WARNING:
JavaScript is turned OFF. None of the links on this concept map will
work until it is reactivated.
If you need help turning JavaScript On, click here.
This Concept Map, created with IHMC CmapTools, has information related to: points of difference, Can heuristics be rational I think In some cases rational, Each of those could apply to either technical risks or political risks action OK So this is something we should explore, there is mileage in the idea of operational values for PC and operational goals, technical and political risks should be analysed differently Rob thinks Not so much "should be" but "need to be" since they use different parts of the brain - parts that connect in ways that are still mysterious, connect technical RA to issues we agree are out of its scope I need to be careful here Other aspects such as appreciation for sense of value held by minority stakeholders I feel should not be ignored through simple ignorance but only if necessary after due consideration, Our rational frameworks need to constrain scope or the time cost to run them becomes infinite can i check I think that you want to constrain what we consider than how we consider in order to keep it manageable, Other aspects such as appreciation for sense of value held by minority stakeholders I feel should not be ignored through simple ignorance but only if necessary after due consideration can we find a terminology and is it desireable to separate things outside of the 'scope' into two piles, is H&S stakeholder value, Is this our major difference? Jane believes? We demand rational anlysis too much and at the expense of more holistic intuitions, connect technical RA to issues we agree are out of its scope MUST IT BE THAT technical and political risks should be analysed differently, Can heuristics be rational I think In some cases irrational, Not so much "should be" but "need to be" since they use different parts of the brain - parts that connect in ways that are still mysterious have 2 issues with this I think both tech and pol risks can be consided 'ratinally' and heusiritically, Our big challenge is allowing our rational and intuitieve (hueristic) aspects to embrace the part of the problem that each is suited to deal with and then to get those two aspects to work together JH 12 I think a lot of our discussion relates to how to get those 2 aspects to work together, In complex situations identifying critical nodes is essential links agreeing on best is context dependent and important, In those limited situations in which we do better to contrain our feelings and let our intellect guide our decisions/prioriteis I think Our big challenge is allowing our rational and intuitieve (hueristic) aspects to embrace the part of the problem that each is suited to deal with and then to get those two aspects to work together, what are those limited situations? question In those limited situations in which we do better to contrain our feelings and let our intellect guide our decisions/prioriteis, I usually use scope to mean things that are purposely not included in the analysis such as Helath and safety and financial risks, In those limited situations in which we do better to contrain our feelings and let our intellect guide our decisions/prioriteis I think But - understanding the value implications of damage or loss is more an intuitive issue, More often we err on the side of too little rational analysis copied from "pulling things out for Jane" cmap Is this our major difference?, Can heuristics be rational I think In most cases "bounded rational", Technical and political processes for assessing risks where Each of those could apply to either technical risks or political risks