Behavioural Geologists

PART 1: Personalities

Geologists are a blue, and that’s just the way it is.

If you say this to a geologist, you are either trying to annoy them in the worst possible way, or you have no idea that you’re speaking to a geologist.?Of course, not all geologists are dominantly blue, but I hope it managed to get your attention.?That’s partly the yellow in me.?I want your attention.

If you aren’t familiar with applying colours to personalities, then let me give you a crash course.?You might even be wondering right now what on earth I’m talking about.?We’ve all heard in one way or another, that our personalities fit into boxes.?We can break them down into elements, animals, words, squares, quadrants, charts, colours...?The way we analyse human behaviour seems endless.?But all methods are similar.?As I begin to unravel the colours, I’m sure you’ll analyse yourself, perhaps your friends and work colleagues, and perhaps even your cat.?You might even begin to question which colours dominate your profession, even though you aren’t a geologist.?But just remember this isn’t an exact science, and many of us are made up of multiple colours – red, yellow, green, blue.?Very few people are purely one colour, and nobody is more than 3 colours.

You may finish reading this and dismiss it all. You may question yourself, or just laugh it off.?Your reaction is part your colour.?My goal is to provide a quick read as a tool for recognising behaviour at a very simple level.?And if you want to do something about it, I’d suggest reading Thomas Erikson’s book ‘Surrounded by Idiots.’?He adapted the colour systems to personalities we’ve been exposed to all our lives.?He is the real expert, and it will help you deal with others colours in ways you’ve never thought of.

A Red

A red personality is effective at moving projects forward and is often very insightful.??They are also (most of the time) perceived as impatient.?The reason is, they are very focussed on getting things done.?Always moving forward and completing tasks on time.?At least that’s the goal.?They are driven by winning, and nothing makes winning more possible than making good time while doing it.?But sometimes to win, it means pushing people to do things they are uncomfortable doing.?Challenge a green and be prepared for them to sink into a chair and avoid you.?Reds are also experts at blaming others for falling behind.?They are not focussing on you personally.?It is rarely personal.?It’s just they can’t understand why you don’t want to win as much as they do.?They will rarely accept their own shortcoming and most of the time it's everyone else’s fault.?But something that reds are great at, other than keeping projects moving, is admitting that someone else had a better idea.?After all, if you are always moving forward and trying to win, adopting new things to finish faster makes complete sense.

Sound familiar?

We all know a red.?We’ve probably all had a red boss too.?Quick to dismiss your ideas and wants you to move on (and do it quickly).?They would also probably prefer to just do it themselves without you involved, just to speed things up a bit, it isn’t that they don’t like you, they just feel they could probably do a better job than you…that’s all.

If you’ve ever suggested to drill more holes in an area…or maybe even less holes…and shallower…or maybe deeper. ?Maybe change the spacing, the pattern, the alignment, or perhaps you’re drilling in the wrong spot all together. A person may say in a particularly brash manner, ‘no…I want it done this way.’ You’ve just been brushed off by a red. ?They are short and to the point. Don't let a red do this to you too many times without a challenge, because they’ll do it again if you let them. It’s important with reds that you stick at moving your point forward, and explain to them bit by bit, why your project will meet the objective and why it will be faster and perhaps even more under budget than any other way.?Not only that, but it will also give the company the best result. ?Just make sure that it actually does. ?Reds don’t want excuses; they want results…they want to win.?The best kind of result.?They will protest and tell you that you are wrong and do everything to be more right than you, but if you can make that case, they’ll be on board. ?They will probably warm to you a little more too.

A Yellow

Have you been to drinks on the final day of a conference and for some reason the room splits into different groups.?At the centre of those groups is a yellow.?They’ve most likely listened to the talks all day, formed some new ideas, and it’s now time to shine.?They may have even given one of the most innovative and inspirational talks at the conference. ?Because that’s what they are good at. ?They’ve also probably forgotten everyone else’s because they are terrible listeners, but that’s neither here nor there to a yellow, they are going to do what they do best.?And that’s to talk to anyone who will listen with eternal optimism.?Sometimes yellows are completely oblivious to whether other people are even listening, they will just keep talking to the point of being awkward.?But a lot of the time they are fun to be around and at the end of the day, who doesn’t want to be bask in the aura of fun.

Yellows can often get along with reds because they are both looking forward and accept change as inevitable.?But they struggle terribly with blues.?Blues need facts to take yellows seriously.?And to be a geologist, you need a healthy dose of blue, but I will get to that later.?If I have a dollar for every time I read an article on AI taking over the expertise of a geologist…my goodness.??Nothing will tear down a relationship faster than suggesting to a blue that their job will be redundant because of technology, and they usually can tell when something isn’t true (because they already know it isn’t).?Also be prepared for questions and a healthy dose of reality.?You will be overrun with ‘what proof do you have?’, ‘do you even know how the algorithms work?’, ‘show me that AI is more successful’, ‘we’ve done all right till now’.??Are blues wrong??Not really, they are most of the time correct.?If you want to reach a blue, you need to have the facts.?Without facts, blues wont even think of buying you a drink to fuel a further discussion.?In fact you should consider yourself lucky they are talking to you at all.

Novel theories and pushing new boundaries, these concepts are often an uphill battle in geological circles.?Because like most things, it requires change.?Sometimes change frightens people, none more so than green.?Red welcomes it with open arms (as long as it keeps moving forward).?Blues are sceptical about everything and need you to prove it (and prove it beyond doubt).?But greens, oh my.??Nothing frightens greens more than shifting the goal posts.

A Green

If you've been in the kitchen and a co-worker begins preparing their lunch around you, then leans into your space and says quietly '...you wouldn’t believe what just happened, do you have a minute?’ You've just been pulled into a greens water cooler chat. ?It doesn't end there, they'll bend your ear anywhere. The bathroom, meeting rooms, whispering around your desk cubicle, even as you leave work for the day in the elevator.?If there is a chance…out it comes.?“Have I got a story for you..."

Greens are good communicator who are acutely aware of other people and their opinions.?Probably the best at small talk of all colours, and they also love it when everyone is happy, and the work environment is balanced.??They are extremely open and easy going for the most part.?Greens just don’t like drawing attention to themselves by causing conflict, mainly because they don’t want to be in the centre of it.

