Conversation

I've only skimmed the NDM literature so far, so maybe you are further along and know this. Which papers in the lit cover whether using RPD etc. results in *better* decisions than other approaches?
1
1
Replying to
Hmm, I don't think this is the right framing. It's more like "what is expert intuition? — Ok, expert intuition *is* RPD." So you can't really pick per se — you either have expertise or you don't. RPD just describes what goes on in your head when you use your expertise.
1
Replying to
Fantastic, exactly what I was looking for, thank you! I think this quote encapsulates my issue in a way. I guess I'm more in Kahnemann's camp and somewhat impatient with the "expert adulation" of NDM.
Image
1
1
Replying to and
What particularly irks me is the insistence (as I perceive it) that expert judgement is "the way" because it's "used in the field!" Dick Heuer's "Psychology of Intelligence Analysis" is a cornerstone of decision making in a very high-stakes field for a reason.
1
1
Replying to
A reframing that might be more palatable to you is ‘RPD is how our brains work, and many of the heuristics that lead to bad judgments in the HCB tradition of decision making are simply side effects of the way our cognition works.’
1
1
Replying to and
RPD is, after all, made up of the availability and simulation heuristic. What the NDM approach gives us is an alternative model of what to do with those heuristics: that is, to embrace and train them, instead of fight against them (which is what the HCB tradition espouses).
1
1
Replying to
I really like your thinking and framing, makes sense. Maybe I need to rename the frameworks internally to "Battlefield Decision Making" and "Intelligence Decision Making" :D
1