No press conference, no mistakes; case method
WE all make mistakes and sooner or later we answer for our mistakes whether it is our fault or not. What do we mean by that? It is possible that we did our due diligence and what was in our power to get the right answer but still picked the wrong answer. In life as in computer games we can diligently do what is right but sometimes through negligence, culpable or not, we do not produce the right answer. In games often we become distracted or doze off and the next thing we know is that the game was ended we lost.
We make mistakes that are rationally wrong and if we did it to the best of our abilities, then it is a rational mistake and not a mistake from the heart like spiting someone. President-elect Duterte says he will no longer entertain press briefings. No briefings mean no mistakes. Not really. Although no wrong answers will come out, as in games, a possible serendipitous result is foregone. Here we have an opportunity loss that could have been for the benefit of everybody. I am often surprised in games that even though I know a right strategy but I opt to try something different, the results are sometimes better than what I normally get. So innovating may be helpful in getting even better results than what is a rational pick.
President-elect Duterte may be a genius in what he says. Right now all the drug lords and pushers are on their toes because of what he says. He is offering a bounty for catch and kill drug lords. However, if they do not kill him there is a 100,000 deduction. But the only way you are allowed to kill is if they fight. Se he wants them to fight so they get killed and out of his way. Foreign diplomats are not sure he is inciting people to kill. But he clearly says you can kill drug lords only if they fight.
*** The case method made Harvard Business School famous. We were told and taught how to do it. But it was only when you actually teach the case method that you see its advantages. The lesson and the case are given the day before and the students are supposed to study them individually and then discuss them in small groups of three or four. The big advantage of this is that once a student is able to express what he learned from the case, he is not anxious to have his turn to speak in class. He therefore can listen to what the others are saying. The teacher on the other hand has reviewed the case and organized his teaching lessons and then puts the contributions of the students according to his framework. If not all is covered by the students, he tries to elicit them to the point of putting words in their mouths. Two important things that happen is that the teacher is forced to make a framework on which to hang the contiguous of the student including these that he did not see himself. The other is that the members of the class learn how to defend their positions. It imposes more study time on the teacher than ordinary lecturing.
At least that is what happened to me. The effort to digest the contributions of the students and allocating a place in the frame work is possible to be considerably creative. People, who have graduated from a case method system, often are perceived as quite open to new ideas and willing to challenge the ideas of others.