If you’re an exploration geologist reading this, you’ve probably had to deliver a talk to your very red boss, who wants to decide which projects to spend a dwindling annual budget on.?All 10 geologists get up throughout the day to give their oral presentation.?Only 3 projects are picked.?You’ll know if greens aren’t picked because they probably won’t speak to you for a week.?After all is said and done, a red will still ram home their point. A blue will logically argue the facts.?A yellow will imbue their protests with expert orator skills, but greens don’t like conflict and being the centre of attention.?So they’ll most likely say nothing. Greens don't do bad work.?In fact, greens are some of the best workers because they are so level-headed, but don’t expect them to take bad news well.??If you ask a green about the superpower they want most, if it isn’t to make everywhere they go harmonious, it would probably be to turn invisible.??It’s no surprise that greens and reds don’t get along well.?Reds don’t have the patience for greens, and most of the time they don’t care to ask what’s wrong.

If you’ve seen an employee run through the office in a huff while their co-worker (perhaps a supervisor), watches on and then gets back to work, you’ve probably seen a red infuriate a green.?It has no doubt been happening for months, perhaps even years.?It takes a while for it to happen, but if a red isn’t listening (which they rarely do) and they’ve behaved enough times in a way to stress a green to breaking point, there may even be a letter of resignation on a reds desk the next morning.

If you’re a red, you might have experienced this.?You might have even said to yourself ‘…well…I’ve got to break a few eggs to make an omelette,’ or ‘…they didn’t do what I asked.’?Always looking forward, someone else is to blame, and not great at listening.?If you are a pure red, you might have even shouted a hole in your device reading this right now. ?‘It wasn’t because of me though…it was…’?But it will be short lived. A red will simply move on wondering what all the fuss is about.?Reds aren’t natural communicators, while greens are the opposite.?They are very good in the right environment.

While greens are generally mild mannered individuals they have absolutely no problem intimating their grief (perceived or otherwise).?And everyone will know about it.?Warts and all, completely unbeknownst to the very person they are talking about.?Behaviour that sets a reds hair of fire. But honestly, how else do you expect a green to react??It’s their way of blowing off steam. It will however be added to a greens list of slights that simmers within.

I’ve left blues to last because geologists (almost) always have blue in them.

A Blue

Have you ever given a presentation at work and at the end of it you’ve asked for final questions and from out of nowhere a person says, ‘…I think you’ll find this is an IRGS deposit, not Orogenic, because…’?You’ve just encountered a blue.

Blues aren’t particularly good communicators.?They aren’t people persons, a bit like a red.?They are driven by facts.?Lots of them.?To the point where there may not actually be enough to satisfy them, so they need a little push to get any project going.?They tend to be good observers too.?No need to talk unless they feel a need to. The opposite of yellow, who can’t wait to impart their ideas with an often-flowery vocal dance.

Blues tend to require a lot of facts to believe anything.?This is particularly difficult for yellows who are usually trying to inspire and innovate, while blues are wondering how on earth anyone could be believing any of it without a mountain of evidence to substantiate it.?Facts are something yellows aren’t particularly great at digging up.?Not like blues.?If you want to start a project that needs a lot of background, give it to a blue.?They might even take it too far, but you’ll get to the bottom of it, that’s for sure.

Have you ever seen geologists disagree??Is the sky blue??Actually…if you’re a blue, don’t answer that, we’ll be here for hours.?Geology is scientific.?The formation of the earth and geological processes is science.?Sometimes theories are different, and sometimes they are the same.?But nobody can argue their point more passionately than a blue geologist.?It’s like watching a game of verbal boxing.?Punching each other with science.?Each becoming louder and louder with every hit.?Why do we see so many awkwardly funny verbal exchanges between geologists??Because they’re driven by facts, and depending on which theory you believe, nobody is technically wrong.?So you can in fact, both be right.?I would argue that blues who behave like this have a streak of red because of course, everyone else is wrong.?Do you notice that they don’t walk away from each other in disgust? They just keep going at it.?That is because blues, like all colours, generally get along with one another. After all, they are both dealing with facts.?They are just different facts.?They get along enough to continue the argument, without feeling the need to just walk away.?Especially not like a red and a green.?That just wouldn’t end well at all.

A Blues Yellow Gut

If you’re an exploration geologist, you’ve probably been feeling trapped like a caged gazelle reading this, ‘but exploration is all about…well…exploration. ?The fun is in the unknown and discovery.?That’s where it’s at. ?I use my gut and sometimes it’s my best tool.’?While geologists are driven by facts, when those are exhausted and there is no data left to consume, there is always a blues yellow gut.?Ask any exploration geologist with one, and they’ll tell you it’s just instinct…a feeling…born from experience.?It’s putting all their knowledge, wits, and skill together and voila, its quite possible there is gold right here (somewhere).?Lets face it, this is yellow behaviour.?It’s not entirely driven by pure facts, but facts that are open to interpretation.?It doesn’t mean that it’s a total guess, but it also doesn’t mean its correct.?Who really knows??Well…a blue will know.?They’ll just ask you at the end of your talk (with no particular facial expression at all) ‘how did you come by that conclusion?’

A yellow will say, ‘…because of the very small budget, the method of geophysics I was forced to use wasn’t as optimal as I would have wanted, but…’ and ‘…didn’t quite drill as many holes as I would have liked.?Did I mention the lack of budget?’, or ‘…it’s right near this mine.,’ and finally…’I’ve been doing this for 25 years and my gut tells me…’?This will all be like scratching a blackboard to a blue, just useless noise rattling out of a yellow.?They won’t have any of it because there is no evidence to support it.?You’d think that a yellow would get the idea after a while, but it’s just the opposite. ?Remember they are terrible listeners. ??A yellow gut will become engorged through sheer necessity, and they will just keep talking.

Blues can be like a brain grenade to a yellow.?Nothing is more stifling to a yellow than a blue asking questions which require real answers.?How else is a yellow meant to inspire people to get on board when a blue is party pooping all their ground breaking ideas? ??By the way, if a yellow wants to get under a blues skin, they will just muck up all their facts.?It’s equivalent to unbalancing a Jenga tower.?Suddenly not everything is as it should be or balances the way it used to.?Blues aren’t great at future thinking anyway, so mucking up something that once made sense invites chaos.??Needless to say, blues do not deal with chaos well.

