ABSTRACT
The paradigm of 'Naturalistic Decision Making' has been around now for a decade and has attracted interest from many researchers struggling to understand the mechanisms behind rapid decision making during the dynamic flow of events in various 'real life' work domains. Consequently, researchers from academia and from application domains now meet regularly at conferences for a very fruitful exchange of problems, research methods, and findings. But the followers of the paradigm still seem to view themselves as members of a guild and to find it necessary to defend their doctrines from the arguments presented by other guilds - why is that? Is it a natural consequence of the academic research environment aimed at teaching students?
