In the 1930s - we did not believe that the Nazis would massacre us
In the 1940s - we did not believe that the Arabs would break out in a war
In the 70s - we didn't believe that the moving forces went to war, so this time we applied the "tenth man" law
"If nine people think the same, the role of the tenth is to conduct an investigation and a complete process against the opposite option." It is the tenth person's responsibility not to agree no matter how impossible.
Applying the Tenth Man Law forces Israel to consider an alternative point of view, something we as humans generally tend to resist. If I managed to convince anything in his words, you have 9 others to test them.
People are creators looking for patterns. We look for connections everywhere. It has positive sides. It has fixing sides.
Experimenting with this law enables the application of canceling the "herd phenomenon" or the "law of the social average". The understanding that everyone says that the king has clothes, it still does not mean that the king is not naked...
Go prove it…
Ask yourself if it's real? Does Amn really work like this? Can it also be applied in business organizations? Below is an interesting quote:
If you're wondering if Israel actually does this, yes, it does indeed. The label differs, but the concept is the same: task someone with going against the grain. As this PDF from the Brookings Institution explains (page 15 of 40 in your PDF reader; h/t):
While I DO agree that there should be a 10th man in place to fight groupthink, there also exists the ethical and moral and logical use of putting her/she/they into place. It's a theory that is great in concept, and when it works well, it works great, as with the astronauts. The problem begins when the 10th Man is either not powerful enough in thought, but also not too preoccupied with the power of having such a valid role (one that must exist) that can lead us down destructive paths. Trails that branch off into problems; and where no problem to be solved, but had shifted into something much more sinister. But as Uncle Ben taught Spidey, "with great power comes responsibility". The responsibility of looking at all aspects of a problem, and TRUSTING that your 10th Man is coming to the table with the same expertise and ethical thought as the first nine participants, and as such could come up with all of the bad scenarios, but to also abide by the concept that he/she/they are working collectively towards a solution, rather than further, unrelated, problems.
I think as you suggest the tenth man must have a very specific purpose. They must not be a political or ideological creature. They only activate in the presence of total consensus as a safeguard. The tenth man's ultimate purpose is not to win the contrarian argument . . . it is only to point it out and argue the merits, if it even exists. They must never leave the realm of Devil's Advocate to become the Devil's Surrogate.
Everyone knows the Einstein quote about doing the same thing over and over expecting different results. All of us can also quote the adage about making the same mistakes twice etc.
Underestimating what humans are capable of is a grave mistake. Which is why I would expect the world to be on full alert due to the situation in Russia right now.
And referring to Israel, which was actually, at one time, the most powerful nation on earth before Israel and Judah split then scattered. The Old Testament was written there but, they ignored the prophets and leaders from their past.
The third King of Israel, Solomon, wrote often in Proverbs, which was mostly written by him, about the need for wise counsel.
And in the end he didn't follow his own advice, which led to the loss of the original state of Israel.
I too admit that I've made a lot of dumb mistakes that could have been avoided had I sought wise counsel, or even looked at situations with less emotions.
I look for number ten a lot more these days. I hope this country does too.
Well, I agree that a contrarian approach to all mass belief is healthy. Caution when dealing with changes that affect us is always good. I'm not at the moment convinced it will matter, as they are outvoted by the other 9 people in this example. It is a common truth that people with self justify and find data that fits their current world view...and that often that world view is fed to them through aligned groups and media. "The Nine" (LOTR parallels! Lol) are also human and likely to do this as well as the 10th man. It is hard to build a system to compensate for the human condition. There are other hedges to assist with this challenge. I come from the small state of NH. NH has the 3rd largest body of governement in the world. With only 1.3M people in NH, a body of 400 non paid members sit in their legislative body. They are a 50 50 state, and not much changes...which I suspect is the point. They massively limited the power of any one individual and removed paid professionals from the mix. It is hard to lobby 400 people. It is hard to extort 400 people. It is hard to gain a consensus with 400 people, unless it is deemed truly important. So, perhaps changes comes slowly in little NH. It flows and ebbs as the populations mass views ebb and flow. After all, a state or country is a big ship and doesnt turn very fast...nor should it. Rapid change creates vacuums which can be dangerous. When the big ship turns slower, the crew has time to male the changes elsewhere to make sure all stay afloat and onboard. On small scale systems a 10th man might be a good 2nd choice. Large scale, a non paid large body of representation that is not paid or lobbied has people making decisions with limited power and only the benefit of personal conviction. It also tends to be a group that is retired mostly, and has gained the wisdom and temperament we hope of watching history unfold. Yes, this means their world views lag our youth a bit...the 10th man is good. The 400th man is better perhaps.
