What's your opinion on President Obama's plan to permit expanded exploration of offshore oil reserves? Within a few hours after his speech, groups issued response statements. There have been dozens of diaries about it this week. So what do you think? Others have formed their opinions. Haven't you? What's taking you so long?
I haven't yet reached an opinion on President Obama's plan. I don't yet know what the plan is, not in enough detail. I'm not thrilled with what I've heard, but I'm not ready to oppose or support it yet. Right now, I'm a firm "I don't know."
If only the Janitor Professor of Astrology would do that.
More below the fold....
Squishy Problems, Part I - The Need for Caution (Plus Kossascopes)
This week Morning Feature considers squishy problems, where the situation is complex and the information is unclear. That fits many real world problems, especially in public policy. As progressives we're about making things better - or at least not worse - and that means dealing with complex problems and incomplete, inconclusive information.
Those problems require two seemingly opposite mental states: caution and enthusiasm. As we'll discuss today, squishy problems require caution because often the best solution changes as you get new information or meet unexpected challenges. But as we'll see tomorrow, effective advocacy and leadership also require enthusiasm because people are more likely to follow those who appear confident. Juggling caution and enthusiasm is difficult, but essential for progressive activism.
Decision matrices (gooey math stuff)
Some pundits use the metaphor of chess - usually multi-dimensional - to describe President Obama's or others' decision-making. That's a bad metaphor. In game theory terms, chess is a game of complete information. Every detail about the state of the system is visible on the board, to both players and to any observer who can see the board. The options at each decision point are limited by the rules of the game, and thus good players can visualize several moves in advance. Surprises only happen if one player has seen something that the other has not. But that's not how the real world works.
Poker is a better metaphor for political decision-making. In game theory terms, poker is a game of incomplete information. Each player knows his/her own cards, the cards that are visible on the table, how much has been bet so far, and how many chips each player has left to bet. Players can also make reasoned guesses about the other players' cards based on their styles of play, the bets they've made, and other cues like body language. But even if a player has correctly guessed the opponent's hand, or a range of possible hands and the probability of each, there's still a random element: the cards left to be dealt. A good player can evaluate all of that information, make the correct decision, and still lose because the opponent holds the least likely hand - a pair of Sixes "in the hole" to go with the pair of Sixes on the table - or the last cards dealt go against the odds. Indeed, that happens often.
In game theory, a decision matrix lays out the possible options, the probabilities for success or failure for each option, and benefits or costs of each option's success or failure. In an idealized game where every option, probability, and benefit/cost is fixed and known, making good decisions is a math problem. For each option, you multiply the probability of success by the benefit of success, and the probability of failure by the cost of failure. Subtract the latter from the former, and you get each option's mathematical expectation. Then choose the option with the highest expectation, or the least risk of catastrophic failure.
That sounds complicated, but it's far simpler than real life. In real life we rarely think of every possible option, and we rarely know the exact probabilities, benefits, or costs of success or failure for the options we do consider. It's like playing poker blindfolded, where the cards are marked in Braille but some dots have worn off. Oh ... and you're not certain which kind of poker we're playing this deal.
Feeling our way (clarifying unknowns)
So in real life we often have to feel our way along, like a poker player running his/her fingers over his/her own cards looking for those Braille dots, as well as to see how many cards he/she has been dealt and whether any have been put out on the table. We make "smaller" decisions, testing the waters, seeing how others react and how confident we feel.
That's not cowardice. It's clarifying the unknowns. And many of our decisions are all about clarifying the unknowns. What options are out there? Which have been tried? How often and how well have they worked. How often and how badly have they failed? What resources are available, both mine/ours and others'? Are others willing to cooperate and share resources if we choose this solution, or any solution? Does they know something I don't? Will they share information? And how can I verify or falsify what they do share?
Keeping a reserve (just in case)
Of course we can never fill in every unknown in the decision matrix, and trying to do that leads to the "paralysis of analysis." Sooner or later, usually sooner than we'd like, we have to make a decision and go with it. But because there will still be unknowns - including some that could make a disaster of even a well-considered decision - we also need to keep some resources in reserve.
Big, bold, gutsy "all-in" bets are flashy and draw oohs and ahhs from the audience, but they're rarely the best choice. And ironically, they're less likely to be the best choice when we're skilled at solving that kind of problem. The skill advantage is often very small at any one decision point, but it adds up over many decision points. "All-in" bets leave us no more decisions to make. It succeeds ... or it fails. And if it fails, we're done.
Good poker players - and good decision-makers - are cautious, not because they're cowards but because they realize that squishy problems more often reward caution. They feel their way along, clarifying the unknowns as best they can, and keep a reserve just in case some new challenge or new information demands a change of plan.
That's sensible, but it doesn't exactly inspire enthusiasm. And as we'll see tomorrow, enthusiasm matters too....
+++++
The Janitor Professor of Astrology went all-in on this week's Kossascopes. Oh well....
Aries - There is a high probability this weekend will happen. But maybe it won't.
Taurus - No, "decision matrix" isn't about whether to take the red pill or the blue pill.
Gemini - Yes, Carrie-Anne Moss did look amazing in that leather catsuit.
Cancer - You have lots of great solutions. If only they matched your problems.
Leo - Yes, "Maybe" is an estimate of probability. But it's a bit vague.
Virgo - Sorting your decision matrix alphabetically might help. Or it might not.
Libra - The probabilities of your possibilities are good. Have a probably, possibly good weekend.
Scorpio - Feeling your way is not the best way to find your spouse at a party.
Sagittarius - Yes, clothes are a form of keeping a reserve. But that top isn't much of a reserve.
Capricorn - The universe often rewards your boldness. Then there's this coming weekend.
Aquarius - Stopping your car and getting to feel along a "Caution" sign is a bit too much caution.
Pisces - Yes, you can feel your way while driving. But your insurance company won't like it.
+++++
Happy Friday!