Yellows tend to exaggerate.?They also want to genuinely inspire people.?An exploration geologist with a yellow gut is always looking for the best opportunity and to inspire others to follow it, some of the time without all the facts. ?This means that on some occasions there is no alternative other than to be wildly positive.?A project with a lack of data isn’t uncommon in these circles, and quite often that’s all there is to work with.?But rest assured, a yellow gut will pick up the slack…there is always instinct to back it up.?Yellow behaviour through and through.

To finish up

Geologists are scientists, there is no escaping it.?And scientists are most of the time driven by facts.?Often teamed with a sense of curiosity and desire for discovery.?But it doesn’t matter how yellow, red, or green you are… if you’re a scientist, you’ve probably got some kind of blue in you.??It might be a lot, or it might be a little.?But it’s there.

…and that’s just the way it is.?Of course I’d say that…it’s the yellow in me.

?

PART 2: The Mind

Who Logged This Hole Wrong?

It is a question I used to hear a lot from geologists.? I still do.? The reason for it being wrong are (perceived to be) of no importance.? It’s just wrong.? They were a moron, and that’s just the way it is.? The truth of the matter is, they are not morons.? They are in fact subject to the same machinations of the mind you are.? You simply respond to them differently.? You are not immune to trickery and laziness of the brain, and perfectly capable of being the source of an entirely different set of new mistakes, don’t worry about that.? That deal was done long before you even knew it.

You might disagree with this article. ?You might not even be able to bring yourself to believe it.? But in the end, you will know it’s important.? Why do you think geologists make so many mistakes recording geology?? It’s not an easy question to answer.? Because there isn’t just one cause. There are many. And that’s the reason mistakes are not consistently the same.

Hardly a revelation of course, you already knew that.? But do you truly understand why?

Concepts that are the focus of some of this article come from several influential works.? ‘Noise’ by Daniel Kahneman, Oliver Sibony, and Cass R. Sunstein.? ‘Surrounded by Idiots’ by Thomas Erikson.? Also ‘Thinking Fast and Slow’ by Daniel Kahneman, an author who discusses System 1 and System 2, an organised structure of the brain.? He has received a Nobel prize for his work in behavioural science.

System 1 and System 2. Bringing Order to Chaos.

System 1 refers to the way your brain thinks with very little effort.? When you hold an orange at a supermarket, you might squeeze it.? You might also sniff it. ?These are familiar tasks you undertake to determine whether you like it.? They are familiar duties that perhaps you have done hundreds of times.? You know its an orange just by looking at it because it’s round and orange in colour.? You may not even be consciously thinking about why you squeezed or sniffed it.? That won’t matter. Your brain will know. ?Its firmness and smell are characteristics you look for.? With no cognitive effort, your System 1 has determined that it’s an orange and that you are thrilled with it.

Your System 2 is different.? If while observing the fruit, I asked you to calculate how many pieces of orange you would have if you halved it, then halved those pieces, then halved those pieces again, and multiplied the sum of those pieces by 27, your brain would have no option but to handball this seemingly complex problem from System 1 to System 2.? It has now switched from an effortless task to something effortful.? This is the difference between System 1 and 2. ?Your surroundings and decisions are always processed by System 1 first.? It will decide on your behalf how much effort you will require to process it. If you’re in a supermarket using System 2, you may no longer sense where other trolley pushing customers are around you, and you may no longer even be consciously hearing conversations and screaming children because System 2 is drawing on parts of your brain to solve the task at hand. Especially if it’s a hard task.? It needs more processing to do it. ?At times, ignoring everything else.

You’ve probably already engaged your System 2 since you started reading.? When I suggested cutting the orange and multiplying it by 27, you most likely engaged System 2.? You probably tried to work it out in anticipation that it might be important. ?Without thinking, that’s what your System 1 told you to do.? It was instinct. ?You probably stopped reading too. ?You stopped because for most people, reading while performing complex System 2 thinking is too hard. ?Its effortful. If you haven’t already solved it by now, you might have gone back and tried at this very moment, and because I’ve suggested that most people cannot read and make a calculation at the same time, you may already be trying that too.? ??System 1 makes decisions and prioritises for you, handballing to System 2 when it needs to.

The problem with decision making is that your brain is inherently lazy.?? Not just your brain, or mine.? But your boss’ brain too.? And their dog. ?In fact, your brain is always on the lookout for the simplest answer. ?That’s just the way it is. ??After all, engaging System 2 can make you feel uncomfortable.? It also depletes your energy.? ?Lots of things happen when you engage your System 2.? Your pupils will dilate, for one thing.? No question. ?This will happen. ?They will widen until you are done with the task. ?Afterwards, they will go back to normal.? You burn glucose faster as well the more you think.? It’s true.? After a lot of thinking, you might feel like eating a chocolate bar. ?I don’t even need to tell you why, because your System 1 has already made the connection between glucose levels and sugar in chocolate because they are familiar to you.? So, I won’t bother.? Things that are familiar to you are effortless to process.? Things that are not immediately understood are effortful.? Sometimes however, thinking can lead to decisions that are questionable or lazy.

I have a friend who I sometimes meet for coffee, and we talk about things like this all the time.? He’s a geologist.? A very good one.? So good that he’s always busy with clients. ?There just isn’t enough time in his life to fulfil work demands.? He presented at a conference recently and said to me “…well I decided to do something different this time.? I found an app online and created a 3D moving cartoon of a geological process. You wouldn’t believe how many people came to me afterwards and complimented on how much they liked it.”

He already knows about System 1 and 2.? It was most likely no surprise to him.? It may not be a surprise to you either.? It is simpler to gravitate towards the laziest means of understanding.? He already did all the work for you.? He used all his own System 2 superpowers to create a simplistic diagram, so you didn’t have to.? If you are a geologist, these types of theories are not a surprise, but they may be new. ?Relating to a cartoon diagram of a geological process seems familiar to you, but different in its own way.? It’s cartoon style message certainly resulted in less effort to process.? Its less effort…and it’s also lazy.? Your brain will appreciate that.? So much so, that you might even compliment someone else from saving you from using it.? Your System 2 that is.

Logging a Hole

In the world of geology, logging means capturing information over the length of a hole drilled into the ground.? It usually looks like a cylinder of rock called core or broken into pieces called rock chips.? A hole may be 100m long.? It might be longer.? It might be shorter.? A geologist will visually assess the entire length by recording changes in rock type, and various other characteristics and structures.? It’s important to note that it’s a lot of information.? Depending on the length and complexity, a geologist will spend a short or long amount of time logging a hole.? Most importantly, it is the first step in rapidly understanding what is beneath the surface.? It is also a first step of mine discovery.? It’s important.? Potentially, the most important step of all.

