Good to hear from you!

On the satisficing behaviour working in stable environments, it’s really because there is no pressure to develop other behaviour. In military (or political, etc.) terms, yes, we need it when the sierra is flying, but it is also really, REALLY hard to do it then.

Let’s take a COIN example: in the early days of the Iraq war, a lot of troops appeared to think that the fight war enemy-centric. You know, kill the enemy regardless – “war is war”. That was a satisficing behaviour – reinforced by the institutions (like they usually are). It’s precisely when we get in to these situations – when things go to hell in a handbasket – that we need to get out of satisficing behaviour.

Your absolutely right that its when we have time to think that we should think. The paradox is that its when we don’t have time to think that we HAVE to think. Personally, I think the ability to think when all hell is breaking loose is one of the true indicators of a leader; sort of along the lines of “if you can keep you head while those around you….”.

Cheers,

Marc

Every once in a while my blog dashboard tells me someone has looked at the insta-Czech translation of my blog. I like the access but wonder what kind of sense it’s making, especially since so many of my points of reference are quite local. Remember that great Star Trek-Next Generation episode where the universal translator ‘fails’ because the target language is composed entirely of historical and literary analogies?

The soldier and the little girl – I can almost understand him not thinking to sit down, take her hand, and murmur soothingly (maybe take off a glove there buddy, perhaps engage the safety on the weapon), but to use his epic fail of practical empathy as evidence that battlefield translation is needed just cracks me up. I mean, we’ve got a massive literature revolving around grief and consolation, the universal conclusion of which is that mere words are inadequate, but if only he’d known how to say “I’m sorry little girl” in Arabic…. Your point about exteriorization is right on, needless to say.

Hilarious point about the Weber dude. Of course as you know there’s a lot of fretting about even the thick Weber translations; maybe translating Herrschaft as domination wasn’t so hot, etc. I’ve always found that even though there are better and worse translations, if you have enough context and density of engagement with a meaning system it’s pretty hard for this or that misformulation to distort the interpretation too much. My point is that translations are easy to scapegoat for just plain bad reading.

I am perplexed about one point you make – I’m not sure why you think satisficing behaviors fit stable environments the best. It’s precisely when things are in flux that we need rough-and-ready, flexible coping devices. You don’t get into the advanced thermodynamics of plate tectonics when the volcano is erupting and lava’s rushing toward you, nor is nuanced ethnography your first concern when the screaming blue-faced guy is trying to ram something pointy into your head. It’s when things get more stable that we have the luxury of a more comprehensive engagement, isn’t it?