Originally Posted by
Greg Amy
OK, well, I think we're back to the old argument that I've had with more than one or two of the ITAC members over the years. And my position hasn't changed: pure objectivity is key, let the chips fall where they may.
ANY time you try to "adjust" the process based on "known" information, you're actually breaking the process. Why? Because you're making decisions based on what you THINK you know. Problem is, you DON'T HAVE ALL THE FACTS. In reality, you have very few of the facts. So, what you end up doing is chasing the outliers, when - in fact - you haven't caught the real outliers, you've only caught the outliers that weren't smart enough to play the game.
Then, you want to pretend that someone is being honest when they say they've done ALL THEY CAN DO to get xxx ponies out of an engine, and want an adjustment? Yeah, right...
So you are, in effect, making competition adjustments based on results, before there's even any results. Those initial "results" may not be on-track results, but they're results nonetheless. You're trying to pretend you're not doing comp adjustments, when you really are. And then you're not backing that up in the end.
You're trying to pretend you can predict the end results without actually correcting those mistakes that will inevitable happen.
Blech, blah, ptooey!!! Honestly and frankly, guys, don't know SHIT, you only know what people choose to let you know.
Sorry, but you're not nearly as smart individually or collectively as the whole of the population you're trying to "govern". Central Planning doesn't work guys.
Plus, you won't use the intestinal fortitude to back up that Central Planning by adjusting based on on-track results...so, in effect, you're trying to govern the outcomes without actually governing the outcomes.
It. Will. Fail. Always has, always will. - GA
Bookmarks