Unfortunately, a lot of it is in fact, wrong. ?It is a well-known fact that it is wrong.? It’s no secret.? Remember I said the reasons aren’t considered important.? I have never heard a geologist ask ‘why’ it is so wrong.? Only that the person who logged it was obviously a moron.? Which they are not.

Your System 1 and 2 are methodical and purposeful.? They assess your surroundings and help you to act accordingly.? ?They offer a framework from which your brain works.? Yet, they are also incredibly prone to interpretive mistakes.? External factors also influence decision making, although they are not largely discussed here. ?You know they exist but cannot perceive them as occurring.? ?The process of logging a drillhole is a perfect example in which a melting pot of competing causes sometimes contribute to (seemingly) moronic results.

I’m not going to beat around the bush with this one, but in situations where answers to questions are too difficult or you are seeking cognitive ease, your System 1 will simply rewrite a question that is similar and more familiar to you (and easier to answer).? Sometimes to unfavourable results.

For example, when a hole is logged, often the results are recorded a metre at a time.? A geologist will look at a metre of core and record its characteristics on a piece of paper or into a mobile device.? Between each metre switching from System 1 to System 2.? Pupils dilating.? Heart rate increasing with effortful thinking.? Searching for multiple defining characteristics.? Writing them down: rock type, mineralisation, alteration, and various other qualities. ?Drawing on past and present knowledge.? ?It can at times be overwhelming.? It can also be boring.? Some holes are over 100 metres long.? Whether you like it or not, your brain will be constantly evaluating for a simpler solution.? After all, you are extraordinarily lazy.? You may not perceive that.? But you are.? At times, while you believe you are answering one question, you are in fact answering a different question that you have rewritten in your mind which is more familiar to you. ?Some of the time, not even realising you’ve don’t it.

Original Question: What characteristics are in this metre of core?

Your Question: Is this metre the same as the previous metre?

Without much effort, your System 1 immediately assesses whether the previous metre looks the same as this one.? Because it’s easier for you to assess one metre by immediately assessing a metre that looks visually like the one before it. ?At a glance, this can (seemingly) be determined with a perceived level of suitable accuracy. A pattern has also been established.? The next question a geologist may ask themselves is, how many more metres in succession look like these two metres?? After a cursory glance, without calling on the need for System 2, a geologist may log 20 metres of core in an instant.? All with the same characteristics – based on a very small sample of two metres. ?Using 20 metres in this example is also perhaps understated.? It can be much more.

Your System 1 has also made another instant assessment without you even knowing it.? You have determined that if there are any variations in the core, they will be so subtle but complicated, you will not be able to accurately record a variation anyway with your level of experience.? In essence they are too complicated to log based on your knowledge of geology.

It might be reasonable to conclude that mistakes can quite often occur when geology is too boring, or too complicated.

Almost all geologists log like this.? Even the most experienced ones.? This isn’t a surprise to you though. ?It is known. If something is known, it is acted upon, surely!? But just because it is ‘known’ does not mean knowledge will be applied in context to a relevant setting.? It must be truly understood first.? You know it happens, but you will (most likely) continue to do it anyway.? Even if it means missing regolith boundaries, nuanced changes in rock type, and other characteristics detrimental to establishing the potential existence of a mine.

Visit any state-run core shed and compare the actual drill core to manually recorded logs.? Boring looking holes with seemingly little variation are under logged compared to holes with clearly defined changes in geology. ?I can hear you saying right now, ‘duh, well of course, because there is less to record in boring holes and more to record in interesting holes…moron’.? However, the same type of boring geology can exist in two different holes, but it will (more often) be logged in more detail down a hole with greater variation.? Primarily because System 1 and 2 are more readily engaged (less susceptible to being lazy) and on the lookout for variations while logging a geologically appealing hole.? ?I’m sure you know that though.? But perhaps not truly understood why.

Personality, Experience…and Bias

Experience helps when logging core. Other geologists tell me this all the time.? When I hear it, I can only deduce that the other morons who log core are just less experienced.? But rest assured, I’m promised they are simply morons, some of whom are inexperienced.

Personality matters.? The relationship between personalities affects the way our System 1 and System 2 processes and acknowledges new information.? Your system can become quickly familiar with new information, moving from System 2 to System 1 thinking once its normalised. ?System 1 is continuously asking your System 2 for acceptance and acknowledgment of new information, and the more familiar with it you become, your brain is subdued with cognitive ease.? ?When personalities clash, learning new information typically becomes cognitively more effortful, so much so, that your systems are over engaged with new information and emotion. ?In essence, it can become dense with processing.? Just like you will pause and remain mostly motionless while calculating the orange segments previously mentioned, you will block everything else out.

If you are unfamiliar with personality types, I would recommend reading this: https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/geologists-blue-thats-just-way-adrian-large/

Red and green personalities clash terribly.? Their relationship is often strained.? Reds look to push things along quickly.? They aren’t very good at communicating.? When they do, it’s short, considered, and to the point. They are also quick to blame, don’t listen, do not like to say the same thing twice (it’s terribly inefficient), and everyone else is wrong. ?Little regard to (your) emotions, and they never ask you if things are ok.? Greens are the opposite.? They care what people think.?? They care about others too. ?They are the best listeners of all colours, and the best communicators.? Very cautious not to draw attention to themselves, because they don’t want to be in the centre of controversy.

In a scenario where a green graduate geologist is logging with an experienced red geologist, cognitive strain is already high.? Processing new information, System 1 constantly addressing Systems 2, struggling to take in new information that is often under-described by reds.? I’ve already mentioned that reds don’t talk much.? Some reds can also process complex relationships with ease, while others cannot, which isn’t conveyed very well through communication.? Even the words spoken to a graduate may not truly land with any impact. The besieged graduate will also be mindful that if they don’t understand, their mentor will not appreciate being asked twice.? A green may become highly frustrated at this point, their systems overloading with cognitive effort.? The normally effortless function between System 1 and 2 can become clouded.? As system 2 is often being asked by System 1 for confirmation of familiarity, doubt redirects those messages, and those connections are not fully comprehended.? Outwardly, it would appear a green graduate is hopelessly slow, not listening, and distracted.? A bit like a person counting orange segments.? They are in-fact over-engaged.? This will be frustrating to a red.? Why is the graduate so obstinate?? Even the green graduate cannot articulate what is happening, riddled with doubt resulting in an inability to confirm and recall new information.

