Marshall fisher pdf download

Suggested Works Show sub menu. Marches, Marches, Marches. Larger Works with Scores. March Kings. Suggestions for your next concert. How You Can Help Show sub menu. Donate Talent Show sub menu.

Replacement Parts. Donate Music Show sub menu. Seeking parts. Scanning guidelines. About Us Show sub menu. Music Collections. Featured Content We have been encouraging band directors, music librarians and others to share their suggestions for Golden Age band music that is fun to play and pleasing to audiences.

The index has been validated in a multi-center prospective study conducted with patients with pneumonia. Search our FAQs. Airvo 2 - a dedicated Optiflow NHF system. MR heated humidifier blender required. Learn about your options for delivering Optiflow NHF therapy. Support Resources Webpages. Latest Flow Matters publication. Optiflow NHF therapy brochure. For further details on how this information will be used, see below or go to our privacy statement.

Adult Respiratory Care. Airvo2 System. Enter security code. View resource center. This website uses cookies for a better experience, by interacting with this site you consent to the use of these tools. Click here to find out more. Search Search. They are built on 4 key foundations—people, interests, options, and criteria.

Do get the full details from the book or our full page summary. To focus on the issues, you must first tackle the people issues separately. Get a copy of the book for the full tips and examples! Rather than depend on a battle of wills or subjective opinions, insist on using fair, objective criteria to jointly assess options. Instead, use principled negotiations to negotiate the rules of the game.

Learn to identify the 3 common types of dirty tricks, so you can address them. Integrative bargaining also called "interest-based bargaining," "win-win bargaining" is a negotiation strategy in which parties collaborate to find a "win-win" solution to their dispute. This strategy focuses on developing mutually beneficial agreements based on the interests of the disputants.

Interests include the needs, desires, concerns, and fears important to each side. They are the underlying reasons why people become involved in a conflict.

This is because the parties must be able to make trade-offs across issues in order for both sides to be satisfied with the outcome. Why is Integrative Bargaining Important? Integrative bargaining is important because it usually produces more satisfactory outcomes for the parties involved than does positional bargaining.

Positional bargaining is based on fixed, opposing viewpoints positions and tends to result in compromise or no agreement at all. Oftentimes, compromises do not efficiently satisfy the true interests of the disputants.

Instead, compromises simply split the difference between the two positions, giving each side half of what they want. Creative, integrative solutions, on the other hand, can potentially give everyone all of what they want. There are often many interests behind any one position. If parties focus on identifying those interests, they will increase their ability to develop win-win solutions. The classic example of interest-based bargaining and creating joint value is that of a dispute between two little girls over an orange.

Both girls take the position that they want the whole orange. Their mother serves as the moderator of the dispute and based on their positions, cuts the orange in half and gives each girl one half. This outcome represents a compromise. However, if the mother had asked each of the girls why she wanted the orange -- what her interests were -- there could have been a different, win-win outcome.

This is because one girl wanted to eat the meat of the orange, but the other just wanted the peel to use in baking some cookies. If their mother had known their interests, they could have both gotten all of what they wanted, rather than just half.

Integrative solutions are generally more gratifying for all involved in negotiation, as the true needs and concerns of both sides will be met to some degree. It is a collaborative process and therefore the parties actually end up helping each other. This prevents ongoing ill will after the negotiation concludes. Instead, interest-based bargaining facilitates constructive, positive relationships between previous adversaries.

This will take some work by the negotiating parties, as interests are often less tangible than positions and are often not publicly revealed.

A key approach to determining interests is asking "Why? Why do you need that? What are your concerns? If you cannot ask these questions directly, get an intermediary to ask them.

The bottom line is you need to figure out why people feel the way they do, why they are demanding what they are demanding.

Be sure to make it clear that you are asking these questions so you can understand their interests needs, hopes, fears, or desires better, not because you are challenging them or trying to figure out how to beat them. Next you might ask yourself how the other side perceives your demands. What is standing in the way of them agreeing with you? Do they know your underlying interests? Do you know what your own underlying interests are? If you can figure out their interests as well as your own, you will be much more likely to find a solution that benefits both sides.

You must also analyze the potential consequences of an agreement you are advocating, as the other side would see them. This is essentially the process of weighing pros and cons, but you attempt to do it from the perspective of the other side. Then you will be better equipped to negotiate an agreement that will be acceptable to both of you. There are a few other points to remember about identifying interests. First, you must realize that each side will probably have multiple interests it is trying to satisfy.

Not only will a single person have multiple interests, but if you are negotiating with a group, you must remember that each individual in the group may have differing interests. Also important is the fact that the most powerful interests are basic human needs - security, economic well being, a sense of belonging, recognition, and control over one's life.

If you can take care of the basic needs of both sides, then agreement will be easier. You should make a list of each side's interests as they become apparent. This way you will be able to remember them and also to evaluate their relative importance.

