16-08-2013, 11:44 AM
Interesting perspective re Belfast, Mike. Though it struck me as being from a viewpoint that is a little establishmentarian, in that perhaps the fight wasn’t just over the crumbs, but things like pride, identity, history, that can resonate deep within the souls of communities –things that barely register with those who see things only from their own viewpoint and as a result can only ask things like Why can’t they stop fighting? Although it is also true that much of the fighting was over the day before’s fighting..relevant to the chess world? Perhaps..
“I think we must learn to trust the judgement of those that have look at the facts whatever the situation. In most cases not to do so simply does not standup to close scrutiny; driven not by the facts rather by a desire to match the facts to a particular conspiracy theory. It may be you do not have all the facts and those that you do have only come from one source. Be honest with yourself and ask what exactly do I know rather then what is it that I believe.”
The person admonished will always think of the flaws in the process. Have you considered that your view of good guys doing their objective best versus critics that are driven emotionally or by an agenda might be a little unconsciously biased? I think what we need to have trust in is the process - and that to me starts with the composition.
Just to elaborate, bias is what needs to be avoided - you don’t need ‘conspiracy’ when you have bias, and conflict of interest is a good substitute for bias. Even in the less than perfect world of politics, it’s accepted that conflicts of interest are to be avoided. When one comes up, you step down - you don’t say trust my judgement, I always know what hat I’m wearing. Justice is the same.
I might be being a bit too idealist – as the people volunteer to run things in chess tend to be the kind of trustworthy, pillar-of-the-community type of person you seem to have in mind, what you suggest might just about work in a culture of openness. But I'd say no-one is immune from bias - it won’t work if the scrutiny which you say not trusting the judgement doesn’t stand up to, or the facts on which it would be based, are actually missing.
But why do we need to do it this way? I’ve never seen a call put out for volunteers on a ‘potential’ basis. As there have been hardy any cases, I think many people would take a chance! Cheers for your thoughts.
“I think we must learn to trust the judgement of those that have look at the facts whatever the situation. In most cases not to do so simply does not standup to close scrutiny; driven not by the facts rather by a desire to match the facts to a particular conspiracy theory. It may be you do not have all the facts and those that you do have only come from one source. Be honest with yourself and ask what exactly do I know rather then what is it that I believe.”
The person admonished will always think of the flaws in the process. Have you considered that your view of good guys doing their objective best versus critics that are driven emotionally or by an agenda might be a little unconsciously biased? I think what we need to have trust in is the process - and that to me starts with the composition.
Just to elaborate, bias is what needs to be avoided - you don’t need ‘conspiracy’ when you have bias, and conflict of interest is a good substitute for bias. Even in the less than perfect world of politics, it’s accepted that conflicts of interest are to be avoided. When one comes up, you step down - you don’t say trust my judgement, I always know what hat I’m wearing. Justice is the same.
I might be being a bit too idealist – as the people volunteer to run things in chess tend to be the kind of trustworthy, pillar-of-the-community type of person you seem to have in mind, what you suggest might just about work in a culture of openness. But I'd say no-one is immune from bias - it won’t work if the scrutiny which you say not trusting the judgement doesn’t stand up to, or the facts on which it would be based, are actually missing.
But why do we need to do it this way? I’ve never seen a call put out for volunteers on a ‘potential’ basis. As there have been hardy any cases, I think many people would take a chance! Cheers for your thoughts.