Decision Duels

(Crosspost from my more casual blog.) Decision duels are a feature of David’s Sling, a novel by Marc Stiegler about technology, nuclear suppression and human rationality. They’re used as an organizational means of decision-making, not dissimilar to the double crux—they’re not quite debates or policy meetings or games, but they have elements of all three. This is a description of them as they appear in the novel, so that any useful marrow can be extracted.

• Duels are best at resolving problems that seem political but are actually engineering problems.

• This means that there are, in principle, crisp answers separate from the human element.

• Good for: whether a budget is appropriate, which programs to fund, whether to continue a project or stop it, which avenues of research will be fruitful.

• Bad for: who deserves a promotion or a leadership position, what an organization’s public-facing message should be, which solutions are more ethical.

• Duels are always between two alternatives, which are stated outright.

• Both sides are displayed on a screen for an audience, with each side taking up nearly half.

• A grey section is left to run down the middle for third suggestions.

• Duels that settle on third suggestions tend to produce the best policies.

• In some duels third suggestions are prohibited, especially when the question is vulnerable to being redefined or slipped out of.

• At the top of this screen are the words "LET ACCURACY TRIUMPH OVER VICTORY"

• Winners are not recorded at the end of a decision duel, but whenever possible both sides are judged based on whether decision that results was the *correct *one.

• Each alternative has a representative, called a slant moderator or, informally, a decision duelist.

• Each may receive suggestions from the audience, and decides whether to use them.

• Duelists chiefly create text boxes of various colors and draw lines between them.

• There are no turns taken, and each duelist acts at their own pace.

• At the start both sides are written as statements, and under these statements are a list of assumptions, placed in amber text boxes.

• Assumptions can, and in many cases should, be multi-part.

• Zooming in on these amber boxes shows an explanation for why the assumption is needed.

• Most of the duel consists of the duelists each challenging these assumptions.

• Under the assumptions are the opening arguments.

• Any overly popular, bumper-stickerish slogans are usually listed first, even when the decision duelists don’t agree with them, just to get them out of the way.

• Arguments can be colored in by the opposing side.

• Purple means an argument exhibits a clear, labelable fallacy.

• Red means the argument has another kind of flaw somewhere.

• Zooming in on a red text box shows the opposing side’s explanation of the flaw.

• Other colors are possible but unlisted.

• Arguments are typically written and then reformulated after the opposite side’s criticism.

• Duelists can invoke probabilities, spreadsheets of calculations, multiple iterations on an idea, and any other means of reaching as correct a solution as possible.

• The duel continues until one side concedes.