Very true as well, though I will add the counter-caveat that the expert is usually biased toward concluding that your situation is not unusual.
Well, we don’t know that they’re actually biased in this direction until we know how their assessment of the probability that the usual thing is going on compares to the actual probability that the usual thing is going on.
Yes, there are plenty of “tech support horror stories” where the consultant has a hard time catching on to the fact that the complainant is not dealing with a usual or trivial problem, but for every one of those, there tends to be a slew of horror stories from the other end, of people getting completely wound up over something that the consultant can solve trivially, and failing to follow the simple advice needed to do so.
The consultants could be very well calibrated, and still occasionally be dramatically wrong. Beware availability bias.
Note that cases where the tech tells you that it’s usual problem X, and you deny this, asserting that your thing is a special snowflake, is NOT a case of the opposite bias. It’s just a case of correct identification.
The opposite bias would be if the usual thing was going on, but the tech thought that it was some unusual thing.
Other IT-experienced people are welcome to correct me on this, but in my experience, the latter almost never happens, and when it does, it’s mostly with newbie techies, recent hires/trainees, etc.
This makes it substantially more likely that tech people have “usual problem bias” than that they have “unusual problem bias”, and that they are well-calibrated. The usual problem bias could be small or it could be large, but available evidence is fairly clear that it exists.
The point I was making was not that tech support is likely to have an “unusual problem bias,” but that being correctly calibrated with respect to usual and unusual problems will tend to appear like a “usual problem bias” when you examine in isolation the cases where they’re wrong, because you would tend to observe cases where they need a significant amount of evidence to persuade them of the presence of an unusual problem, but not an unusual one.
If you examine cases where they’re right, you may find a large number of cases where the customer insists that the problem is not addressed by the tech support’s script, only to be proven wrong; these often appear in the horror stories posted by tech support. Thus, tech support may to some extent be rationally discounting evidence favoring unusual problems.
Well, we don’t know that they’re actually biased in this direction until we know how their assessment of the probability that the usual thing is going on compares to the actual probability that the usual thing is going on.
Yes, there are plenty of “tech support horror stories” where the consultant has a hard time catching on to the fact that the complainant is not dealing with a usual or trivial problem, but for every one of those, there tends to be a slew of horror stories from the other end, of people getting completely wound up over something that the consultant can solve trivially, and failing to follow the simple advice needed to do so.
The consultants could be very well calibrated, and still occasionally be dramatically wrong. Beware availability bias.
Note that cases where the tech tells you that it’s usual problem X, and you deny this, asserting that your thing is a special snowflake, is NOT a case of the opposite bias. It’s just a case of correct identification.
The opposite bias would be if the usual thing was going on, but the tech thought that it was some unusual thing.
Other IT-experienced people are welcome to correct me on this, but in my experience, the latter almost never happens, and when it does, it’s mostly with newbie techies, recent hires/trainees, etc.
This makes it substantially more likely that tech people have “usual problem bias” than that they have “unusual problem bias”, and that they are well-calibrated. The usual problem bias could be small or it could be large, but available evidence is fairly clear that it exists.
The point I was making was not that tech support is likely to have an “unusual problem bias,” but that being correctly calibrated with respect to usual and unusual problems will tend to appear like a “usual problem bias” when you examine in isolation the cases where they’re wrong, because you would tend to observe cases where they need a significant amount of evidence to persuade them of the presence of an unusual problem, but not an unusual one.
If you examine cases where they’re right, you may find a large number of cases where the customer insists that the problem is not addressed by the tech support’s script, only to be proven wrong; these often appear in the horror stories posted by tech support. Thus, tech support may to some extent be rationally discounting evidence favoring unusual problems.