Why though? Why that one? What does it have that all the others don’t?
The others are more expensive, or less powerful, or not compatible with standard mixer attachments… or are worse for other reasons that there’s no point in mentioning when making a positive recommendation (e.g. “definitely don’t get the ExampleCompany SuperMixer 9000, because it has a manufacturing defect that causes it to explode and set your house on fire”—no point in going through all the bad options and saying why they’re bad, otherwise we’ll be here all day, and to what end?).
What other information would you expect?
Why it has MORE of that than all the other options on the market for starters. But I would expect your reasoning and hands-on experience if applicable.
Well, I generally don’t recommend things that I don’t have hands-on experience with (and if I do, I explicitly flag this lack of experience).
As for “reasoning”… this just doesn’t seem to be the right way to think about this sort of thing. We’re talking about facts (nothing to reason about here) and evaluations on the basis of given criteria (also not much room for “reasoning”). “Reasoning” applies when coming up with criteria, but once that’s done—what’s to reason about?
And the question “why it has more of that” just seems weird. Maybe I’m misunderstanding what you mean here, but surely the answer is “because that’s how it was designed and manufactured”? What else can be the answer to a “why” question like that? (Are you expecting some sort of analysis of Black+Decker’s product strategy…?)
These are all pivotal to knowing whether you just spouted a model name at random, or if you’ve actually thought about it.
So, correct me if I’m way off base here, but it sounds like what you’re actually looking for isn’t so much answers to specific questions, or specific information, but something more like… credible signals of trustworthiness (of a recommendation, and of the recommender).
In other words, with the mixer example (sorry, I know kitchen appliances much better than I know cameras, so I’m sticking with that one for my comments)… it’s not that a bare product name is insufficient information, as such. It’s not that the response fails to answer the question—it absolutely does that. Rather, what’s missing is any credible signal that you can trust that the answer is correct. And stuff like talking about one’s reasons for giving the answer, or even the effort that the respondent would expend on re-stating your own criteria back to you, and affirming that the recommended product meets those criteria, serves as such a credible signal. In other words, the more work I put into making legible the process that generated the answer, the more confident you can be that you can trust that the answer is correct—even if none of that provides you with any additional decision-relevant information beyond what’s contained in the answer itself.
You’ve made me wonder: Where do you ask for recommendations or advice Said? Of whom? How do you you account for unknown unknowns? Do you never ask for clarifying or additional questions about their suggestions? Just your replies here appear to be quite curious so I find it confusing that you would so strenuously argue for a “and that’s all she wrote” approach.
As for “reasoning”… this just doesn’t seem to be the right way to think about this sort of thing. We’re talking about facts (nothing to reason about here) and evaluations on the basis of given criteria (also not much room for “reasoning”). “Reasoning” applies when coming up with criteria, but once that’s done—what’s to reason about?
How do I know I have the best criteria for me? I can do a really rigorous job of explaining my situation, my biases, my personal experience and my current level of understanding and knowledge. But the whole point of asking for recommendations is to find unknown unknonws: not only products or solutions on the market, but criteria I may not have even thought of, or at least under-prioritized.
If I’m a novice at something—what really obvious things might someone who isn’t a novice want to warn me of?
Hence the Ray Dalio thing—in an ideal situation I ask three or more domain experts—people who certainly do know more than me and can explicate criteria I didn’t even consider.
With the camera example, (sorry, like you with the mixer—I’ll stick to what I know) I might verbosely describe the situation I intend to shoot in. But someone with more experience might go “Ah, but what about a battery?” or maybe they’ll say “This camera has a longer battery life, but go for this cheaper one because the cost of an external USB powerpack is a tenth of the price difference between the two models”.
How would I know that battery life factored into their reasoning and in what way?
In terms of execution, switching roles doesn’t exactly work, i.e. asking “How would you choose a camera?” because the person asked may choose what is best for them, not for the requestee. But, there’s a middle ground somewhere between “Which product fits these criteria?” and “which criteria am I neglecting?”.