Playing the devil's advocate to the concept of, well, devil's advocacy, is there a list of criteria that must be met in order to utilize the "out of the box" theories that come from the 10th person? Is there an ethical and moral obligation to follow when determining worst case scenarios and interjecting those principles into the act of decision making?
I have 3 different scenarios, I ponder today regarding the ramifications of playing devil's advocate.
I once read a wonderful book by the astronaut Chris Hadfield (best known by the general public for his performance of Bowie's "Space Oddity" on the INSS).
Mr. Hadfield writes about the bravery, courage, and valor of the Astronaut. He writes about it to inform us that being a good astronaut rarely consists of those noble attributes. It consists of training for every possible scenario until the decision that needs to be made in the moment can minimize any collateral damage. The scenarios can be anything from a computer going down to dealing with a multitude of various problems that arise regarding human waste. (Oops! The waste can no longer be properly disposed of.. How do we deal with this shit storm?!). The 10th man works for astronauts in this case, for the safety and integrity of the project.
It's said that one of the biggest missteps of recent history was getting involved in the conflict in Vietnam. No one took into consideration that the North Vietnamese knew the lay of their land, and were better able to move supplies from one area to the other with ease. They were also able to utilize these positions, positions that the military hadn't quite considered, to their advantage in regards to warfare. Not having that failsafe in place led in part to the death and atrocities of that conflict.
How about turning our gaze, for a moment, on the environment? I have a cousin I discuss these things with, because she is a atmospheric metrologist with The EPA and I trust her opinion. "What's happening?", I asked her. She sighs and informs me that there is no way to save the environment that we once knew; right now all efforts are being put into being a tourniquet for this bleeding wound. So could a 10th man could'veThey had those. What they DIDN'T account for was the power of propaganda, social media, and the utilization that people could just....appoint.... themselves as the louder , less educated version of the 10th man. Suddenly the scientists found themselves spending all of their time fighting off this proverbial devil's advocate. Conspiracy Theorists, who operate in an all or nothing mode, come up with a hundred more "the sky is falling!!! scenarios that reiterate the idea that "THEY" are lying to you, rather than working towards a reasonable solution. This collective of small but loud individuals who have decided they have the right, as Americans, to be the devil's advocate in things they may not know very little of which they speak.
One of the guiding theories of the 10th man, is that all ten start the decision making process with the SAME INFORMATION. This quickly turns into a conundrum, with
the shifting into the "freedom of speech" argument when questioned about their sources, information, et al. Then time is wasted trying to figure out the authority of their claims. We use a bastardized version of the theory to get the populace entangled into a pissing match with no definable end, as well to forget all of the science of the problem, never effectively dealing with climate change.
Playing the devil's advocate to the concept of, well, devil's advocacy, is there a list of criteria that must be met in order to utilize the "out of the box" theories that come from the 10th person? Is there an ethical and moral obligation to follow when determining worst case scenarios and interjecting those principles into the act of decision making?
I have 3 different scenarios, I ponder today regarding the ramifications of playing devil's advocate.
I once read a wonderful book by the astronaut Chris Hadfield (best known to the general public for his performance of Bowie's "Space Oddity" on the INSS).
Mr. Hadfield writes about the bravery, courage, and valor of the Astronaut. He writes about it to inform us that being a good astronaut rarely consists of those noble attributes. It consists of training for every possible scenario until the decision that needs to be made in the moment can minimize any collateral damage. The scenarios can be anything from a computer going down to dealing with a multitude of various problems that arise regarding human waste. (Oops! The waste can no longer be properly disposed of.. How do we deal with this shit storm?!). The 10th man works for astronauts in this case, for the safety and integrity of the project.
It's said that one of the biggest misteps of recent history was getting involved in the conflict in Veitnam. No one took into consideration that the North Vietnamese know the lay of their land, and were better able to move supplies from one area to the other with ease. They were also able to utilize these positions, positions that the military hadn't quite considered, to their advantage in regards to warfare. Not having that failsafe in place led to the death and atrocities of that conflict.
