leadership positions, 00:12:24.480 --> 00:12:26.679 it sounds like this understanding is not just 00:12:26.679 --> 00:12:29.580 useful, but potentially essential. Absolutely. 00:12:30.100 --> 00:12:32.100 Multiple reviews stress this. They call the book 00:12:32.100 --> 00:12:35.019 essential reading for professionals and a must 00:12:35.019 --> 00:12:37.500 read for any leader. Why so critical for leaders? 00:12:37.769 --> 00:12:40.029 Well, because leaders are often responsible for 00:12:40.029 --> 00:12:42.570 designing and overseeing processes, ensuring 00:12:42.570 --> 00:12:44.870 consistent standards are applied, and making 00:12:44.870 --> 00:12:47.190 reliable decisions that affect their teams and 00:12:47.190 --> 00:12:50.149 the organization's overall direction. If their 00:12:50.149 --> 00:12:52.110 own judgments, or the judgments within their 00:12:52.110 --> 00:12:56.169 teams, are full of unnoticed noise, well, it 00:12:56.169 --> 00:12:58.570 undermines trust, it can lead to frustration 00:12:58.570 --> 00:13:01.769 among staff, and ultimately results in suboptimal 00:13:01.769 --> 00:13:04.250 outcomes. Right. Addressing noise is presented 00:13:04.250 --> 00:13:07.299 in the reviews almost as a guide to more fairness 00:13:07.299 --> 00:13:10.740 and accuracy. And those are surely central goals 00:13:10.740 --> 00:13:14.220 for any effective leader. This exploration of 00:13:14.220 --> 00:13:16.840 noise, this hidden, unwanted variability in human 00:13:16.840 --> 00:13:18.799 judgment, truly underscores how much we might 00:13:18.799 --> 00:13:21.580 be leaving to chance or random factors in areas 00:13:21.580 --> 00:13:23.980 we assume are governed by logic and consistent 00:13:23.980 --> 00:13:26.720 evaluation. It's a subtle but powerful challenge 00:13:26.720 --> 00:13:29.379 to our confidence in purely subjective decision 00:13:29.379 --> 00:13:31.139 -making. It really is. It requires a certain 00:13:31.139 --> 00:13:33.139 humility, I think, about the reliability of our 00:13:33.139 --> 00:13:34.940 own minds and a critical look at the systems 00:13:34.940 --> 00:13:37.419 we use to make important calls. Are they designed 00:13:37.419 --> 00:13:39.889 to minimize this scatter? So here's a final thought 00:13:39.889 --> 00:13:41.710 to leave you with, building on everything we've 00:13:41.710 --> 00:13:44.370 discussed today from the sources. If individual 00:13:44.370 --> 00:13:47.970 judgments are susceptible to noise, how much 00:13:47.970 --> 00:13:50.409 is that variability potentially being compounded 00:13:50.409 --> 00:13:53.230 within complex organizational processes and systems? 00:13:53.850 --> 00:13:56.149 Interesting question. Think about a multi -stage 00:13:56.149 --> 00:13:59.570 approval process maybe, or a yearly performance 00:13:59.570 --> 00:14:01.870 review cycle that involves input from multiple 00:14:01.870 --> 00:14:04.429 people across different times. If every step 00:14:04.429 --> 00:14:08.090 has some inherent noise, how much silent noise 00:14:08.090 --> 00:14:10.769 might be accumulating and interacting to influence 00:14:10.769 --> 00:14:13.429 the final outcome. Accumulative effect. Exactly. 00:14:13.850 --> 00:14:16.049 And if this is happening largely unnoticed, as 00:14:16.049 --> 00:14:18.429 the sources suggest, how would you even begin 00:14:18.429 --> 00:14:21.049 to measure or mitigate that systemic noise within 00:14:21.049 --> 00:14:23.610 your own team or department? It feels like a 00:14:23.610 --> 00:14:26.610 significant challenge. It is. But perhaps, as 00:14:26.610 --> 00:14:28.970 you say, recognizing it, acknowledging it could 00:14:28.970 --> 00:14:31.549 exist, is the crucial first step. A fascinating 00:14:31.549 --> 00:14:33.990 question to ponder as you look at the decisions 00:14:33.990 --> 00:14:36.899 and processes around you. Indeed. Well, that 00:14:36.899 --> 00:14:39.659 concludes our deep dive into the concept of noise, 00:14:40.259 --> 00:14:42.159 drawing insights from the Amazon page for the 00:14:42.159 --> 00:14:45.340 book Noise. We've uncovered what noise is, how 00:14:45.340 --> 00:14:47.340 it differs from bias, where the sources say it 00:14:47.340 --> 00:14:50.059 typically appears, and why understanding it is 00:14:50.059 --> 00:14:52.539 so vital for professionals seeking greater fairness 00:14:52.539 --> 00:14:55.259 and accuracy and judgment. Hopefully it's given 00:14:55.259 --> 00:14:57.460 you a fresh perspective. We certainly hope it 00:14:57.460 --> 00:14:59.580 has, and perhaps prompted you to start listening 00:14:59.580 --> 00:15:02.159 for the silent hum of noise in your own professional 00:15:02.159 --> 00:15:02.679 environment.