HankT
State Researcher
imported post
CA_Libertarian wrote:
CA_Libertarian wrote:
Sure. Reasonable assumptions. Make it interesting...
CA_Libertarian wrote:
Very interesting. What're the other parts of the situational information?
And don't you have to be trained to pick up the microexpressions? And if you were trained, what kind of insight would you get if you picked up, say, "fear?" Or anger? If the guy pointing a gun at Caroline's head is in "fear," or is angry, what does that do for you in handling the tactical situation? Is there a microexpression that would tell you that, say, the guy won't shoot? Or definitely will?
CA_Libertarian wrote:
Scenarios and scenario analysis aren't about "correct." They are not quizzes or exams whichare measurement methods. Scenariosare generative in nature. Theymake people think. Especially aboutthingsthey wouldn't ordinarily think about if they did not do the scenario exercise. Lots of insight cancome from scenarios. Often, if designed well, they are uncomfortable to participate in.
If, after doinga scenario, youhave not changed your mind about something you believed before, it probably wasn't donewell.
CA_Libertarian wrote:
Good assumption for this scenario. (Although it is inconsistent with other arguments that are quite popular in the OC community).I assume the guy hasn't noticed I'm armed (or he probably would have already shot me)
CA_Libertarian wrote:
I assume the guy is distracted/looking around at the other guests, I assume the guy has his back to something safe to shoot in the direction of (like a brick wall), etc.
Sure. Reasonable assumptions. Make it interesting...
CA_Libertarian wrote:
The brain is an amazing at collecting and analyzing situational information subconsciously. The choice to shoot would be based on this instinctual analysis. When seconds count, it's the best tool you have.
Part of this "situational information" includes "microexpressions." I read an article on this once in Reader's Digest where they did studies of facial expressions people exhibit for fractions of a second before masking them to hide fear, anger, etc. If you're looking, your brain will pick up on this, and will give you some insight into the person's state of mind and intentions.
Very interesting. What're the other parts of the situational information?
And don't you have to be trained to pick up the microexpressions? And if you were trained, what kind of insight would you get if you picked up, say, "fear?" Or anger? If the guy pointing a gun at Caroline's head is in "fear," or is angry, what does that do for you in handling the tactical situation? Is there a microexpression that would tell you that, say, the guy won't shoot? Or definitely will?
CA_Libertarian wrote:
So, with these assumptions and processing occurring, I would say any of your poll "answers" could be correct, depending on the variables not defined in your OP.
Scenarios and scenario analysis aren't about "correct." They are not quizzes or exams whichare measurement methods. Scenariosare generative in nature. Theymake people think. Especially aboutthingsthey wouldn't ordinarily think about if they did not do the scenario exercise. Lots of insight cancome from scenarios. Often, if designed well, they are uncomfortable to participate in.
If, after doinga scenario, youhave not changed your mind about something you believed before, it probably wasn't donewell.