After interests are identified, the parties need to work together cooperatively to try to figure out the best ways to meet those interests. Often by "brainstorming" -- listing all the options anyone can think of without criticizing or dismissing anything initially, parties can come up with creative new ideas for meeting interests and needs that had not occurred to anyone before. The goal is a win-win outcome, giving each side as much of their interests as possible, and enough, at a minimum that they see the outcome as a win, rather than a loss.

Using Integrative and Distributive Bargaining Together Although distributive bargaining is frequently seen as the opposite of integrative bargaining, the two are not mutually exclusive.

Distributive bargaining plays a role in integrative bargaining, because ultimately "the pie" has to be split up. Integrative bargaining is a good way to make the pie joint value as large as it possibly can be, but ultimately the parties must distribute the value that was created through negotiation. They must agree on who gets what. The idea behind integrative bargaining is that this last step will not be difficult once the parties reach that stage. This is because the interest-based approach is supposed to help create a cooperative working relationship.

Theoretically, the parties should know who wants what by the time they split the pie. New York: Penguin Books, Use the following to cite this article: Spangler, Brad. Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess. Next I will share 5 conflict experiences where the story lends itself to a negotiation lesson of general application. Two conflicts failed and three succeeded.

The purpose of the negotiation was to persuade NKK to invest , build and operate a steel mill in the province. The local negotiators were the City of Seattle and the BC province. I was on the negotiating team and after more than 80 years of failure we made a deal that became an International Treaty between the US and Canada. For the first time in Canada the law removed labour injunctions from the jurisdiction of the civil courts.

Also a new administrative body with very broad powers like a labour court given the power to regulate strikes, picketing and collective bargaining. Matkin "Tis the set of the sails and not the gales that determines the way we go. I want to explore some fresh ideas that will help us to manage better the conflict that exists in our industrial relations environment.

Conflict arising from competing interests has been with us from the beginning of civilization. The problem is how we respond to conflict. How do we negotiate? As the poet said, "Tis the set of the sails and not the gales that determines the way we go. In British Columbia, for example, we have gone through strife in our collective bargaining and have weathered far too many storms. But from this very turbulent history there is now emerging a new opportunity for success.

After years of confrontation we are on the road to reconciliation. There is a better attitude developing in the province that bodes well for the success of principled bargaining. The concept of principled bargaining is an approach to negotiations that is based primarily on the work of Dr. Roger Fisherr of Harvard Law School.

I have seen its value in my experiences with many difficult disputes over the years. Principled bargaining is different from positional or adversarial bargaining, the traditional method of negotiating that causes many problems.

Principled bargaining is different because it reduces the importance of haggling by creating a more constructive dynamic where objective criteria are debated. This is not an Utopian idea because it is drawn from practical with experience. Principled bargaining is based on five key practices: bargaining from principle rather than Position; treating your opponents with respect; responding to opposition with integration; finding an agreement based upon the justice of the situation; making tirnely and positive commitments.

The importance of using principle, respect, integration' justice and timeliness in bargaining is that these ingredients will create a more constructive negotiation experience. I have struggled with many difficult conflicts in my career as a government trouble shooter. I was the Deputy Minister of Labour in British Columbia during some very serious confrontations between labour and management.

I worked with the west coast longshore unions 15 years ago and helped the special mediator Chief Justice Nemetz appointed by an Act of the Canadian Parliament to find a successful resolution to a dispute over manning that threatened the economy of the nation. I was green, but I watched closely and learned from experience about the art of negotiating.

I had first-hand experience with corrosive positional bargaining and the terrible tol1 it takes on relationships and the ability of contestants to generate options. More recently I participated as Deputy Minister of Intergovernmental Relations in the major federal-provincial negotiations that produced the entrenched Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada.

Why did these constitutional negotiations succeed in reaching agreement after 50 years of failure? Principled bargaining meant in the Canadian constitutional negotiations that the governments were prepared to look behind their positions to their interests and resolve the conflict of interests with principle.

The basic conflict was between two fixed positions representing different values. In this case' the competing principles were parliamentary supremacy and judicial review. And they arrived at their successful agreement for a new charter by negotiating the override clause into their agreement.

On the other hand, we have suffered from strikes and lockouts in Canada where the parties have been caught in the vice of positional bargaining. We saw the public sector unions in British Colunbia, in , take issue with the provincial government over its nethod of imposing restraint Bill 3, for example, before amendment allowed the government to fire public servants without cause.

The result of this conflict was adversarial bargaining that brought us to the edge of a general strike. Soon after this conflagration we suffered negative impact to our economy from a dispute in the pulp and paper industry that closed down all the pulp mills for 20 weeks and eost us millions of dollars. Again the value of principled bargaining was ignored by both parties as they held tenaciously to fixed positions out clarifying their interests.

