Avoiding the Oedipus Trap

 Megan McArdle was interviewed for EconTalk about The Oedipal Trap. She tells of Walter Freeman, the doctor who gave us the lobotomy. The interview has three major themes:

1. The options available for mental health treatments were poor and the outcomes without treatment were horrible. Condemnation of lobotomy in the early years was not such a clear case. (Also, due to positive press treatment, opposition was not just unclear, it was politically untenable.)
2. Freeman’s work method was admirable, maybe exemplary. He took detailed patient histories and did careful follow-up. He was active in his work: alert to the latest research and accumulated a vast body of  results on his own. He appears to be driven by a desire to be a great figure in medicine.
3. Somehow, Freeman could not see the emerging theme that his chosen treatment was destructive. (The good stuff starts at 35 min.)

“The first principle of science is not to fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.”

McArdle tells the story of Oedipus (36 min) and concludes that “there are some mistakes that no-one can live with, even if they were made innocently”. The trap is that if you have made such a mistake, it is better not to know that you have done so. If you have made a mistake this bad, you will do everything in your power to avoid recognizing that you have done it. Much of what you will do is psychological and unconscious.

Dangers of O traps shows up in cancer treatment and foreign policy. You must choose between options that will have horrible outcomes. You are likely to make a decision with a horrible outcome. If you are not careful and conscious, you will lock yourself into an Oedipus trap.

How to avoid O traps (1:06): 

1. If the stakes are really high, go in slowly. Do a little bit and follow-up with long term feedback. Don’t stake your reputation early on.
2. Pre-commit beforehand to check your results and be willing to be wrong.
3. Recognize that no matter how shattering it is to admit you are wrong, it is less shattering than continuing to make that mistake.

Big, worthwhile distractions

45 min – examples of people fooling themselves

53 min – best ever telling of the Semmelweis story. Relevant connection: Semmelweis’s arrogant, abrasive personality made hard to accept advice from him. People who tell you are wrong are usually disagreeable people. Only disagreeable people can resist the pull of polite agreement. Also, most who disagree are wrong. It’s just that when they are right, they are critical.

1:00 – Delves into a meditation on “follow the science”: it is an anti-scientific statement. McArdle lays out a Bayesian alternative. Start with the prior that the scientific consensus is more likely than not to be right. In areas where the stakes are high, be more likely to question the science. Personal reputation is a stake.