?The following day, a red mentor will believe their job is done, quickly moving on with their daily work schedule.? A green graduate is expected to now perform logging entirely on their own.? A red geologist just wasted a whole day teaching a graduate something they’ve known for years.? They were bogged down with a slow learner. ?They didn’t even seem to be listening.? Lost time needs to be regained.? If they get asked any more questions, it’s just more wasted time.? Something a red will be sure to make clear.

Your personality will also impact your work habits.? For example, I spoke to a geologist who mentioned he prefers to log core by having the entire hole laid out in front of him.? Primarily because it gives him a chance at a cursory glance to understand the geology of the hole in its entirety.? He is giving his system 2 a chance to recall his knowledge and make an assessment on aspects of the geology which he can look out for when logging.? It provides him with a focus based on his experience. ??But he cannot understand for the life of him why other geologists only request one tray at a time.? It does not give an overall picture of the hole, and nothing to focus on.? A geologist logging like this will only get part of the story, a section at a time.? These very different methods of logging will in turn produce very different logging errors.

A yellow is future thinking.? Innovative in nature and looks at a wider picture. They don’t like getting too bogged down with nitty gritty to start with because it gets in the way of moving forward.? A bit like a red.? They are interested in telling a story.? Not like a blue.? A blue relies heavily on facts.? A lot of facts.? So many that they can often not be persuaded to start a project unless there are enough to proceed.? They can often be perceived to be slowing things down too.? They need those facts because only once they have enough can they form a considered opinion.

Which colour lays out the entire hole first?? It’s pretty obvious.? A blue wont care if the entire hole is laid out.? They want facts first.

So, big deal.? Distinct personalities work differently. ?They not only work differently, but they will also produce different errors too.? A yellow will focus largely on big picture thinking, primarily to bring attention at a more detailed level.? Their System 2 is in fact priming their System 1 to identify specific areas of the hole, and that will be the central focus.? The issue here is that those determined areas of interest will be logged more vigorously than parts of the hole deemed to be of less interest.? The brain will be instinctively lazy in those areas, potentially missing notable characteristics.? Even an experienced geologist will fall into this habit.? It’s just the way yellows are.

A blue wants facts.? The view of a hole in its entirety doesn’t matter to a blue.? It does not provide them with solid facts.? They will forgo the holistic view, opting to log the hole piece by piece collecting all the facts first and assembling them afterwards.? Switching between System 1 and 2 as they work, with little expectation of what is coming next.? They are working on building a factual database.? The facts don’t lie, and once the hole is constructed, an assessment will be made.? The problem here is the opposite to a yellow.? There is no more or less rigorous logging over the hole, simply factual gathering of information based on their knowledge.? There is no focus, and blues (like everyone) are still subject to their Systems continuous quest for cognitive ease by finding the easiest route.

So…which personality is worse?? Who knows!? They are both morons aren’t they?? I hear it all the time, so it must be true.

There is little question you have come across errors in logging data. ?Experienced or not, you are prone to mistakes, and that’s just the way it is.? It will happen to you, and you will see it occur in the work of others.? Some of the most dramatic errors however are errors of bias.? They are surprisingly often the result of mentoring, an error passed down from another generation of geologist.? An error spanning time, but so entrenched in your System 1, it is simply not considered to be false. ?We all have thought we’ve known something for a long time, which turns out to be wrong.? This can lead to errors of bias.? For example, identifying regolith horizons.? This may have been mentored to you (seemingly correctly) at some stage early in your career.? You trusted your mentor.? They have been doing it for longer than you after all.

Your new, mentor enabled knowledge has been assessed by your systems and is confirmed.? In future, you will easily be able to identify them.? You do it often enough.? In fact, you do it a lot.? So much that you consider yourself an expert, and with almost no cognitive effort either.? However, we know you to be wrong.? You don’t know that, but the rest of us do.? You are amazing at logging the regolith (incorrectly).? So (incorrectly) consistent.? When you plot the data, it all lines up perfectly.? A comforting feeling.? The horizons match up and it looks right.? It’s impossible to tell you have logged it in the wrong place.? It’s an error of bias that’s almost impossible to detect.? Afterall, you’ve logged the rest of the geology to reflect it too. Unknowingly covering up the error.

Errors of bias are often very hard to detect.? They are also errors you are prone to committing over and over again, because you don’t believe them to be errors at all.? You believe them to be true, because your System 1 knows it to be true - but only because it doesn’t know its wrong.

Conclusion

I’ve barely scratched the surface.? I didn’t mention how a lack of information can make you jump to conclusions, or that you are more likely to make poor judgements just before lunch, or an extraordinarily high percentage of poor relationships with your colleagues affect your decision making daily.? And there’s more.? Lots more.

It’s easier talking about mistakes when referring to systems.? Understanding your systems brings order to something that seems at times, lawless.? Our minds seem to…just work, without much structure.? It turns out to be far more organised than it seems.

I’ll be honest, I’m not sure how you are processing this article.? Perhaps you believe you knew this all along.? Perhaps you don’t believe it at all.? This article, however, uncovers what behavioural scientists have known for a while, that you are susceptible to the laziness of your mind.? The way you engage your job is determined by your personality.? Your perception of what is true and what is false can result in considerable bias.? ?Afterall, everything that passes through your System 1 must be learned from somewhere (or someone).? Errors occur from a fusion of causes that are seemingly inconsistent, which makes tracking mistakes very difficult.? So difficult that at times, it’s too effortful to care, so it’s easier to label as moronic.

But those morons down the hall perhaps aren’t morons after all.? They are just mucking everything up differently to you, that’s all.

PART 3: Gut Decisions

Exploration is a Low-Validity Environment

Exploration is a low-validity environment.? There is no question of that.? At times, it is a zero-validity environment.? A low (or zero) validity environment is a workplace where outcomes are extremely difficult to predict successfully.? Despite an understanding that (most) judgements within the exploration landscape are dependent on considerable interpretation, you will regularly believe your environment is sufficiently regular (predictable) to justify placing high estimates of success based on your decisions.? Most geologists (to put it bluntly) enjoy zero success finding economic and mineable orebodies.? It will (however) not prevent the possibility of making conflated decisions, or even consider readjusting how you will make decisions in the future.? It’s simply how your brain works.? Most of you understand that your job comes with a high degree of interpretation, however, many are unable to perceive or consider the validity of your environment when it comes to making realistic decisions.? At times, making decisions of certainty as if the environment is consistently predictable.? Which it is not.