>In other words, with the mixer example (sorry, I know kitchen appliances much better than I know cameras, so I’m sticking with that one for my comments)… it’s not that a bare product name is insufficient information, as such. It’s not that the response fails to answer the question—it absolutely does that. Rather, what’s missing is any credible signal that you can trust that the answer is correct. And stuff like talking about one’s reasons for giving the answer, or even the effort that the respondent would expend on re-stating your own criteria back to you, and affirming that the recommended product meets those criteria, serves as such a credible signal. In other words, the more work I put into making legible the process that generated the answer, the more confident you can be that you can trust that the answer is correct—even if none of that provides you with any additional decision-relevant information beyond what’s contained in the answer itself.
Partly. Yes, it is about trust and credibility. And I still contend the easiest way is for someone to mention a lot of “becauses”. But it’s not simply restating my own criteria back to me—it is making me consider what criteria might be missing.
You’ve made me wonder: Where do you ask for recommendations or advice Said? Of whom? How do you you account for unknown unknowns? Do you never ask for clarifying or additional questions about their suggestions? Just your replies here appear to be quite curious so I find it confusing that you would so strenuously argue for a “and that’s all she wrote” approach.
Well, the most common places/contexts where I ask for recommendations would be the various chat channels where I talk to people (which could be my IRL friends, or not). Most people in such places are fairly intelligent, knowledgeable, and technically adept.
Do I ask clarifying or additional questions? Sure, but such questions tend to be clarifying of my own purposes or needs, rather than the recommender’s reasons for giving the recommendations. More common is for me to need to clarify my request rather than for recommenders to need to clarify their recommendations.
How do I account for unknown unknowns? Well, uh… I don’t, mostly? They’re unknown, so how can I account for them? Perhaps you have in mind some question like “what general policies can mitigate the downside risk of unknown unknowns”? Indeed there are such things, but they tend to be very general, like the well-known principle of “first buy the cheapest version of the tool you need, and use it until it breaks; then you’ll known enough to make a more informed choice”; or practical, common-sense principles like “whenever possible, buy from vendors that allow free returns”.
As for “reasoning”… this just doesn’t seem to be the right way to think about this sort of thing. We’re talking about facts (nothing to reason about here) and evaluations on the basis of given criteria (also not much room for “reasoning”). “Reasoning” applies when coming up with criteria, but once that’s done—what’s to reason about?
How do I know I have the best criteria for me? I can do a really rigorous job of explaining my situation, my biases, my personal experience and my current level of understanding and knowledge. But the whole point of asking for recommendations is to find unknown unknonws: not only products or solutions on the market, but criteria I may not have even thought of, or at least under-prioritized.
Hm… I think I see your point now, yes.
What you want, it seems to me, is a way to prompt the would-be recommender to give you as much of their relevant domain knowledge as possible. Basically, you want to get the person to talk. The way to do that, in my experience, is actually to say less about your own situation and problem, at least at first. Instead, try to elicit opinion. People generally love to talk about their views about things. So, not “what [camera/mixer] would you recommend, given these specific needs”, but “what is the best [camera/mixer], and why”. Then once you’ve got them talking, you can ask things like “but what if I specifically need X, what are your thoughts on that”—and now you should get some more detailed response.
(Incidentally, on my own “Recommended Kitchen Tools” page, I do try to explain my reasons, and to impart knowledge of non-obvious pitfalls and considerations, etc.)
The others are more expensive, or less powerful, or not compatible with standard mixer attachments… or are worse for other reasons that there’s no point in mentioning when making a positive recommendation (e.g. “definitely don’t get the ExampleCompany SuperMixer 9000, because it has a manufacturing defect that causes it to explode and set your house on fire”—no point in going through all the bad options and saying why they’re bad, otherwise we’ll be here all day, and to what end?).
Well, I generally don’t recommend things that I don’t have hands-on experience with (and if I do, I explicitly flag this lack of experience).
As for “reasoning”… this just doesn’t seem to be the right way to think about this sort of thing. We’re talking about facts (nothing to reason about here) and evaluations on the basis of given criteria (also not much room for “reasoning”). “Reasoning” applies when coming up with criteria, but once that’s done—what’s to reason about?
And the question “why it has more of that” just seems weird. Maybe I’m misunderstanding what you mean here, but surely the answer is “because that’s how it was designed and manufactured”? What else can be the answer to a “why” question like that? (Are you expecting some sort of analysis of Black+Decker’s product strategy…?)
