4 vijanden van goede beslissingen (en hoe ze te verslaan)

Besluitvorming in bedrijven is vaak gebrekkig met als gevolg dat er suboptimale tot simpelweg slechte beslissingen genomen worden. Vele onderzoeken over fusies en overnames – besluiten met enorme belangen – tonen aan dat zo’n 75 procent geen waarde creëert voor de aandeelhouders. Wat zijn de belangrijkste cognitieve en psychologische valkuilen die leiden tot slechte beslissingen en hoe vermijd je die? In hun boek ‘Decisive’ beschrijven auteurs Chip en Dan Heath het proces dat managers zouden moeten volgen om de vier grootste vijanden van goede beslissingen te vermijden.

1. Te smal blikveld
De beroemde psycholoog Daniel Kahneman (auteur ‘Thinking, Fast and Slow’ en grondlegger van de gedragseconomie) stelde dat we vaak veel te snel naar conclusies springen omdat we te veel gewicht toekennen aan de informatie die vlak voor ons ligt, en we de informatie die buiten ons blikveld ligt niet meenemen. Deze cognitieve illusie staat bekend als ‘narrow framing’ en vormt de eerste grote moeilijkheid in besluitvorming. Hetgene dat in de schijnwerper staat zal zelden alles zijn dat nodig is voor de best mogelijke beslissing. Een voorbeeld van zo’n smal blikveld is de vraag stellen; ‘moet ik Peter wel of niet ontslaan?’ Hiermee zet de vraagsteller één optie in de schijnwerper ten koste van alle mogelijke alternatieven.

Hoe te vermijden?
De eerste stap is om het smalle blikveld te herkennen. ‘Wel of niet’ keuzes zijn zelden een goed idee. Paul Nutt van de Ohio State University deed in 1993 een analyse van 168 beslissingen en ontdekte dat slechts 29 procent van de teams meerdere alternatieven onderzocht. Hij ontdekte ook dat ‘wel of niet’ beslissingen op lange termijn in 52 procent van de gevallen faalde. Bij beslissingen waarbij twee of meer alternatieven werden gewogen was dat 32 procent. Nutt stelt dat dit komt doordat wanneer een manager een enkele optie najaagt, hij/zij vooral energie steekt in het laten slagen van dit ene idee in plaats van te zoeken naar betere manieren om het te doen. Opties toevoegen (legitieme opties, geen schijnopties) leiden tot betere en snellere beslissingen. Een goede manier om nieuwe opties te genereren is om iemand te zoeken die al eens met het probleem te maken heeft gehad…

Lees verder op FM.nl

Advertenties

The Sopranos Ending Explained: Tony is not Definitively Dead, but his Future Looks Bleak

Read also: The Sopranos Revisited – 200 Memorable Moments

10 June 2007, 10 years ago today, the legendary finale of the legendary HBO-show ‘The Sopranos’ was aired. It became perhaps the most discussed moment in television-history…

I remember the day after when everybody was confused as hell about it (or just pissed off). Creator David Chase said he hadn’t intended to be coy, he just wanted to entertain his audience. That may be so, but what was the audience to make of the ambiguous ending in which protagonist Tony Soprano – after having his arch enemy Phil Leotardo killed – visits an American diner with his family to have onion rings? A suspicious looking man sits at the bar and goes to the bathroom later. And Tony tells his wife Carmella that one of his crew members, Carlo, will testify against him. That’s basically it. Then the screen suddenly goes black while on the jukebox, the song ‘Don’t Stop Believing’ by Journey is still playing. At ‘don’t stop’, it stops.

For those who need a reminder, it’s right here:

One theory that quickly appeared was that the suspicious man shot Tony when exiting the bathroom and that the moment this happened, the camera switched to Tony’s point of view, indicating his death with the black screen. Others claimed that the ‘hints’ for Tony’s suggested death didn’t mean anything, and that the show ‘just ended’.

These two opinions lead to furious debate on the International Movie Database that went on for nearly ten years, until IMDb shut down the message board early 2017.

In this article I will explain what really happened, what David Chase meant (and didn’t mean), and how we are to interpret certain clues. But in advance: both of the theories stated above are wrong. Chase has said so himself. Obviously there were clues for Tony’s death – it’s ridiculous and insulting to Chase to state the show simply ended. But he didn’t intend for the viewer to interpret these clues as Tony’s definitive death either… Here’s why…

‘There are only two endings for a high profile guy like me, dead or in the can, big percent of the time.’
– Tony Soprano in ‘For All Debts Public and Private’ (SE4, EP1)

In retrospect, this quote already told us how the show would end. Except it wasn’t one or the other. Rather, Tony Soprano got both. The New Jersey mob boss ended up like physicist Schrödinger’s cat, both dead and alive at the same time.

Why did he get both endings? Well, there are certainly clues that a hitman is after Tony in the final scene. I won’t go into great detail about this, but the most important clues are several instances of foreshadowing during the final season, most notably his brother-in-law Bobby Bacala telling Tony: ‘you probably don’t even hear it when it happens’ and New York mobster Gerry Torciano being murdered in a restaurant and Silvio not realizing it till blood splattered in his face. The way the final scene is shot – moving in and out Tony’s point of view – could mean a bullet entered his brain the moment the screen goes black.

