When it comes to complex sociotechnical systems, their blind spots are sources both of weakness and of strength

I

I take the social science finding that “humans make technology and technology remakes humans” to be easily demonstrated. The policy-relevant issue, however, centers on the specifics.

In my view, specifics about different blind spots associated with different technologies are first to be identified and then compared. My state’s department of motor vehicles handbook states:

Blind Spots
Every vehicle has blind spots. These are areas around the vehicle that a driver cannot see when looking straight ahead or using the mirrors. For most vehicles, the blinds spots are at the sides, slightly behind the driver. To check your blind spots, look over your right and left shoulders out of your side windows. Only turn your head when you look. Do not turn your whole body or steering wheel.

https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/handbook/california-driver-handbook/

This means that driving a vehicle is a kind of managing precisely because of the blind spots they pose for their users. Yes, there are blind-spot monitoring technologies and the promises of self-driving cars. But who doubts that these technologies will have humans “looking over their shoulders” by way of having to respond to new blind spots newly induced by the new technologies?

II

The point here is that socio-technical blind spots represent a mix of both weaknesses and strengths for their managers.

You get all the advantages and the disadvantages of driving a car in comparison to otherwise having to drive a tractor-trailer or horse-and-buggy. Or the same point from the opposite direction, you get all the advantages and disadvantages of managing micro-grids in comparison to otherwise having to manage the current electric transmission and distribution grids.

No one should doubt that sustainable green technologies pose blind spots for their managers in addition to whatever cognitive biases (confirmation, attribution, more) of the managers.

III

Don’t mistake this, however, as an argument for the technology status quo.

Rather, the point is to ward against trusting anything like “fool-proof” technologies. One engineer we interviewed early on in our research told us, “I try to design systems that are not only foolproof but damned foolproof, so even a damned fool can’t screw them up”. To think that the necessity of having to manage technologies is the problem misses the crucial point of management also being one of our strengths.