The "Framing Bias" - a cognitive bias

[Boogs]

If you look at the progression in design specs of their rocket engines over the past 2-3 years or the fact that there can be 20+ part design changes, in several individual parts, within a single model year Tesla vehicle, in each one of those vehicles, is astounding. It's unheard of in most industries.

But does that mean it's a better way to do things?
I'm very much unconvinced so-called efficiency is necessarily the best policy. The nature of what's considered good needs to be qualified - good for what and whom?

You are spot on that Space-X's methods have garnered impressive results, but are those results a net gain for humans, or a net gain for only some humans, and at what cost to the rest? (rhetorical but relevant question imho).
When you consider efficiency, you need to start to consider what is waste and from who's perspective. Efficiency for one group may very well be negative for another (actually I doubt it's ever anything but).

Given human nature, especially based on what I perceive as our current trajectory, I'd say these phenomenally rapid developments are not for the best, especially considering their drivers which generally have little to do with our growing into something better, or have anything but an ever worsening environment.

We seem to be a complex chemical reaction that's occurring ever faster and in doing becomes ever more unstable and reactive - we're burning ourselves out rapidly because we don't consider our actions and control ourselves rationally.

 

[TBRS1]

I find the flaw is less the language itself, rather how it's used, and maybe the fact of how we are evolved to use it 'naturally' as opposed to it's use as an information tool of precision and accuracy using an intellectual methodology. We use an essentially outdated (out evolved?) comms tool to try and perform tasks that require absolute descriptions rather than relative one's?
Maybe we need languages of areas of function or subject (such as math) to gain more precise communication of ideas?

Ideally, language would be used for some things - for which it is suited - and a rigid symbol structure with clearly defined relationships (prime example: math) would be used for other things for which they are suited.

But here's the problem. Formal thinking skills are difficult and unnatural - they have to be learned. Most people have little or inclination to learn them.

Along with that, remember that thinking itself is natural, everybody does it, and even people without formal thinking skills want others to know their thoughts. Their only tool for communication is the language they learned to serve a social purpose - to exist with others.

 

[Neonatal RRT]

But does that mean it's a better way to do things?
I'm very much unconvinced so-called efficiency is necessarily the best policy. The nature of what's considered good needs to be qualified - good for what and whom?

You are spot on that Space-X's methods have garnered impressive results, but are those results a net gain for humans, or a net gain for only some humans, and at what cost to the rest? (rhetorical but relevant question imho).
When you consider efficiency, you need to start to consider what is waste and from who's perspective. Efficiency for one group may very well be negative for another (actually I doubt it's ever anything but).

Given human nature, especially based on what I perceive as our current trajectory, I'd say these phenomenally rapid developments are not for the best, especially considering their drivers which generally have little to do with our growing into something better, or have anything but an ever worsening environment.

We seem to be a complex chemical reaction that's occurring ever faster and in doing becomes ever more unstable and reactive - we're burning ourselves out rapidly because we don't consider our actions and control ourselves rationally.

If your goal is to innovate quickly, you must test "the model" intensely, and that means pushing the limits of the design to failure, adjust, and retest the limits. Within the context of a corporation that is putting out a product and are on a rapid trajectory and timeline, then there really isn't any other way. You must have your engineering teams putting their heads together and give them the autonomy to do what they've been trained to do without administration and accountants micromanaging every little thing. Tesla engineers do not design by committee, but rather at the speed of thought. It's a very rewarding job experience.

Is SpaceX's efforts a net gain for humans? I am inclined to think so. (1) We NEED to be a space-faring society if our species is to have any chance to live beyond a cataclysmic event on Earth (2) There are raw materials out in space that we could use instead of mining on Earth (3) If we are to have a broader perspective of our place in this universe, we need to explore and perhaps meet other cultures (4) Communication on Earth is still a bit "spotty" and there are areas that need to have internet access, that don't, that are trying to advance. Even in the US, there are many, many areas that do not have cell phone coverage or satellite communication. So, I suspect that other countries are likely in the same situation or worse.

Now, SpaceX is a private company, so what they do is up to them, for the most part. They are running a business but also have connections with the US government in terms of communication and military contracts. It is privately funded by private investors, not publicly traded. To suggest that Elon Musk and his investors would better serve the people of Earth by donating their money towards efforts closer to home is probably a false narrative. Any time money is donated, a good chunk of it gets consumed by the bureaucracy, and a small amount to the people who actually benefit from it.

We are probably better off with our efforts to eliminate fraud, waste, and abuse within our own governments and opening up money to then be routed towards people in need, dropping taxes, dropping inflation, etc.

 

[Boogs]

If your goal is to innovate quickly, you must test "the model" intensely, and that means pushing the limits of the design to failure, adjust, and retest the limits.

Seems to me the driver for intense development is more commercial than social (I'm artificially separating the two for clarity of argument), and in particular, poorly regulated commerce. But other than sheer internal competition against each other, what advantage does this have over a slower steadier more considered development? Is speed of development what's truly important? We'll made it so, but not deliberately, just by not considering obvious outcomes when unrestrained human nature takes control.

Obviously a different system requires the structure to enable it, but that's just another structure instead of the current one, not a fundamental reason to say either way isn't possible. Leaving humans to their own devices, while allowing them ever more power is not a recipe for ultimate success I'd say, judging by where we all are now.
We've even done this in medicine where we've not properly considered and acted on what the outcome of better health and longevity will result in (etc).

So I totally agree amazing things can be done, but I question whether they should be.
We need space exploitation, but by rushing too quickly to it for the wrong reasons (or some of them) we ended up needing it more than ever, which will accelerate the problem even more.