But murder is certainly not the only option, as there is also the threat of indictment. as one of Tony’s associates, Carlo, has flipped and is about to spill his guts to the FBI. That means that besides the option of Tony getting whacked, he could be indicted. I refer once again to the quote above.

Dead or in the can… Wasn’t it Carmela who – earlier during the final season – feared these two options like a piano hanging over their heads? It was also Carmela who asked Tony in the episode ‘Sopranos Home Movies’ (during the opening scène of the final season, that should not be overlooked): ‘Is this it?’, referring to the FBI ringing the doorbell.

David Chase has said about the ending: ‘There was nothing definite about what happened, but there was a clean trend on view – a definite sense of what Tony and Carmela’s future looks like. Whether it happened that night or some other night doesn’t really matter.’

It is interesting that Chase uses the word ‘it’. This could refer to Tony’s death, but it might as well be referring to Tony’s arrest. Both options would have a significant impact on Tony and Carmela’s (lack of) future. That is the explanation for the ending right there. There is a sense of impending doom, but by the time the screen goes black, nothing has happened yet, unless a bullet has entered Tony’s brain at that point, ending his life immediately. And there are certainly reasons to think that, but it remains only one out of several bleak options for Tony’s future.

The ending is just simply showing us how Tony’s life is at this point. What has the show been about in the first place? In simple terms: a mobster in therapy. The ending shows us that Tony has made his choices. He had the opportunity to change his ways, but didn’t. So the consequences are his and are very likely going to be severe, like the monks told him in his coma dream in the episode ‘Join the Club’. A very significant scene earlier in the season was a conversation Tony had with Little Carmine Lupertazzi in which Lupertazzi (who was generally considered an idiot in mob circles) told Tony he had quit the gangster life in order to spend more time with his family in peace and happiness. If only Tony had made the same decision he could have perhaps avoided the only two endings of the mob life. Now it’s definitely too late.

That is the point the final scene makes. Death could come knocking at any time and for any reason. An indictment could come at any time as well. With Carlo in the hands of the feds, it is only a matter of time before they come for Tony….

We have witnessed the life of Tony for eight years. We have seen him steal, scheme, cheat and murder. He also reaped the benefits of his criminal life: woman, luxury, respect, money. But off course a price has to be paid. The mobster’s life is destructive, as we have seen many times during the series…

Most of Tony’s mob friends, who lived the same type of life, are now dead or in the can (but mostly dead) or in a coma. For Tony, who was always a little luckier and smarter, the consequences come a little later. David Chase didn’t want to show that crime doesn’t pay, but he also didn’t want to show that crime does pay. The ending gives us exactly that; a mosaic of possibilities, limited down to the overall negative. Logical consequences of a life in crime, but nowhere moralistic. The ending in that sense is crystal clear, but to explain it would be to diminish it. And that’s what Chase meant with: ‘there is no mystery’ and ‘I’m not trying to be coy’.

The major point is to not look at the ending as storytelling, but more in terms of the overall themes that the show was covering. David Chase has said he was inspired by ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’ in creating the final scene. What did Kubrick say about that ending? “They are the areas I prefer not to discuss because they are highly subjective and will differ from viewer to viewer. In this sense, the film becomes anything the viewer sees in it. If the film stirs the emotions and penetrates the subconscious of the viewer, if it stimulates, however inchoately, his mythological and religious yearnings and impulses, then it has succeeded.”

This 2001-influence was very palpable. For example when Tony enters the restaurant, he looks at a seat and then suddenly… he is sitting there without having crossed the space in between! That is quantum-weirdness going on… Chase is telling us: this is an experience, not straightforward storytelling. Chase has also said many times that he was inspired by David Lynch in making ‘The Sopranos’. Nobody ever claimed to fully understand a David Lynch film. They are moving paintings. There are always possible interpretations, but never convey one definite meaning or truth.

Chase is making a philosophical statement about the nature of life and death rather than showing death itself. It often arrives suddenly and you’re not necessarily ready or prepared. In the case of a Mafia member it is even worse. Murders usually happen from behind, so that makes for a shitty death experience. Ironically, sudden death came for James Gandolfini, one of the greatest actors ever who made Tony Soprano such an unforgettable character.

But it doesn’t have to be a murder that ends the mobster, there is prison too. What is the point of mentioning Carlo if the scene is only about the supposed hit on Tony? Another consequence of the life of the mobster is that you can get busted at any moment, and since a made member has certainly committed crimes that can get him into prison for life (like Johnny Sack who died in prison earlier this season), he is constantly facing the end. Tony and Carmella both knew this. What a way to live…

And since death comes suddenly, it is important to enjoy the good times with your family, exactly like A.J. reminds his father to do. David Chase has confirmed the above open interpretation in an interview with The Directors Guild of America. He states:

“I thought the possibility would go through a lot of people’s minds or maybe everybody’s mind that he was killed … Whether this is the end here, or not, it’s going to come at some point for the rest of us. Hopefully we’re not going to get shot by some rival gang mob or anything like that. I’m not saying that [happened]. But obviously he stood more of a chance of getting shot by a rival gang mob than you or I do because he put himself in that situation. All I know is the end is coming for all of us.”

