Without a crystal ball, without perfect information, you often face decisions where no matter what you choose there is a risk of being wrong. And, because of this risk, a valuable tool that you can use for making better decisions is the concept known as Type I and Type II errors.

In 1972, psychologist Amos Tversky described a way that we naturally make decisions. He called it “elimination by aspects”. It’s a method that uses a goal-directed strategy along with some simple rules, to quickly reduce options, resulting in a decision that is satisficing or quote, “good enough”.

A wicked problem refers to a problem that is both intractable and not suited for scientific solutions. It’s a type of problem that due to certain characteristics proves difficult if not impossible to solve. Wicked problems are dynamic, often cyclical or systemic, and lack critical information. With competing goals and multiple stakeholders there is no single, optimal, or correct solution. This is in contrast to “tame” problems, that tend to be well structured, linear, and have a clear goal, correct answer, or stopping point.

For over 20-years a monthly tactical decision game (TDG) was published in the Marine Corps Gazette. These games allowed readers to play along by submitting their solution. In the next issue a discussion was published, presenting the back and forth dialogue that took place as players explained their rational and why they decided to take a particular action. 

From the military, the value of TDG’s has branched out into other fields of expertise. As a form of ‘problem-based learning’, a TDG can be used in sports, business, aviation, the 1st responder community, or any profession that routinely needs to make high stakes decisions under time pressure. 

In this article, the basics of creating and playing a TDG are presented. In addition, the article suggests two ways to improve a TDG by incorporating elements of Naturalistic Decision Making (NDM). Last, you can learn more about TDG's by downloading a free copy of “Mastering Tactics - A Tactical Decisions Game Workbook”, by Maj John F. Schmitt, USMCR.

Whenever you struggle to achieve a particular outcome, especially in cases where you seem to repeat the same errors over and over, it might be worth your time to consider the 'Mindset Formula'. This looks at how the mindsets we adopt can influence how we frame a situation. This framing impacts our motivations and the goals we set, influencing the decisions we make and ultimately determines what we are able to achieve. ​

Over the holidays it is common to be invited to gatherings or events where more food than normal is available. It is also common for us to believe that we are capable decision makers, able to determine how much we will eat and when we are full. But, is it true? And what, if anything, can be done to improve the decisions you make?

In discussing these questions, I want to:

1. Share findings of a short research article on over eating.
2. Discuss a few tactics that can help address the issue. 
3. Discuss the broader implications.

A 14 to 1 kill ratio. This was the number of Russian MIG’s estimated to have been shot down for every one American F-86 Sabre during the Korean War. While this estimate fluctuated, it was still this disparity that caught the eye of officer John Boyd, a fighter pilot in the United States Air Force (USAF). Boyd wanted to answer the question, “What makes the difference between winning and losing in competitive, high stakes environments?”​

How good are you at dancing or singing? Without any sort of objective measure, a common method to try and determine our ability is by using peer comparison. We watch those around us participating in similar activities and estimate our relative performance. The only problem, as discovered by research psychologists David Dunning and Justin Kruger, is that when we use peer comparison to judge our own performance we are most often wrong, and sometimes by a significant margin.