Total Pageviews

Monday, November 20, 2023

Basketball: Red Teaming and the UFMCS

"It's what you learn after you know everything that counts."

In Red Team, Micah Zenko discusses the UFMCS, the University of Foreign Military and Cultural Studies. Students learn how others think. 

"The foundational assumption for all incoming students - regardless of their their background, education, or professional experience - is that they do not know how to think."

Lifelong learners understand they don't know everything about anything and that they often know less than they think. They also learn that some of their knowledge is wrong.  

Conversely, smart, experienced, powerful people don't want to take criticism from either peers or outsiders. "Who the hell do you think you are to tell me how to do my job better?"

"The four pillars that UFMCS curricula are based upon are - critical thinking, groupthink mitigation, cultural empathy, and self-awareness."

Some of the course material is available online in the Red Team Handbook. Here are two brief excerpts:

"Contrarian Techniques Devil’s Advocacy Challenging a single, strongly held view or consensus by building the best possible case for an alternative explanation. When to Use Devil’s Advocacy is used to consider whether stated beliefs or assertions have been formed prematurely, without first considering alternative perspectives. It is a technique designed to help expose implicit assumptions and faulty reasoning. According to Morgan Jones in The Thinker’s Toolkit, it is believed to have originated in the Roman Catholic Church to critically examine a deceased person’s qualification for sainthood. Before approving sainthood, select individuals were given the task of advocating for the Devil by researching and surfacing any reasons why that person should not become a saint.

The logic behind Devil’s Advocacy stems from the cognitive challenges of decision making discussed by Richards Heuer (The Psychology of Intelligence Analysis) and Morgan D. Jones (The Thinkers Toolkit): 

  • We commonly solve problems by first forming a conclusion, and then using available evidence to support it. “[We tend to] favor a particular outcome or solution early on in the analytic process...long before we can objectively analyze the evidence and reach a conclusion.” (This is the cognitive bias known as confirmation bias.) 
  • We tend to perceive what we expect to perceive
  • We tend to value information that is consistent with our views, and reject or overlook information that is not
  • We can easily become wedded to a pre-existing plan, person’s reputation, etc., which precludes us from continuing to think critically about that plan, person, etc. 

Imagine that we attend a coaching clinic given by experts in and whose career arc depended upon Spread or Princeton Offense or 2-3 Zone defense or Packline defense. They educate but also proselytize attendees. "I won with these approaches and you might, too." 

None of these might be right for your players or your team based on your ability to teach and implement. 

If you were attacking your team, how would you do it based on your insider knowledge? 

Lagniappe. Discipline is how you live your life. 

Lagniappe 2. I'd encourage caution with this move. The high "rip through" exposes your elbows to an opponent's face. 

 

Posted by at