|
Post by montrose on Feb 10, 2016 8:15:44 GMT -6
www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LazrN57iZgThe enclosed clip is about analyzing great literature, from the eyes of a street thug. You have to see this for yourself. Or keep reading HR/robb/keough posts.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Feb 10, 2016 9:29:20 GMT -6
Actually, that was very interesting. I suspect it is all an act and this "thug" is not quite what he appears to be.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by montrose on Feb 10, 2016 10:08:34 GMT -6
Fred,
Of course.
But using a different perspective can offer insight into analysis.
I have used the term "lens" which I picked up in grad school. Remember I am a knuckle dragger. The term 'lens' meant look at the same situation from different perspectives.
Your decision tree changes based on these perspectives.
This means that the theory called rational choice is invalid. Rational choice theory states that every decision maker will make IDENTICAL decisions in similar situations. Ummm The United States State Department has been following this idiotic theory since 1943.
Ends up that decision makers in specified situations make decisions that favor their own interests at that moment and as they regard future decisions. The facts, constraints, limitations, and assumptions for each decision maker vary.
Any idiot using rational choice theory wans every decision maker to use his own decision tree, with his own metrics. This also means any rational choice theorist ignores the other players decision trees and metrics.
This is relevant to LBH, but I need to see if my points in this post make sense to the rest of you.
Respectfully,
William
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Feb 10, 2016 11:10:05 GMT -6
My take is that if one assumes everyone will make the same choice then there is no need to plan let alone a PACE type plan exercise. That would be wrong in my opinion.
The statement "Ends up that decision makers in specified situations make decisions that favor their own interests at that moment and as they regard future decisions. The facts, constraints, limitations, and assumptions for each decision maker vary." if correct and I believe it is correct then it means to me that different individuals are expected to vary in decision making according to their particular facts, constraints, limitations, and assumptions.
Regards
Steve
|
|
|
Post by benteen on Feb 10, 2016 11:45:06 GMT -6
Fred, Of course. But using a different perspective can offer insight into analysis. I have used the term "lens" which I picked up in grad school. Remember I am a knuckle dragger. The term 'lens' meant look at the same situation from different perspectives. Your decision tree changes based on these perspectives. This means that the theory called rational choice is invalid. Rational choice theory states that every decision maker will make IDENTICAL decisions in similar situations. Ummm The United States State Department has been following this idiotic theory since 1943. Ends up that decision makers in specified situations make decisions that favor their own interests at that moment and as they regard future decisions. The facts, constraints, limitations, and assumptions for each decision maker vary. Any idiot using rational choice theory wans every decision maker to use his own decision tree, with his own metrics. This also means any rational choice theorist ignores the other players decision trees and metrics. This is relevant to LBH, but I need to see if my points in this post make sense to the rest of you. Respectfully, William Colonel Montrose, Let me see if I have this correct. There is a theory called rational choice which states that every decision maker will make identical decisions, this theory is invalid. As an example, I dont believe that Custer left Keogh where he was and rode off with 90 men. However, I have seen different opinions such as he was going to get hostages, do a recon, wait for Benteen etc. As I said I dont agree with any of them, but they are rational opinions but clearly not identical and may very well be predicated on their own interests or agendas. Be Well Dan
|
|
|
Post by fred on Feb 10, 2016 12:39:34 GMT -6
Most of these more recent "game-playing" theories are new to me; "rational choice" is not. In fact, I think the LBH may be the perfect example, certainly on the soldiers' side of things. It also falls into the category of "simplicity." Though not always, certainly.
In my opinion, a good tactician understands and fully accepts the theory of "rational choice," applies it to his adversary and then reacts contrary to what that adversary may believe or expect. That is why one must always know one's enemy... because that enemy may expect exactly that of you.
It is also my opinion we are seeing this precise theory exercised every single day in this election campaign.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by jodak on Feb 10, 2016 13:37:25 GMT -6
I think the key word is rational. I remember in my college finance courses they always used the caveat "rational" when discussing theory, as - "in such and such situation a "rational" investor will ..." However, investors are often governed by irrationality and fail to do what rational thought might dictate. Could the same apply here and "rational choice" be meant to imply that there is only one decision that everyone acting purely rationally would arrive at? If so, it would seem that rational is not necessarily synonymous with optimal, as in, based on the known facts, all rational people would arrive at a similar, although not necessarily the best decision. As an example, how many times have we heard a football coach evaluate another coach's failed decision by saying "Given the circumstances, I would have done the same thing", so, we have two different people with similar backgrounds and experiences arriving at the same decision, which proved to be wrong.
|
|