Purpose of a Discussion group III

Always remember the assertion:
Surowiecki asserts that what happens when the decision making environment is not set up to accept the crowd, is that the benefits of individual judgments and private information are lost and that the crowd can only do as well as its smartest member, rather than perform better (as he shows is otherwise possible). Detailed case histories of such failures include:

Extreme	Description
Homogeneity	Surowiecki stresses the need for diversity within a crowd to ensure enough variance in approach, thought process, and private information.
Centralization	The Columbia shuttle disaster, which he blames on a hierarchical NASA management bureaucracy that was totally closed to the wisdom of low-level engineers.

We have all left the hierarchical organization  where unquestioning obedience is the norm. Some of us have still not left the model mentally and still recreates the mental model. Even for the OROP debate, we have this over arching mental model that is clouding our judgment of what is appropriate, what is impropriety, what is open discussion etc.

If you use an inappropriate mental model for a debate/fight, all your judgment will go wonky. ( The debate/fight just has no place if you are a serving soldier/officer  because, there you just accept what is dished out to you and you do not argue back or fight for your rights. Implicit obedience and acceptance of the decision of authority is the norm.)

Don't use a patently inappropriate mental model in this open internet discussion group where there are no "holy cows" and every idea/opinion/strategy/plan/argument  is open for discussion and are questionable irrespective of the originator of the same.

NOT having a "healthy skepticism"  for the establishment and hierarchy and an unhealthy reverence for  ideas just because it emanated form your "erstwhile seniors",  you may find yourself in an awkward corner of the discussion landscape and especially so if you have archaic ideas like "senior bashing"  for genuine questioning of any of the ideas.(If all our "seniors" are 100% right, there should be no court cases against our "seniors" decisions and at least no court wins against our "senior's" decisions!). Aren't our "seniors" human? Supreme Court judges can err in their judgment, but not our  "erstwhile seniors" ?

While it is perfectly alright to wait  longer time in the hope of growing up and out of this debilitating intellectual disorder,  please do not inflict such disorder on others and especially in  the tone and tenor  of " let me tell you how you should respond to your erstwhile seniors". While you are at liberty to critique every idea that is expressed as harshly as possible, any attempt to prescribe how we all should think will find harshly denounced.

The reason is not far to seek:

1. " the need for diversity within a crowd to ensure enough variance in approach, thought process, and private information."
2. Surowiecki asserts that what happens when"when the decision making environment is not set up to accept the crowd, is that the benefits of individual judgments and private information are lost and that the crowd can only do as well as its smartest member, rather than perform better (as he shows is otherwise possible).

We do not want the centralization in judgment "that is totally closed to the wisdom of low level engineers"  as Suroweiky put it so plainly for the benefit of those who can not grow beyond the hierarchical  environment.

Can the regular Army function with such "irreverence for the hierarchy? Obviously NOT.
But even there, an Army  like the  US army is attempting to inculcate it through their "after action reports"!

For more on AAR go here: http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/army/tc_25-20/tc25-20.pdf

If regular Army can have an  AAR after every action, to suggest that we (the retired fogies) can NOT  have an after action analysis post the TV debate on OROP  ( a movement based on political pressure and not based on Op Order and conduct of operation directed by the senior most general) is to be irrational to the point of being nit-witted and  senseless.

Extreme homogeneity and extreme centralization in thinking should be avoided like plague.

Lastly, what intrigues me is why our concept of "seniors" does not extend beyond the military in the ruling hierarchy? We can critique the President, the PM, cabinet misters, Supreme court judges including Chief Justices, HC judges, parliamentarians, the IAS big wigs (and even all the world's Generals who fought in the world wars)  but NOT our own military "erstwhile seniors"! How is that for logic?
Why? Because they are "holy cow"?

Thanks for your time and I sign off unless some one helps me  find flaws in  my logic and arguments.