Question

how institutional decisions leads to delete and competition​

Answer 1

Explanation:

• In 2003, the United States chose to invade Iraq. Most now agree this decision was deeply flawed, costing trillions of dollars and thousands of lives.

• The government justified the invasion thanks to the intelligence community’s claim that it was “highly probable” that Iraq possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) – but this statement was ambiguous. Policymakers took that to indicate near-100% certainty, and made decisions accordingly.1 But “highly probable” could easily also be interpreted as 80% certainty, or 70% – carrying very different practical implications. Those involved didn’t really think through the relevant probabilities, or consider how likely the estimates were to be wrong, or the implications if they were.
• What if you could help prevent similar mistakes in the future?
• When we think about doing good in the world we usually think about solving specific problems, and doing so better than existing institutions and organizations. But you could also improve the world in a different way: by making it easier for key institutions and decision-makers to solve problems. This might involve helping people avoid common thinking errors, better evaluate expertise, or make more accurate predictions. It might also mean finding ways to change the incentives of big organization's to make it easier to do all these things.
• One advantage of this approach is that, if successful, it could enable humanity to better tackle many different problems – including those we haven’t even noticed yet.
• #answerwithquality #BAL