Search results

An analysis of the psychol'al meaning of `rationality' to provide 'a framework within which the bases of internat'l att's can be more meaningfully interpreted than by recourse to superficial labels.' Rational act's are those that develop as logical consequences of the perceived relation of the event to one's values. Rationality implies both cognitive consistency & empirical validity. Non-rational att's, on the other hand, result from influences outside the individual's cognitive system. Thus, rather than 2 distinct types of people, two ideal types of thought process are seen. 2 pressures operate in the direction of the rationality of att structures: (1) those arising from the person's intimate contact with the event system to which the attitude structure refers, & (2) soc pressures toward cognitive consistency within Western culture. Influences toward nonrationality stem from: (a) the unconscious personality structure, & (b) soc systems in which the individual interacts. Thus, 'it would appear quite plausible that att's toward internat'l events maintained by the average citizen carry a strong flavor of non-rationality' because: (i) it is virtually impossible for the average individual to test empirically the applicability of his att's to the events themselves, & (ii) the realm of foreign affairs is generally remote from the most pressing concerns of individuals. I. Taviss.

Planning involves a sequence of acts which are mutually related as means & therefore are viewed as a unit. Rational planning means that every alternative of action is listed, all the consequences of these identified &that the course selected lead to the ends preferred. In the real world there is very little planning & even less rationality. Opportunistic, shortrange decisions are the rule. Among the reasons militating against planning are: uncertainty of the future, public opposition, econ & other limitations of action, pressures of the moment & complexity of the ends. A theoretical model of rational planning would be useful in suggesting how org's might function better. It would be helpful in developing such a theory if a series of case studies built on a common conceptual scheme were undertaken. B. J. Keelev.

The rational formulation of US foreign policy is rendered extremely difficult by the great number of factors which must be taken into account by the decision-makers. These are beyond the capacity of any human brain, or even team of brains, to assimilate, evaluate, & reduce to forms upon which sound policy can be based. A weighted framework or model is needed, & some mechanical support for human thinking which would rationalize initial foreign policy estimation electrically. Such a device will also permit gaming. As a preliminary blueprint for this proposed device, The World Analyst classification system is used to divide national power into 10 `factors': geographic, demographic, pol'al, foreign affairs, econ, industry, transportation & communication, sci'fic, armed forces & biographic. To evaluate individual elements of national strength & weakness, these are cross- categorized on game boards in 5 panels: immediate national power, potentials for national power, destruction of such elements, aggressions between nations other than the US, & acts of aggression towards the US. Using a model of this sort a trial balance can be obtained between nations, & policy can be tested in advance. AA.