He continues: “The biggest feeling I was going for, honestly, was don’t stop believing. It was very simple and much more on the nose than people think. That’s what I wanted people to believe. That life ends and death comes, but don’t stop believing. There are attachments we make in life, even though it’s all going to come to an end, that are worth so much, and we’re so lucky to have been able to experience them. Life is short. Either it ends here for Tony or some other time. But in spite of that, it’s really worth it. So don’t stop believing.”

Conclusion
This is the end. It might not be the epic conclusion some were hoping for, but it’s a unique scene nevertheless. Chase makes an almost cosmic experience out of something ordinary like eating onion rings in an American diner. Like he said, there is nothing definite about what happened, but we do get a clean trend on view on what Tony and Carmela’s future looks like. ‘The Sopranos’ was never the show to tie up everything neatly anyway. In that sense, there is quite a lot of closure in the final season. Therefore, the ending is as fitting an ending as it can be with loads of stuff to analyze for the fans even 10 years later. Salute.

Lucid Dreaming

Onlangs heb ik m’n eerste, korte ‘lucid dream’ meegemaakt; een droom waarin je je ervan bewust bent dat je droomt en waarin je min of meer zelf bepaalt wat je gaat doen en met wie. Ik liep over een grasveld, en besefte opeens dat ik droomde. Toen was ik aan het zweven zoals ik wel vaker doe in dromen. Dit koos ik niet zelf, maar ik besloot dat ik het wel tof vond om te zweven. Ik dacht ook; ‘wat zal ik eens gaan doen in deze droom?’ Ik stak drie joints tegelijk op (wederom niet bewust besloten) en moest lachen. Al deze tijd bleef ik me er bewust van dat ik droomde. Toen voelde ik me wat eenzaam worden en daar verschenen Loesje en Rosa. Ik omhelsde Rosa en mijn geest slipte langzaam terug weer in het onderbewuste. Dit was een korte lucid dream die naar meer smaakte. Dankzij mijn neefje Quinten heb ik tips hoe ik mijn geest hiertoe kan trainen:

1. Een droomjournaal bijhouden waarin je dromen en de emoties die je voelde meteen na het ontwaken noteert.
2. Vraag jezelf elke paar uur als je wakker bent; droom ik nu? Met genoeg oefening, ga je dit jezelf ook in dromen afvragen.
3. Herhaal voor je gaat slapen: ik zal me er bewust van zijn als ik droom. Blijf dit herhalen totdat je bewustzijn langzaam overgaat in slaapmodus.
4. Leer droomsignalen herkennen. Lees door je journaal en zoek naar droomsignalen: situaties of gevoelens die je zou kunnen herkennen als je droomt. Voor mij is door de lucht zweven er zo een.
5. Overweeg een lichtalarm aan te schaffen. Lichte stimulansen tijdens REM-slaap, zoals licht of geluid, kunnen de dromer ervan bewust maken dat hij droomt.

Via: http://www.wikihow.com/Lucid-Dream

Big data en de waarheid

Aan het toenemende vertrouwen op data voor al onze beslissingen kleeft een risico. Namelijk dat we denken dat de wereld begrijpelijk en voorspelbaar is. Dat is de wereld niet, zeker niet bij zaken waar menselijk gedrag een rol speelt. Bij de verkiezing is de VS keek men naar het verleden. ‘Zo ging het toch altijd?’ Maar de wereld verandert continu, dus zaten de forecasters er compleet naast.

In een incident van iets kleinere magnitude ervoer ik afgelopen zomer in Frankrijk hoe data kan leiden tot verkeerde conclusies. Ik moest Loesje en Rosa naar het vliegveld navigeren en vertrouwde daarbij op het feilloze Google Maps. Toen we door allerlei kleine en verlaten dorpjes werden gestuurd, schijnbaar verder weg van het vliegveld, kreeg Loesje een vreemd gevoel. ‘Zou dit wel kloppen?’ Tuurlijk, riep ik. Google kan het niet verkeerd hebben. De rit eindigde op een doodlopend landweggetje. En deze versperring was niet dagen daarvoor opgeworpen:

big-data-de-waarheid

Na lang in een deuk te hebben gelegen, gaf ik natuurlijk ruiterlijk toe dat mijn blinde vertrouwen in dit op data-gebaseerde product onterecht was geweest. Data is prima om beslissingen te ondersteunen, maar we moeten nooit stoppen met kritisch nadenken. Wat de big-data-aanprijzers (werkzaam voor softwareleveranciers) ons ook willen doen geloven, onze subliem afgestemde intuïtie blijft het beste kompas wat er bestaat. Of die nu van God/het universum afkomstig is of gewoon door onze ervaringen gecreëerd wordt. Kortom: trust your gut and not just the data.