A high-validity environment consists of outcomes which are more certain.? Often based on accurate empirical values from which decisions can be made with a higher degree of certainty.? While (for example) mining is the opposite end of the value chain, tonnes and grade of ore transported are known within a certain range of accuracy, from which decisions can be made that are uniform and regular.? Exploration is different.? Decisions can be based through scientific means, but highly interpretive.

Gut-decisions are executed endlessly. ?Every day, weighing the probability of one (interpreted) fact against another.? It would surprise you how often you do it without giving it a second thought. ?Interpreting continuously.? Information that is by no means exact.? In fact, almost none of it is. ??It is an artform that is seldom appreciated.? After all, how could anyone appreciate it? It is utter madness (to almost everyone else).? A profession enveloped in uncertainty, interpretation, and gut decisions which result in discovering the commodities that are molded into creature comforts we enjoy daily.

As (skilled and knowledgeable) geologists, you are dealt these uncertainties as part of your job. You probably don’t think about it, but the way you go about making gut-decisions is governed in part by your understanding of bias. ?In low-validity environments, judgements are frequent, which means exposure to bias is high. ?We’ll get into some of those bias’s soon, but your ability to minimise the effect of bias will aid in making better gut-decisions. ?Or at least, regress your perceived judgement to a more realistic version. One thing is for certain, a gut-decision is real. ??It is as real as you or I.? Your brain is making them constantly.? But what you refer to as a gut decision, based on experience and ‘feeling right’, is an illusion. It is in fact your brain quietly assigning a probability of correctness.? It’s more boring than saying you have a sixth sense, I know.? Some of you are a lot better at assessing bias than others.? But the chances are, you don’t even know what you are doing.

For a geologist, making decisions based on interpreted information is in fact, relentless.? You are forever interpreting rocks, data, maps, structure, geology, imagery, and in some cases constructing a story including all of this interpreted information, none of which is absolutely certain.? And it’s made even less certain through casual bias associated to it.? Casual bias, is when you interpret a story with bias, in order to fit the facts. ?You are making a large number of judgements quickly based on substituting from experience or knowledge, and at times creating coherence when there isn’t any.? ?It will undoubtably seem completely plausible because it matches the narrative which is interpreted.? If it sounds correct, your brain is extremely likely to accept it.? Even when it’s probably wrong.

Your geologist mind is not always a paragon of reason.? In fact, it will (at times) avoid reason (and statistics) in order to make a story fit, characterising casual bias.? Without the ability to assess bias appropriately, you are capable of making conflated assessments all day long.? You do it already, but do you know what on earth you are doing?

Some of the concepts you are about to explore may not even make sense to you.? Being overly complicated is not the issue, but they may be so unnatural to believe (perhaps because they are so obvious), you may wonder why they are even in here.? ?It will be difficult for your mind to accept.? Even when you do, it will be a different story for you brain to fully digest it, without misinterpretation.

Big and Small Data (sets)

Your mind has a complicated relationship with statistics.? It’s willingness to believe causal relationships over statistics, is natural.? You are quick to assign casual relationships when it makes sense, even when it is statistically wrong.? Especially when confronted with small sets of data.? ?Even experts can be caught out incorrectly identifying trends in small sets of data, and for a very logical and understandable reason.? At times, that’s all there is.

However small sets of data are dangerous for a reason.? They are at times, too small to accurately determine an outcome, but are small enough to produce an outcome that is possible to misinterpret.

Imagine this experiment.? On 100 small tags, you write ‘IRGS’ and place them in a bowl.? You do the same with another 100 tags, but this time you write ‘Orogenic’ on the tags.? The two names are simply to demonstrate the folly of small data, I am not inferring anything else from this experiment (however that won’t stop you from trying to interpret one).? I ask you to continuously pull out 4 tags at a time and record the results.? While you do that, a colleague will pull out 7 tags at a time and record those results.? Each time, returning the tags to the bowl for another round.? If you both do this continuously, it is a statistical certainty, that you will experience more extreme instances of sampling by selecting only 4 tags instead of 7.? There will be more instances where you will select all ‘IRGS’ or all ‘Orogenic’ tags when 4 tags are selected, and less when your colleague choses 7 tags at a time.? In fact, the possibility of extreme results will be significantly less when using 7 tags.? The numbers and statistics involved here are not immediately important, however, the simple fact that a casual relationships can be incorrectly interpreted from small data sets is critical. ?For example, it is easy to misinterpret that there is more likely to be a relationship between the tags that are IRSG or Orogenic in nature if the tags are all one or the other (four out of four) based on a small number of tags. ?After all, you and I know there is an equal split of tags. ?It is fair to say, that large datasets are more precise than small data sets.? At the same time, small datasets can produce extreme results.? I know that you know this.? But it is a conflict of your mind to know this, and then naturally dismiss it in situations where it will need to be logically applied.? ?It may seem like a complete mystery as to why this will happen, but there is a scientific reason.

The reason is that the part of your brain which makes decisions effortlessly (your System 1) is more likely to be agreeable to a story that makes sense or compare it to something in your mind that is similar, than to try to apply statistical reasoning.? Because that would be effortful behaviour (your System 2).? And if effortful thinking can be avoided in the presence of (what seems to be) a logical narrative, your mind will (most likely) do it.? It’s that simple.

Chance and Probability

The simplest example of chance is the toss of a coin. ??If you toss a coin, you can comfortably predict the chances are that it would equally land with a head facing upwards, or a tail.? Fifty percent.? Easy.? Lets embark on another experiment. You flick a coin, and it lands heads facing upwards.? You will now toss it again, and once again it lands on heads.? For a third time, it is heads.? At this point, your brain will begin to interpret a pattern.? You have seen three heads already, and no sign of a tail.? After a fourth toss, heads again.? There will be a moment where your mind will switch to the probability (over time) of the next coin toss.? It will be natural to assume that probability of the next coin toss will lead the result to being a tail.? It surely can not be a head.? You will believe, the odds are against it.? You have switched from the understanding of chance, to believing probability will come into play.? ?However, chance will dictate, a heads is just as likely as a tail.? In fact, it’s just as likely you will toss any combination of heads and tails, hhhh, tttt, htht, hhtt, htth. ??However, there will be many occasions with interpreted geological data, you will make decisions that defy chance, and you will apply probability as a logical outcome. ?You may feel this example is something you already know, however you will have made this mistake already on countless occasions without knowing it.? There will be times where you will believe a different outcome is more probable when it is simply (and statistically), not true.