How about turning our gaze, for a moment, on the environment? I have a cousin I discuss these things with, because she is a atmospheric metrologist with The EPA and I trust her opinion. "What's happening?", I ask her. She sighs and informs me that there is no way to save the environment that we once knew; right now all efforts are being put into being a tourniquet for this bleeding wound. So could a 10th man could've helped? They had one of those. What they DIDN'T account for was the power of propaganda, social media, and the utilization that people could just....appoint.... themselves as the louder version of the 10th man on behalf of certain believers. Suddenly the scientists found themselves spending all of their time fighting off this proverbial 10th man. Conspiracy Theorists, who operate in an all or nothing mode, come up with a hundred more "the sky is falling!!! Scenarios that reiterate the idea that "They" are lying to you, rather than working towards a reasonable solution. This collective of a small but loud individuals who have decided they have the right, as Americans, to be the devil's advocate. One of the guiding theories of the 10th man, is that all ten start the decision making process with the SAME INFORMATION. This quickly turns into a conundrum, with
the outrageous shifting into the "freedom of speech" argument when questioned about their sources, information, et al. Then time is wasted trying to figure out the authority of their claims. We use a bastardized version of the theory to get the populace entangled into a pissing match with no definable end. This collective of small but loud individuals who have decided they have the right, as Americans, to be the devil's advocate in things they may not know very little. One of the guiding theories of the 10th man, is that all ten start the decision making process with the SAME INFORMATION. This quickly turns into a conundrum, with
the shifting into the "freedom of speech" argument when questioned about their sources, information, et al. Then time is wasted trying to figure out the authority of their claims. We use a bastardized version of the theory to get the populace entangled into a pissing match with no definable end, as well to forget all of the science of the problem, never effectively dealing with climate change.
While I DO agree that there should be a 10th man in place to fight groupthink, there also exists the ethical and moral and logical use of putting her/she/they into place. It's a theory that is great in concept, and when it works well, it works great, as with the astronauts. The problem begins when the 10th Man is either not powerful enough in thought, but also not too preoccupied with the power of having such a valid role (one that must exist) that can lead us down destructive paths. Trails that branch off into problems; and where no problem to be solved, but had shifted into something much more sinister. But as Uncle Ben taught Spidey, "with great power comes responsibility". The responsibility of looking at all aspects of a problem, and TRUSTING that your 10th Man is coming to the table with the same expertise and ethical thought as the first nine participants, and as such could come up with all of the bad scenarios, but to also abide by the concept that he/she/they are working collectively towards a solution, rather than further, unrelated, problems.
There was nothing. Then the man explains:
In the 1930s - we did not believe that the Nazis would massacre us
In the 1940s - we did not believe that the Arabs would break out in a war
In the 70s - we didn't believe that the moving forces went to war, so this time we applied the "tenth man" law
"If nine people think the same, the role of the tenth is to conduct an investigation and a complete process against the opposite option." It is the tenth person's responsibility not to agree no matter how impossible.
Applying the Tenth Man Law forces Israel to consider an alternative point of view, something we as humans generally tend to resist. If I managed to convince anything in his words, you have 9 others to test them.
People are creators looking for patterns. We look for connections everywhere. It has positive sides. It has fixing sides.
Experimenting with this law enables the application of canceling the "herd phenomenon" or the "law of the social average". The understanding that everyone says that the king has clothes, it still does not mean that the king is not naked...
Go prove it…
Ask yourself if it's real? Does Amn really work like this? Can it also be applied in business organizations? Below is an interesting quote:
If you're wondering if Israel actually does this, yes, it does indeed. The label differs, but the concept is the same: task someone with going against the grain. As this PDF from the Brookings Institution explains (page 15 of 40 in your PDF reader; h/t):
While I DO agree that there should be a 10th man in place to fight groupthink, there also exists the ethical and moral and logical use of putting her/she/they into place. It's a theory that is great in concept, and when it works well, it works great, as with the astronauts. The problem begins when the 10th Man is either not powerful enough in thought, but also not too preoccupied with the power of having such a valid role (one that must exist) that can lead us down destructive paths. Trails that branch off into problems; and where no problem to be solved, but had shifted into something much more sinister. But as Uncle Ben taught Spidey, "with great power comes responsibility". The responsibility of looking at all aspects of a problem, and TRUSTING that your 10th Man is coming to the table with the same expertise and ethical thought as the first nine participants, and as such could come up with all of the bad scenarios, but to also abide by the concept that he/she/they are working collectively towards a solution, rather than further, unrelated, problems.
I think as you suggest the tenth man must have a very specific purpose. They must not be a political or ideological creature. They only activate in the presence of total consensus as a safeguard. The tenth man's ultimate purpose is not to win the contrarian argument . . . it is only to point it out and argue the merits, if it even exists. They must never leave the realm of Devil's Advocate to become the Devil's Surrogate.
Fair enough!
