You have to hand it to good old Ben Franklin, the nation’s first decision analyst, or at least the first decision analyst advocating the use of structured analytic techniques.  In a letter dated 1772 to his friend Joseph Priestly, Ben Franklin spoke about his “moral algebra” or “prudential algebra,” or what is perhaps one of the simplest, and most effective structured analytic technique for aiding decision making:

Dear Sir:

In the affair of so much importance to you, wherin you ask my advice, I cannot, for want of sufficient premises, advise you what to determine; but, if you please, I will tell you how.  When these difficult cases occur, they are difficult, chiefly because, while we have them under consideration, all the reasons pro and con are not present to the mind at the same time; but sometimes one set present themselves, and at others times another, the first being out of sight.  Hence the various purposes or inclinations that alternately prevail, and the uncertainty that perplexes us.

To get over this, my way is to divide half a sheet of paperby a line into two columns; writing over the one pro, and over the other con; then during three or four days’ consideration, I put down under the heads short hints of the different motives that at different times occur to me, for or against the measure.  When I have thus got them all together in one view, I endeavor to estimate their respective weights; and, where I find two (one on each side) that seem equal, I strike them both out.  If i find a reason pro equal to some two reasons con, I strike out the three.  If I judge some two reasons con, equal to some three reasons pro, I strike out the five; and thus proceeding I find at length where the balance lies; and if, after a day or two of further consideration, nothing new that is of importance occurs on either side, I come to a determination accordingly.  And through the weight of reasons cannot be taken with the precision of algebraic quantities, yet, when each is thus considered separately and comparatively, and the whole lies before me, I think I can judge better, and am less likely to make a rash step; and in fact I have found great advantage from this kind of equation, in what may be called moral or prudential algebra.

Wishing sincerely that you may determine for the best, I am ever, my dear friend, yours most affectionately.

B. Franklin

For a moment let’s assume that the “Sir” in the salutation was not directed toward Joseph Priestly, but to future decision makers in the United States government.  How would they take it?  I, for one, would heed Dr. Franklin’s advice - he is after all a noted philosopher, mathematician, scientist, artist, statesman, etc., etc.  More importantly, he played a major role (if not the largest role) as one of the founding fathers of the United States government.  So with all this, would he steer us wrong?

From the point of view of one interested in the mechanics of Franklin’s “moral algebra,” let’s examine what he advises more closely.  First, he clearly points out the cognitive limitations of most humans to not be able to entertain the whole picture in their minds at all times.  Sometimes a decision maker might be in an optimistic mood and thus see a decision option for its potential gains, and at other times a decision maker might take the pessimistic view and focus only on the potential losses or harm.  Sometimes a decision maker emphasizes reasons for, and at other times stresses reasons against a particular proposal.  The point is that, as Franklin observes, it is very difficult to be mindful of all reasons pro and con at once.  Hence the need for the use of structured analytic techniques to help decision makers reason through their decision challenges.

Second, the methodology put forth is simple and structured in that it forces each reason for or against a decision into one of two columns, either pro (for the decision) or con (against the decision) (see below for an image of such a thing that I picked up at the National Archives in Washington, DC). Dr. Franklin stresses deliberation in his method, adding items to each column “during three or four days’ consideration.”  This element of time allows one’s conscious and subconscious to continuously (and hopefully critically) evaluate his or her thinking on the particular decision at issue.  I’d imagine that Dr. Franklin would not balk at taking more time to ensure that all majors reasons pro and con are accounted for, but I would also suggest that his pragmatic nature would be mindful of the “80-20 rule.”  Once the major reasons are on paper, the decision maker then does a comparative analysis of all pros and cons, appropriately weighing each individually or in groups against items from the opposite column to see on what side of the pro-con spectrum the balance of reasons lie.  This task, of course, insists on a subjective valuation of each reason along some dimension of personal utility (which inherently includes whatever types of uncertainty, ambiguity, probability, etc. are associated with each reason).  The net result offers a tentative answer to the decision problem; as Dr. Franklin advises, the decision maker should take one or two days to sit on the results to see if anything new comes of importance on either side, such as new reasons, revised weightings, and so on.

Pro Con Paper

I beileve that Dr. Franklin doesn’t really insist that this tool (or any tool) make the answer for the decision maker.  After all, the extra time afforded to final deliberation allows the decision maker to consider the tentative result, and if displeased, seek additional arguments in opposition to the stated advice.  At the very least, this tool helps decision makers get to the heart of (or rather make explicit) their reasons for or against a particular decision.  Having the reasons explicitly stated now allows for objetive analysis as to their merit and value, and may very well help the decision maker identify the harmful biases that may be influencing their gut feelings.  In the end, though, decision makers ultimately make the decision regardless of what the tool says.  As Dr. Franklin believes, users of this tool “can judge better, and [are] less likely to make a rash step.”  In this complex world we live in, that’s all we can really hope for.

Now can this tool also help analysts in general (e.g., risk analysts, intelligence analysts), say, argue for or against a particular hypothesis?  Can this tool be applied to a finite set of competing decisions or hypotheses in the same manner, or does it insist that all decision problems be restated as yes/no questions?  At first glance and without giving it much thought, I would say “moral algebra” bears a striking resemblance to Heuer’s Analysis of Competing Hypotheses (ACH) or Chamberlin’s Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses (MMWH) with the exception that any particular column corresponds to one pro-con table (one column asks the question is a particular hypothesis true or false, and each row element states a reason where a “+” sides with true, “-” sides with false, and “0,” “NA,” or [blank] indicates no bearing either way).  In fact, some argue that the true value of ACH or MMWH is in getting all evidence that in support or against each among a large set of hypotheses on the table for the analyst to view holistically.  Of course, as a scientist, I must ask whether there is any evidence that does not refute the assertion that such a technique as moral algebra actually improves decision making.  But if I were to judge based only on Ben Franklin’s advice, I would probably take him at his word.

Send post as PDF to