The struggle between two halves of the brain

To say my family has a competitive gene is probably an understatement. As a result, I have always been a bit of a bad loser. This characteristic has been tempered, however, by many years of supporting an under-achieving football team, a body no longer able to do what it previously could and, I like to think, the wisdom that comes with age. But it still lingers beneath the surface: I dislike getting anything wrong; instead of celebrating that I can still go out and run, I feel down by a PW (personal worst!); and I am still dispirited if my team loses despite trying to manage my expectations. Yet I never really consider that I, nor any individual or team I happen to be following, has failed.

In the first round of the National Basketball Association (NBA) play-offs in America, top seeds the Milwaukee Bucks were defeated by the lower-ranked Miami Heat. The Bucks’ forward, Giannis Antetokounmpo, came out to face the press and one reporter had the temerity to ask whether he considered that his team had failed. Go to www.bbc.co.uk/sport/av/basketball/65414615 to hear the response. It is very good. In the course of a discussion on this video, the point was made that it is necessary to call out failure as this is how we learn. I understand this sentiment, but I do feel that it is a matter of perception and semantics. The dictionary provides a number of examples to define the word ‘fail’. ‘To be unsuccessful in an attempt’ is the first on the list. This is how we should all interpret it. It is not final: ‘in an attempt’ implies that there can be many more attempts until success is achieved. However, I do not think this is how the reporter viewed it or how wider society generally perceives it. ‘To judge or be judged as being below the officially accepted standard’ or ‘To prove disappointing or useless to (someone)’ are the more prevalent interpretations, with their potentially damaging consequences to the individuals concerned. I am sure you will all know of examples.

It is convenient to apply labels such as ‘success’ and ‘failure’, but as Giannis Antetokounmpo explained, sport and life are more complicated and not easily transduced into stepwise rules. This does not sit easily with engineers. We like to analyse, to decompose a problem into its constituent parts and generate understanding and then, maybe with modelling and experimental data, produce the objective solution based on logic and reasoning. The left side of the brain is associated with these attributes: facts, logic, detail and quantitative thinking.

Unfortunately, the understanding is not always complete. A TV programme last year highlighted the work of the University of Salford in response to flooding in Carlisle. The rivers in the Lake District had been logically engineered so that they went in straight lines with high embankments to prevent local flooding and allow more land for farming. As a result, the natural tree and bush vegetation had been replaced by grass. This led to the water travelling as quickly as possible down the river, causing the Carlisle flood. Work is now in place to reverse the original engineering, rewilding and re-wiggling the river by inserting bends. Natural bushes are being re-established, with the overall effect of slowing the water flow and reducing the chance of future flooding in Carlisle.

In non-destructive testing (NDT) there have been many instances where there has been failure: where an attempt to detect a defect has been unsuccessful. There have even been instances where the application of NDT has been judged as being below the accepted standard. Except in cases of negligence, the failure is more likely to be attributed to the NDT system and not the individual, so that lessons can be learned and improvements can be implemented. Unfortunately, in the case of human factors, this is often a slow process.

The requirements imposed on NDT are often simplified: is the defect acceptable or not? Is it larger than a threshold value? This facilitates the production of a procedure based on classical decision-making, which is predicated on identifying and evaluating relevant input data and then selecting the best solution. In reality, the situation is more complex and ambiguous and developments in materials and technology are making it even more so.

Recent research regarding decision-making has identified that experts, when operating in such situations, use their expertise to identify cues and pick out patterns and trends to make decisions: they use what might be termed intuition and do not rely totally on data. In the light of this, maybe the NDT profession needs to engage more with the right side of the brain, which tends to deal with spatial awareness and visual comprehension.

To be continued…

Please note that the views expressed in this column are the author’s own personal ramblings for the purpose of encouraging discussion within NDT News. They do not represent the views of Jacobs or BINDT.

Letters can be mailed to The Editor, NDT News, Midsummer House, Riverside Way, Bedford Road, Northampton NN1 5NX, UK. Email: ndtnews@bindt.org or email Bernard McGrath direct at bernard.mcgrath1@jacobs.com

Comments by members

This forum post has no comments, be the first to leave a comment.

<< Back