I got thinking about this phrase after a colleague replied: “Don’t get seduced by the tyranny of the obvious”. This reply to my request for examples of mistakes experts make in civil litigation cases (Ref. 1),
(My colleague requested no citation but he is an experienced professional engineer, quite well known in eastern Canada, and been around the block a few times. He looked at a draft of this posting)
We were chatting about the mistakes experts make. He was referring to an engineer not carrying out a thorough forensic engineering investigation because “the cause is obvious”. And, as a result, sometimes making a mistake, and learning that the ‘obvious’ cause is wrong.
Counsel needs to know about this fairly human susceptibility of experts. They can help ensure an expert doesn’t make this mistake by clearly stipulating a thorough investigation. Regardless as to where the initial investigation seems to be leading.
There’s no question that forensic engineers sometimes make this mistake – get seduced by the tyranny of the obvious.
Why? Some reasons:
- We honestly think we’ve nailed the cause and stop investigating.
- We are susceptible to the good feeling you get when you quickly determine the cause of a failure in the built environment or the cause of an accident. We like getting at the truth and the good feeling at finding it.
- We got egos, and sometimes think we’re more insightful than is actually the case, and, besides, a quick assessment and fix of a problem looks good on us.
- We made the mistake of taking a case with an inadequate budget or too tight a deadline.
The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines tyranny as, ‘a rigorous condition imposed by some outside agency or force, e.g., living under the tyranny of the clock’. And for obvious, the dictionary says, ‘easily discovered, seen, or understood’. Power over something is implicit in tyranny.
You decide not to carry out a thorough investigation after doing a little investigation because you believe you have found the cause of the failure – it’s obvious. Except you learn later – perhaps from an expert retained by another party, that you’ve made a mistake, that there was another cause. Or you had difficulty explaining in court why it was obvious. Or difficulty explaining why you didn’t carry out a thorough investigation to be sure of the obvious. You forget that it’s easier to explain doing too much than too little.
You found something, latched onto it, and didn’t look further. The obvious had you in its power.
Forensic engineers, take care that the seemingly obvious answer to the cause of a failure or an accident doesn’t blind you to your commitment to the justice system to do a thorough investigation. And Counsel, take care that your expert has an adequate budget and sufficient time to carry out a thorough investigation (Ref. 2), and understands that you want him to check the obvious with such an investigation.
References
- Mistakes forensic engineers make. Posted June 20, 2013. http://www.ericjorden.com/blog/2013/06/20/mistakes-forensic-engineers-make/
- Steps in the forensic engineering investigative process. Posted July 15, 2013 http://www.ericjorden.com/blog/2013/07/15/steps-in-the-forensic-engineering-investigative-process-with-an-appendix-on-costs/