Everyone knows the Einstein quote about doing the same thing over and over expecting different results. All of us can also quote the adage about making the same mistakes twice etc.
Underestimating what humans are capable of is a grave mistake. Which is why I would expect the world to be on full alert due to the situation in Russia right now.
And referring to Israel, which was actually, at one time, the most powerful nation on earth before Israel and Judah split then scattered. The Old Testament was written there but, they ignored the prophets and leaders from their past.
The third King of Israel, Solomon, wrote often in Proverbs, which was mostly written by him, about the need for wise counsel.
And in the end he didn't follow his own advice, which led to the loss of the original state of Israel.
I too admit that I've made a lot of dumb mistakes that could have been avoided had I sought wise counsel, or even looked at situations with less emotions.
I look for number ten a lot more these days. I hope this country does too.
I appreciate the historical reference to Israel and the Old Testament, a vein of the story and topic I did not mine.
Well, I agree that a contrarian approach to all mass belief is healthy. Caution when dealing with changes that affect us is always good. I'm not at the moment convinced it will matter, as they are outvoted by the other 9 people in this example. It is a common truth that people with self justify and find data that fits their current world view...and that often that world view is fed to them through aligned groups and media. "The Nine" (LOTR parallels! Lol) are also human and likely to do this as well as the 10th man. It is hard to build a system to compensate for the human condition. There are other hedges to assist with this challenge. I come from the small state of NH. NH has the 3rd largest body of governement in the world. With only 1.3M people in NH, a body of 400 non paid members sit in their legislative body. They are a 50 50 state, and not much changes...which I suspect is the point. They massively limited the power of any one individual and removed paid professionals from the mix. It is hard to lobby 400 people. It is hard to extort 400 people. It is hard to gain a consensus with 400 people, unless it is deemed truly important. So, perhaps changes comes slowly in little NH. It flows and ebbs as the populations mass views ebb and flow. After all, a state or country is a big ship and doesnt turn very fast...nor should it. Rapid change creates vacuums which can be dangerous. When the big ship turns slower, the crew has time to male the changes elsewhere to make sure all stay afloat and onboard. On small scale systems a 10th man might be a good 2nd choice. Large scale, a non paid large body of representation that is not paid or lobbied has people making decisions with limited power and only the benefit of personal conviction. It also tends to be a group that is retired mostly, and has gained the wisdom and temperament we hope of watching history unfold. Yes, this means their world views lag our youth a bit...the 10th man is good. The 400th man is better perhaps.
Interesting topic, as always!
Playing the devil's advocate to the concept of, well, devil's advocacy, is there a list of criteria that must be met in order to utilize the "out of the box" theories that come from the 10th person? Is there an ethical and moral obligation to follow when determining worst case scenarios and interjecting those principles into the act of decision making?
I have 3 different scenarios, I ponder today regarding the ramifications of playing devil's advocate.
I once read a wonderful book by the astronaut Chris Hadfield (best known by the general public for his performance of Bowie's "Space Oddity" on the INSS).
Mr. Hadfield writes about the bravery, courage, and valor of the Astronaut. He writes about it to inform us that being a good astronaut rarely consists of those noble attributes. It consists of training for every possible scenario until the decision that needs to be made in the moment can minimize any collateral damage. The scenarios can be anything from a computer going down to dealing with a multitude of various problems that arise regarding human waste. (Oops! The waste can no longer be properly disposed of.. How do we deal with this shit storm?!). The 10th man works for astronauts in this case, for the safety and integrity of the project.
It's said that one of the biggest missteps of recent history was getting involved in the conflict in Vietnam. No one took into consideration that the North Vietnamese knew the lay of their land, and were better able to move supplies from one area to the other with ease. They were also able to utilize these positions, positions that the military hadn't quite considered, to their advantage in regards to warfare. Not having that failsafe in place led in part to the death and atrocities of that conflict.
How about turning our gaze, for a moment, on the environment? I have a cousin I discuss these things with, because she is a atmospheric metrologist with The EPA and I trust her opinion. "What's happening?", I asked her. She sighs and informs me that there is no way to save the environment that we once knew; right now all efforts are being put into being a tourniquet for this bleeding wound. So could a 10th man could'veThey had those. What they DIDN'T account for was the power of propaganda, social media, and the utilization that people could just....appoint.... themselves as the louder , less educated version of the 10th man. Suddenly the scientists found themselves spending all of their time fighting off this proverbial devil's advocate. Conspiracy Theorists, who operate in an all or nothing mode, come up with a hundred more "the sky is falling!!! scenarios that reiterate the idea that "THEY" are lying to you, rather than working towards a reasonable solution. This collective of small but loud individuals who have decided they have the right, as Americans, to be the devil's advocate in things they may not know very little of which they speak.
