http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/may/19/daniel-dennett-intuition-pumps-thinking-extract

Brief excerpt follows; but take the link, it’s worth reading in full

—————-excerpt————–

“… Just how charitable are you supposed to be when criticising the views of an opponent? …. uncharitable interpretation … gives you an easy target to attack.

But such easy targets are typically irrelevant to the real issues at stake and simply waste everybody’s time and patience, even if they give amusement to your supporters. The best antidote I know for this tendency to caricature one’s opponent is a list of rules promulgated many years ago by social psychologist and game theorist Anatol Rapoport.

How to compose a successful critical commentary:

1. Attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly and fairly that your target says: “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way.”

2. List any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).

3. Mention anything you have learned from your target.

4. Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.

One immediate effect of following these rules is that your targets will be a receptive audience for your criticism: you have already shown that you understand their positions as well as they do, and have demonstrated good judgment (you agree with them on some important matters and have even been persuaded by something they said). Following Rapoport’s rules is always, for me, something of a struggle …. ”

———end excerpt————–

Kevin McKinney followed up down that thread 20 May 2013 at 11:07 PM with a personal reminiscence of Rapoport’s family worth reading.

——

So that’s a long preface to a question for Policy Lass about the “Duh!” experiences we all have.

Surely there’s been some study done about how policy is managed during faster-changing events (the ship’s sinking, the avalanche has started down the hill, the water’s boiling out from underneath the failing dam, the lid on the reactor is starting to dance up and down ….). Some combination of “Women and Children First” or “De’il Take The Hindmost” or “Kill them all and God will sort them out” or “No this can’t possibly be happening!”

Is there any study done on how policy is determined under some kind of perhaps manageable pressure?

The power for the radar system and computer goes off in Air Traffic Control and all the screens go blank — I know that’s happened and the response did get studied somewhere, the ATC people suddenly had to grab pencil and paper and write down everything they remembered, while continuing to talk to the aircraft out there ….

I mean — basically — is there -any- general case for situations where humans -do- manage competently to handle an impending problem satisfactorily, worth reading up on?

Oh, please?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/05/11/lawrence-leamer-on-coal-baron-donald-blankenship-s-downfall.html

Republicans delayed action after 2010 study showed the problem; new autopsy reports in after explosion in dusty coal mine ….

I’ve been on a thread where someone rejects climate science, AIDS, the holes in the ozone layer and the Y2k problem – all in a single comment. He said he’s a mining engineer.

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2012/12/hotcopper-denier-classic-aliens-and.html

(Has anyone done a study of the “engineer’s mind” – It does seem like a disproportionate number of them are outspoken against science. Of course, the job title “engineer” can denote many different roles, not all of them requiring a degree in engineering.)