So, correct me if I’m way off base here, but it sounds like what you’re actually looking for isn’t so much answers to specific questions, or specific information, but something more like… credible signals of trustworthiness (of a recommendation, and of the recommender).
In other words, with the mixer example (sorry, I know kitchen appliances much better than I know cameras, so I’m sticking with that one for my comments)… it’s not that a bare product name is insufficient information, as such. It’s not that the response fails to answer the question—it absolutely does that. Rather, what’s missing is any credible signal that you can trust that the answer is correct. And stuff like talking about one’s reasons for giving the answer, or even the effort that the respondent would expend on re-stating your own criteria back to you, and affirming that the recommended product meets those criteria, serves as such a credible signal. In other words, the more work I put into making legible the process that generated the answer, the more confident you can be that you can trust that the answer is correct—even if none of that provides you with any additional decision-relevant information beyond what’s contained in the answer itself.
Right? Or no?
You’ve made me wonder: Where do you ask for recommendations or advice Said? Of whom? How do you you account for unknown unknowns? Do you never ask for clarifying or additional questions about their suggestions? Just your replies here appear to be quite curious so I find it confusing that you would so strenuously argue for a “and that’s all she wrote” approach.
How do I know I have the best criteria for me? I can do a really rigorous job of explaining my situation, my biases, my personal experience and my current level of understanding and knowledge. But the whole point of asking for recommendations is to find unknown unknonws: not only products or solutions on the market, but criteria I may not have even thought of, or at least under-prioritized.
If I’m a novice at something—what really obvious things might someone who isn’t a novice want to warn me of?
Hence the Ray Dalio thing—in an ideal situation I ask three or more domain experts—people who certainly do know more than me and can explicate criteria I didn’t even consider.
With the camera example, (sorry, like you with the mixer—I’ll stick to what I know) I might verbosely describe the situation I intend to shoot in. But someone with more experience might go “Ah, but what about a battery?” or maybe they’ll say “This camera has a longer battery life, but go for this cheaper one because the cost of an external USB powerpack is a tenth of the price difference between the two models”.
How would I know that battery life factored into their reasoning and in what way?
In terms of execution, switching roles doesn’t exactly work, i.e. asking “How would you choose a camera?” because the person asked may choose what is best for them, not for the requestee. But, there’s a middle ground somewhere between “Which product fits these criteria?” and “which criteria am I neglecting?”.
Partly. Yes, it is about trust and credibility. And I still contend the easiest way is for someone to mention a lot of “becauses”. But it’s not simply restating my own criteria back to me—it is making me consider what criteria might be missing.
Well, the most common places/contexts where I ask for recommendations would be the various chat channels where I talk to people (which could be my IRL friends, or not). Most people in such places are fairly intelligent, knowledgeable, and technically adept.
Do I ask clarifying or additional questions? Sure, but such questions tend to be clarifying of my own purposes or needs, rather than the recommender’s reasons for giving the recommendations. More common is for me to need to clarify my request rather than for recommenders to need to clarify their recommendations.
How do I account for unknown unknowns? Well, uh… I don’t, mostly? They’re unknown, so how can I account for them? Perhaps you have in mind some question like “what general policies can mitigate the downside risk of unknown unknowns”? Indeed there are such things, but they tend to be very general, like the well-known principle of “first buy the cheapest version of the tool you need, and use it until it breaks; then you’ll known enough to make a more informed choice”; or practical, common-sense principles like “whenever possible, buy from vendors that allow free returns”.
Hm… I think I see your point now, yes.
What you want, it seems to me, is a way to prompt the would-be recommender to give you as much of their relevant domain knowledge as possible. Basically, you want to get the person to talk. The way to do that, in my experience, is actually to say less about your own situation and problem, at least at first. Instead, try to elicit opinion. People generally love to talk about their views about things. So, not “what [camera/mixer] would you recommend, given these specific needs”, but “what is the best [camera/mixer], and why”. Then once you’ve got them talking, you can ask things like “but what if I specifically need X, what are your thoughts on that”—and now you should get some more detailed response.
(Incidentally, on my own “Recommended Kitchen Tools” page, I do try to explain my reasons, and to impart knowledge of non-obvious pitfalls and considerations, etc.)