One of the guiding theories of the 10th man, is that all ten start the decision making process with the SAME INFORMATION. This quickly turns into a conundrum, with
the shifting into the "freedom of speech" argument when questioned about their sources, information, et al. Then time is wasted trying to figure out the authority of their claims. We use a bastardized version of the theory to get the populace entangled into a pissing match with no definable end, as well to forget all of the science of the problem, never effectively dealing with climate change.
Interesting topic, as always!
Playing the devil's advocate to the concept of, well, devil's advocacy, is there a list of criteria that must be met in order to utilize the "out of the box" theories that come from the 10th person? Is there an ethical and moral obligation to follow when determining worst case scenarios and interjecting those principles into the act of decision making?
I have 3 different scenarios, I ponder today regarding the ramifications of playing devil's advocate.
I once read a wonderful book by the astronaut Chris Hadfield (best known to the general public for his performance of Bowie's "Space Oddity" on the INSS).
Mr. Hadfield writes about the bravery, courage, and valor of the Astronaut. He writes about it to inform us that being a good astronaut rarely consists of those noble attributes. It consists of training for every possible scenario until the decision that needs to be made in the moment can minimize any collateral damage. The scenarios can be anything from a computer going down to dealing with a multitude of various problems that arise regarding human waste. (Oops! The waste can no longer be properly disposed of.. How do we deal with this shit storm?!). The 10th man works for astronauts in this case, for the safety and integrity of the project.
It's said that one of the biggest misteps of recent history was getting involved in the conflict in Veitnam. No one took into consideration that the North Vietnamese know the lay of their land, and were better able to move supplies from one area to the other with ease. They were also able to utilize these positions, positions that the military hadn't quite considered, to their advantage in regards to warfare. Not having that failsafe in place led to the death and atrocities of that conflict.
How about turning our gaze, for a moment, on the environment? I have a cousin I discuss these things with, because she is a atmospheric metrologist with The EPA and I trust her opinion. "What's happening?", I ask her. She sighs and informs me that there is no way to save the environment that we once knew; right now all efforts are being put into being a tourniquet for this bleeding wound. So could a 10th man could've helped? They had one of those. What they DIDN'T account for was the power of propaganda, social media, and the utilization that people could just....appoint.... themselves as the louder version of the 10th man on behalf of certain believers. Suddenly the scientists found themselves spending all of their time fighting off this proverbial 10th man. Conspiracy Theorists, who operate in an all or nothing mode, come up with a hundred more "the sky is falling!!! Scenarios that reiterate the idea that "They" are lying to you, rather than working towards a reasonable solution. This collective of a small but loud individuals who have decided they have the right, as Americans, to be the devil's advocate. One of the guiding theories of the 10th man, is that all ten start the decision making process with the SAME INFORMATION. This quickly turns into a conundrum, with
the outrageous shifting into the "freedom of speech" argument when questioned about their sources, information, et al. Then time is wasted trying to figure out the authority of their claims. We use a bastardized version of the theory to get the populace entangled into a pissing match with no definable end. This collective of small but loud individuals who have decided they have the right, as Americans, to be the devil's advocate in things they may not know very little. One of the guiding theories of the 10th man, is that all ten start the decision making process with the SAME INFORMATION. This quickly turns into a conundrum, with
the shifting into the "freedom of speech" argument when questioned about their sources, information, et al. Then time is wasted trying to figure out the authority of their claims. We use a bastardized version of the theory to get the populace entangled into a pissing match with no definable end, as well to forget all of the science of the problem, never effectively dealing with climate change.
While I DO agree that there should be a 10th man in place to fight groupthink, there also exists the ethical and moral and logical use of putting her/she/they into place. It's a theory that is great in concept, and when it works well, it works great, as with the astronauts. The problem begins when the 10th Man is either not powerful enough in thought, but also not too preoccupied with the power of having such a valid role (one that must exist) that can lead us down destructive paths. Trails that branch off into problems; and where no problem to be solved, but had shifted into something much more sinister. But as Uncle Ben taught Spidey, "with great power comes responsibility". The responsibility of looking at all aspects of a problem, and TRUSTING that your 10th Man is coming to the table with the same expertise and ethical thought as the first nine participants, and as such could come up with all of the bad scenarios, but to also abide by the concept that he/she/they are working collectively towards a solution, rather than further, unrelated, problems.