Conversation
Interesting indeed. Tacit knowledge and abductive reasoning tends to come out of experience and the largely unexplainable (science of hunches). Not entirely convinced it can be formalized - it’d be like attempting to formalize how to ride a bike. But I will dig deeper.
1
The field of research that specialises in this (extracting tacit knowledge and turning it into training programs) is known as 'Naturalistic Decision Making'; it was mostly funded by the military in the late 80s and 90s. This post is merely one of *many* techniques from the field!
1
1
Yes, I am aware. It is applicable in complexity, as neither deductive/inductive tend to be. The problem, from my experience, is trying to formalize in such knowledge extraction.
1
1
That's what I liked about this piece - specifically addressing the practical nature of it.
I mean this framework still feels cumbersome but it gave me ideas for setting up better training environments specifically for these "hard to teach" concepts
1
3
I'm actually a little surprised by the 'problem is with formalising such knowledge extraction' — the vast majority of the work I consume in NDM is incredibly applied. A good hack is to actually listen to the NDM Podcast: naturalisticdecisionmaking.org/podcasts/
My favourite episode is probably this one: listennotes.com/podcasts/natur; at around 24:45, Jennifer Phillips describes their work extracting IED defeat expertise from soldiers, and turning that into a computer game that's now mandatory training for soldiers deployed to AF.
1
2
That said, I'm probably misunderstanding your domain (complexity)!
1