ABSTRACT
When I received the invitation to give this talk, I was both honored and apprehensive. That is because talks like this have a "history" at naturalistic decision making (NDM) conferences. That history was reflected in the light-hearted comment of a friend on inspecting the program: "Ummm ..., so you're the one giving the curmudgeon talk this year, huh?" You see, for each of the NDM conferences, a perceived outsider, such as myself, has been asked to provide a critique of the field. I was flattered because the invitation suggested that the organizers thought I might have something useful to say. I also felt honored because of the stature of previous "curmudgeons," Michael Doherty and William Howell— fast company indeed. My apprehension arose from the very nature of the assignment and is implicit in the "curmudgeon" characterization given to those who have accepted the assignment. Critics criticize. They tell us that, in at least some respects, something we are doing is not up to snuff. Even when such criticisms are true, they are no less unpleasant to hear. And who wants to be a pariah?
