Can media attention help us?
It is not an obligation that a new professor gives a first lecture for a public audience, but in this case I thought that it might be useful to do so to ask the attention of the general public and the media for fundamental research. In order to get attention for my lecture I choose as title of my speech “Decision problems of the Council of ministers”. This worked well because the auditorium of the University of Amsterdam was quite full, not only with family and friends.
Political arguments in the Council of ministers
On the basis of the research of Irmtraud it was not difficult to show that there were a lot of problems with the way decisions were made in the council of ministers. As an example I used the decision problem of the government concerning the reestablishing of its power in Indonesia after WW II. Taking all arguments into account, which the members of the council of ministers and the highest represent of the Dutch government in Indonesia have made, the table presented below is made. In this table “Limit the action” means no extra military action while “Extent the action” means occupation of the head quarter of the Leaders of the Republic. For both actions are indicated possible outcomes (O) the probability of the outcome (P) and the value of the outcome (V).
On the basis of the research of Irmtraud it was not difficult to show that there were a lot of problems with the way decisions were made in the council of ministers. As an example I used the decision problem of the government concerning the reestablishing of its power in Indonesia after WW II. Taking all arguments into account, which the members of the council of ministers and the highest represent of the Dutch government in Indonesia have made, the table presented below is made. In this table “Limit the action” means no extra military action while “Extent the action” means occupation of the head quarter of the Leaders of the Republic. For both actions are indicated possible outcomes (O) the probability of the outcome (P) and the value of the outcome (V).
As can be seen in the table, the information presented in the Council of Ministers is rather limited although they talk about war and peace. Remarkable is that they don´t speak about victims, only about success or opposition. We know from our study that none of the members of the council and advisors presented this relative elaborate picture of the decision problem. For example, the highest representative of the Dutch government in Indonesia presented only the consequences in Indonesia and as a consequence of that logically he suggested to extent the action. The government put the emphasis on the international aspects and therefore was against extension of the action because the international problems could only get larger.
What is the problem?
In fact they did not discuss this decision problem in its “completeness” as indicated here. The problem is that on the basis of this relatively complete information no rule exists which determines what should be done. This is a typical example of a decision problem with multiple consequences with uncertainty. Only by quantifying the probabilities and the values or the combinations of the two, the so called “Subjective Expected Utility or SEU, and adding up these SEUs one can draw proper conclusions. Other researchers like Gross-Stein and Tanter (1980) and George (1980) have come to the same conclusion that the politicians considerably simplify their problems in order to be able to draw conclusions but with omitting a lot of necessary information.
In fact they did not discuss this decision problem in its “completeness” as indicated here. The problem is that on the basis of this relatively complete information no rule exists which determines what should be done. This is a typical example of a decision problem with multiple consequences with uncertainty. Only by quantifying the probabilities and the values or the combinations of the two, the so called “Subjective Expected Utility or SEU, and adding up these SEUs one can draw proper conclusions. Other researchers like Gross-Stein and Tanter (1980) and George (1980) have come to the same conclusion that the politicians considerably simplify their problems in order to be able to draw conclusions but with omitting a lot of necessary information.
In my speech I added to these remarks a quote of Prof. Lever who said, translated by me from Dutch:
“Our brain forms the most complex and refined organ on earth with its
10 milliard nerve cells and it ingenious grouped and connected hundred
thousand kilometers long wiring in our heads, longer than the distance from
the earth to the moon. Nevertheless are the possibilities of our brain limited.”
This also holds for the decision problems that the Council of ministers have to cope with, if no basic decision aids are used.
Next I explained in my maiden speech the tools that we had developed which enable also local citizens to make proper decisions about even far more complex problems like the use of different possible energy sources given the many different consequences they have and the uncertainty involved. I will not repeat this here but refer to the earlier story about this research.
“Our brain forms the most complex and refined organ on earth with its
10 milliard nerve cells and it ingenious grouped and connected hundred
thousand kilometers long wiring in our heads, longer than the distance from
the earth to the moon. Nevertheless are the possibilities of our brain limited.”
This also holds for the decision problems that the Council of ministers have to cope with, if no basic decision aids are used.
Next I explained in my maiden speech the tools that we had developed which enable also local citizens to make proper decisions about even far more complex problems like the use of different possible energy sources given the many different consequences they have and the uncertainty involved. I will not repeat this here but refer to the earlier story about this research.
The reaction of the audience
There were indeed many people present. They all congratulated me with my speech. An earlier university professor of me confessed to Irmtraud that “he never expected Willem to get so far”. I was very pleased to see that the organizer of the BMD and former-minister De Brauw came, although he was already seriously ill, and congratulated me in a nice way. The department of the University of Amsterdam was very upset because they were not mentioned in my speech.
Most striking for me was that the next day no attention was paid to my presentation even though the topic was rather relevant for society. Only some days later a well-known specialist in international affairs, Henk Neuman, director of the Institute for peace issues (IVV) and at the moment of my speech director of the Clingendael Institute (a Dutch think tank for international relations) wrote in his weekly column about my public speech only that I did not present my speech in a gown but in a normal suit with a red tie. He concluded that there was again another left wing professor appointed at this red University. He wrote not a word about my speech itself.
Also this effort, asking attention of the media for our research, was not successful. Therefore we had to find different ways to continue our research but how?
There were indeed many people present. They all congratulated me with my speech. An earlier university professor of me confessed to Irmtraud that “he never expected Willem to get so far”. I was very pleased to see that the organizer of the BMD and former-minister De Brauw came, although he was already seriously ill, and congratulated me in a nice way. The department of the University of Amsterdam was very upset because they were not mentioned in my speech.
Most striking for me was that the next day no attention was paid to my presentation even though the topic was rather relevant for society. Only some days later a well-known specialist in international affairs, Henk Neuman, director of the Institute for peace issues (IVV) and at the moment of my speech director of the Clingendael Institute (a Dutch think tank for international relations) wrote in his weekly column about my public speech only that I did not present my speech in a gown but in a normal suit with a red tie. He concluded that there was again another left wing professor appointed at this red University. He wrote not a word about my speech itself.
Also this effort, asking attention of the media for our research, was not successful. Therefore we had to find different ways to continue our research but how?