Probability is important because you use it to make decisions constantly.? Some environments are just (viciously) unpredictable, and people can learn the wrong lessons from experience.? Especially when the environment is low-validity.

Regressing to the Mean

A regression to the mean is a very simple calculation that can account for bias and regress an intuitive prediction to a more realistic outcome.

If you were to attempt your first reverse park ever, the result could vary.? Your first attempt was very poor, so poor in fact, it is hard to imagine it being worse.? And you knew it because your instructor yelled at you.? The second time you attempted it, you did better.? Not significantly, but good enough.? The following week, you attempt a reverse park again, it is almost flawless.? The instructor praises you and gives you a high five.? You are asked to perform it again to make sure you’ve mastered it, however on this occasion, you produce a terrible attempt, on par with last week.

What on earth just happened?

Your instructor has deduced some simple facts.? They seem very reasonable because the facts seem to fit the outcome.? When your instructor yelled at you during the previous week, your following attempt was better.? When you were praised on the next occasion, it was worse. ?Your instructor’s conclusion is that you are responding to fear and praise differently.? That you will concentrate more when in fear of error and execute tasks more accurately, and when you are relaxed, there is less motivation to do well producing a poor effort.? It would seem that these facts are correct, because they align nicely. ?This is a perfect example of casual bias.? What you are really experiencing is the law of regressing to the mean.? It refers to the probability of the outcome of an event.? In this case, the quality of your reverse park.? Regressing to the mean is important to understand because it is partly responsible for the magic of making gut-decisions.? ?As a geologist, you make a lot of them.? This is a fundamental principle for making good ones that are more correct according to probability.

Your variation in parking ability will have very little to do with your instructor’s attitude towards you.? Statistically speaking, it is simply more probable that when you attempt a reverse park so poorly that there is no possible way of getting it worse, and you will naturally do better.? And when you perform so perfectly, it is probable that you will be unable to replicate it again in the next attempt.? It’s that simple.? You are regressing towards a more probable outcome.? It sounds so simple, that you most likely believe this doesn’t apply to you, and you never make poor decisions based on seemingly coherent facts.

It is also important to note that it is possible to overlook facts when it negatively impacts your perception of reality.? When a cricketer scores over 100 runs in a match, it is easy to overlook the batter could have been out on a score of zero, if it wasn’t for a dropped catch. It is also easy to overlook, they were dropped on two other occasions during the same innings.? The following game, they scored over 100 again, however this time there were no opportunities for dismissal.? During the third game, they are removed after 5 runs.? A short innings.? It is extremely natural for our expectations to be linear in nature.? That one performance will follow the next in a repeat of form.

However a simple formula of SKILL + LUCK dictates this is not generally a correct way of thinking.? On the first occasion, the batter was highly lucky during the first innings, being dropped 3 times.? ??During the second innings, there were no opportunities for dismissal, and the batter performed a very skilled innings.? By the third game, the batter was caught out on the first opportunity. ?On two of the three occasions, the batter provided opportunities for dismissal very early.? Somehow, however, the batter (seemingly) ran into form.? But did they really?? Or was it perceived to occur, and they were regressing to a (batting average) more plausible result by the third game?? Only one day out of the three did the cricketer perform skillfully.? It may be difficult to see right now, but this concept is continuously exercised in geological circles in a variety of ways. Specifically, to expect results or interpretations to continue as they are, in a very linear fashion, by intentionally minimising the importance of some characteristics while focusing on others which relate to success, with little consideration given to the involvement of other factors.

Some of you may be reading this and smirking at a glaring omission that has so far not been discussed.? I haven’t missed it out, but I struggle with where to put it in this article so that it doesn’t override the importance of bias.? Largely because it seemingly sits out side the notion of bias.? Which it does not.? It is the conflation of possible success based on the likelihood that your project will receive a greater (or some) budget allocation, when positive results seem more likely.? You are far more likely to dismiss (or overlook) facts which infer negativity towards your project, and conflate the probability of success with facts that you can seemingly prove. Just as you may overlook the various dismissals a cricketer may endure to reach a century, you will dismiss some facts that impact decisions negatively, while conflating others.

Exploration is a perplexing profession.? Impacted through bias on a number of levels (statistical and personal), and driven by the need to investigate projects further that you have spent a year (or more) researching.? It is seemingly a self-perpetuating environment resulting in conflated predictions as if it were high-validity.? It is an environment that most certainly requires a regression to a (mean) more realistic probability of success.

But how on earth do you regress to the mean?

A very good friend recently became frustrated at his workplace.? He works in a shelter for troubled children, and he discussed with me the inadequate safety and support provided by his company.? ?For me to understand his problem, I asked him what the company considered a success, which he replied ‘well…I’m not sure.? They don’t have any company values, so it’s difficult to say.? But our goal as a team is to safely reunite kids back to their families.’? This seemed like a good starting point, so I then asked him, how often do you believe it happens.? He replied that the rate of success is low. ?Lower, than I would think.? Only 1 in 4 children return home.? This a good base rate to work with.? I then asked him to identify the typical reasons children were not returning home.? There were many.? Too many reasons to mention here.? But I followed up by asking what his frustrations were.? There was an insufficient presence of security at the shelter to prevent some of the incidences that lead to the children remaining or preventing them from being moved to other shelters.? I then asked him, if there was the correct amount of security, how would it help and would it increase the success rate.? We linked the most common incidences with the presence of extra security and surmised that 3 out of 4 kids would make it home with the correct security protocols.? It is a big leap from 25% success to 75% success.? It sounds like a big win.

It is also, most likely, unrealistic.? While we have seemingly used the best knowledge we can, including a base rate, and a potential estimate of an outcome, a more realistic conclusion would come from regressing to the mean of these success rates.? My friend and I are not accounting for potential biases, including the conflation of the outcome (an improvement of 50%), and unknowns that exist such as kids who present unfamiliar challenges, the actual effectiveness of added security, and the learning ability of kids to eventually circumnavigate the effectiveness of extra security.? As fantastic as the improvements initially sounded, we must come to a more realistic conclusion.

