Idle thought: the decision training espoused by Superforecasting is better suited for investors; the decision training used by the Marines is better suited for operators.
Conversation
Why might I think this? Current suspicion: “you need a different kind of decision making training if you can take action to generate information.”
Superforecasters and investors often can’t take action when making a prediction/investing. Marines and operators can.
Replying to
Example of Marine style tactical decision games:
Quote Tweet
Oh, this is great: @chrizbot takes the scenario training approach of the US Marines and applies it to product management training medium.com/agileinsider/d
Show this thread
2
3
Another:
Quote Tweet
There is an interesting sub-point here, which is “how do you train lower level commanders to improvise?”
Schmitt talks about how the adoption of Warfighting led him to develop Tactical Decision Games as a training methodology:
Show this thread
1:29
489 views
1
4
From Warfighting, two passages that outline the shape of decision making (and decision training) in war:
1
1
5
Replying to
thought... I wouldn't be surprised if the military does both: one focused on superforecaster-like forecasting, and one focused on decision making in tight loops under conditions of uncertainty
1
1
Replying to
Hmm! Ok, fair point — the Superforecasting project *was* originally intended for intelligence analysts, after all.
Replying to
This is 🤯 one application of this maybe that during the operational planning process one needs to ask the questions: “what information is needed?” What actions are we planning so we can get the information?” Which is different than “what do we need to do to achieve the results?”
1
Replying to
Interesting
I’m reading this with the causation and effectuation angle
Causal thinkers believe that “If I can predict the future, I can control it.”
Effectual thinkers believe that “If I can control the future, I do not need to predict it.”
Of cse never black & white
1
1