We can use regression to the mean to produce an unbiased prediction.? Start by identifying the base rate (25%) and also your intuitive prediction rate (75%).? I now would like to understand the correlation between predictions by moving the base rate towards my friends intuitive rate.? In this case the correlation is ?0.5 (the difference between 75 and 25 is 50/100).? And finally move 50% of the distance from the base rate to the predicted rate (50% of 50 is 25%).? So the more accurate prediction based on regression to the mean of children getting home safely by adding extra security is 50% (base rate + 25%), not 75% which was our predicted intuitive rate.

For a geologist in a low-validity environment, factors are many, and the range of variability of those factors is high.? On occasion, there may simply be unknown factors which will never by understood.? While this example is simple in nature, you may potentially be able to draw comparisons from a geological perspective.

You are looking for a specific ore deposit style.? The deposit can typically be identified (through well documented research) from 7 key factors.? For this example, we will assume the 7 most important factors are equally weighted.? In fact, even if we did weight them differently, statistically speaking, we will not obtain a higher degree of success.? If anything, it could be worse. ?Over the two years of surface sampling, geophysics, and drilling, you have (seemingly) defined 3 out of the 7 factors.? You are looking for a lesser known ore deposit style, however, you have linked the 3 identifiable factors with a successfully mined deposit in a different country.? In fact, the 3 factors match perfectly.? Three of the remaining factors could no be identified through lack of information, and the remaining factor could no be proven based on the data provided.

How do you feel about this?? Do you feel optimistic or pessimistic.

If you feel optimistic, you (probably) believe you work in a more highly predictable environment than you actually do.? Three matching factors seems quite reasonable after all.? You can’t really account for 3 other factors through lack of data, so they are inconsequential to you.? And the remaining factor which couldn’t be proven, probably wasn’t that important anyway.? So, 3 out of the 4 factors you could prove, you did.? And the cream on the cake is that those factors seem to match another deposit of similar style on the opposite side of the world.? It’s really quite amazing when you think about it.

Bias is (of course) at play.? It is almost instinctual to ignore statistics and reason over a plausible story.? It tends to conflate the opportunity of success and suggest that the environment in which decisions are being made, is less variable than it really is.? There is no way around it, exploration is extremely uncertain.

Even the factors linking this project to a successful mine are questionable.? The geophysical results are not conclusive because other rock types produce similar signatures, and you could only drill two thirds of the number of holes originally planned.? A small sample pool from which to draw a conclusion.

In this example, there are several considerations.? Small datasets can create extreme results.? While stories are useful to anchor understanding of deposit types, they can often unrealistically create a cohesive story (where there isn’t one) and increase the validity of your decision through casual bias.? You tend to overlook factors that negatively affect a successful outcome.? It is also quite possible that you have misinterpreted data and formed conclusions based on substituting what you already understand when an answer in unclear to you.? There are always unknowns in low-validity environments that cannot be accounted for, and because they are unknown, they are never even considered.

But it is so unnatural to regress to the mean.? To look for a base rate, a predicted rate, and corelate an estimate of probability.? There is no denying that.? In fact, you probably won’t bother, even though you should.? Surely, it’s preposterous to even think about it.? It isn’t as easy as feeling good about a story.? It’s harder (your brain instinctively knows that it is).? Even worse, you may not like the outcome.

It may seem regression to the mean usually results in subdued outcome.? But when the validity can be proved to be higher, your base and expected rates will also naturally improve.? For example, if you have success testing a method which concludes to perform positively through finding multiple deposits in a local area, it would be reasonable for your rates to potentially increase the probability of success.? ?Experience and knowledge can (at times), also make your regression too high.? It is possible to have great success in one particular location.? However that success does not always translate to success finding a similar deposit type in another country.? It is possible you will enter into projects with conflated expectations, believing your methods and understanding are transferable to any similar area.? ?This may not be the case.

In conclusion, geologists are skilled scientists with an incredibly variable job. ?Having got this far, you may believe this article does not apply to you.? Perhaps because it is too simple.? You know the difference between chance and probability after all.? Just like you also know that cricketers (sometimes) have a lucky innings, and that it’s also very difficult to do something twice in succession flawlessly.? You know that small data is dangerous, everyone around you says it too.? They always say, ‘how many sample points are there?”? You know all these things.? I know you do.

But the intricacies of your mind, can often prevent you from understanding when to perceive these biases are occurring.? Instead, you will look for connections and similarities to create a consistent story which often makes sense.? Quite often because it’s easier.? Where cohesion exists, your mind tends to believe it.? And in exploration, the most common way to describe your work is to tell a story about it by drawing on similar examples.

You work in a low-validity environment. ?There is no escaping it.? ?Predictability is low.? So low it’s almost a zero-validity environment.? However, decisions based on conflated assessments occur (astonishingly) regularly as if the environment is somewhat predictable, without any consideration of regressing to a statistically realistic outcome.

Determining base rates and predicted rates forces an initial understanding of the problem, while calculating the correlation between the two decreases the conflated range in which biases operate.

Of course, it’s not me saying this.? Scientists have been writing about statistical biases for a long time now.? However, your mind does not necessarily work like a book of statistical bias.? It does not simply know all of it and regress to realistic outcomes naturally.? You will always look for instinctual answers, relating to similar stories to your own, and make judgements.? Especially in an environment of such low-validity as exploration.

This is important.? It’s important because you know that you work is a wickedly variable scientific environment but (for various reasons) you will often make decisions like you don’t. It isn’t a reflection of you.? It’s the way your environment and your mind interact. And that’s just the way it is.

The next time you sit in a meeting and shake your head in silence while a colleague (seemingly) makes an unfathomable judgement, it might be worth considering the environment you sit in.

-----------------------------------------

While I author some articles, like always they are rooted heavily in researching certain topics.? If this topic is of interest to you, it largely sits in the realm of behavioural science.? Perhaps not typically used in conjunction with geology.? But there are many reasons it should be.? ?I would recommend the following texts:

‘Noise’ by Daniel Kahneman, Oliver Sibony, and Cass R. Sunstein.? ‘Surrounded by Idiots’ by Thomas Erikson.? Also ‘Thinking Fast and Slow’ by Daniel Kahneman

?

#Geology #Mining #Data #Drilling #System1 #System2 #Geologist# #Exploration #Behavioural #Science #Bias #Personality #Error #AI #blue #red #green #yellow #humanbehavior #people #peoplemanagement #differences #mining #geoscience #resourcedevelopment #humanfactors #human #personalitystyles #colours #resdev #data