The pulp lockout was only ended by government legislation. Five days later a major bus dispute cornrnenced in the city of Vancouver that lasted 90 days.

This bus dispute was a paradigm of adversarial bargaining, with a major issue being the introduction of part-tirne drivers.

There was a failure to look behind the positions taken on this issue and identify the principles or interests that were at stake in the demand for part-time drivers.

Because the parties were locked into fixed positions, the dispute became a struggle of willpower rather than a constructive search for the right answer to a problem.

There is a better way to negotiate and f have labelled this better way - principled bargaining. The concept of principled bargaining works because it meets our basic needs as human beings. First of all, principled bargaining allows the parties to restructure the problem in such a way that it is easier to generate options and this is the key to reaching agreements.

When options are easy to generate then conflict is easy to resolve. The value of restructuring is that it aIIows for an "imaginative reintegration of all the different items into a new pattern". Principled bargaining places value on the person. Principled bargaining creates a win-vin solution, by meeting opposition or resistance with integration.

Integration also means the creation of an inner unity as a centre of strength so that a negotiator "ceases to be a mere object acted upon by outside forces. An agreement is not concluded until the parties are satisfied with the merits of the deal.

Principled bargaining succeeds where adversarial bargaining fails because it helps with the timing of commitments. There is a time to invent and a time to decide. It is important to separate inventing from deciding, or the parties will be out of phase with each other. It is also important how negotiators make commitments because this will influence whether they can reach agreement with their opponents. Principled bargaining takes a positive approach to commitments. Bargaining from Principle Rather Than Position In traditional bargaining the negotiators focus on their demands or positions and try to get the other side to capitulate.

One side loses in order for the other side to win. This is positional. In the principled approach, bargaining becomes an experience in clarifying interests and generating options. You focus on the interests or principles behind the demands and try to find the best position to satisiy the principle. For example, in the demand for part-time bus drivers there are at least two distinct principles or interests that may justify this position.

First there is the interest of financial restraint. A part-time driver may be less costly to the system. The other possibility is the interest of increased service.

This objective also could be accomplished with part-time bus drivers. This does not mean that positions are unimportant. It does mean that principles are more important in negotiations. Yet most people bargain as though positions were all that mattered. They are firm on position and soft on principle when it is better if you are hard on principle and soft on position.

Your interests must be satisfied, but there is usually more than one position that will do the job. The reasons against positional bargaining are given in the bestselling text co-authored by Dr.

The more you clarify your position and defend it against attack, the more committed you become to it. The more you try to convince the other side of the impossibility of changing your opening position, the more difficult it becomes to do so. Your ego becomes identified with your position. You now have a new interest in ttsaving facet' - in reconciling future action with past positions - making it less and less likely that any agreement will wisely reconcile the partiesr original interests.

I believe that this 'locked in" effect occurred in the Canadian constitutional negotiations. It was therefore necessary to help the parties break free from fixed positions by inventing some new options. Another major negotiation where the parties had been deadlocked for 40 years was a hydro dispute over the flooding of the sceenic Skagit Va11ey in the province of BC by the city of Seattle, Washington. The city and the province had become addicted to positional bargaining where the negotiations had become a debating contest with each side scoring public bargaining points instead of listening and negotiating by principle.

I joined the provincial bargaining team in and we tried a different approach. British Columbia proposed that instead of trading positional missiles in a contest of public relations we would adopt the technique of the single text bargaining.

Seattle agreed. Therefore, we stopped making offers and counter offers and started working from one text that framed our common positions as general principles. Six months later an agreement was reached between seattle and BC that was turned into an International treaty between Canada and the United States in Principled bargaining helped in this success. Likewise, I also believe that the locked-in effect of positional bargaining occurred in the vancouver bus strike. The parties were unable after 90 days of striking to break free from their fixed positions and invent another solution.

The government had to intervene to break the deadlock. In prineipled bargaining the idea is to negotiate from the interest or principle which is more objective rather than from the position or demand which is more subjective. Treating Your Opponents with Respect Many negotiators think they are expected to be unprincipled and wily about the way they treat their opponents. For some, being a shyster is slmonomous with being a negotiator.

Deceit and taking unfair advantage are considered part of the game. Yet every highly successful negotiator takes the opposite view and believes that integrity in your personal conduct and respect for your opponent is absolutely imperative. Even in the sharpest negotiations the most experienced say "integrity is so obvious that no one is prepared to question itt'.

The result is less conflict wi. Effective communication between opposing sides happens when people talk and listen to each other. By contrast communication becomes very much more effective when you develop rapport with your opponent.

How do you build relationships in the competitive environment of negotiation. The answer lies in the concept of respect through mutual aeceptance and pacing. Mutual acceptance means that despite fundamental differences each side accepts the other as a legitimate negotiating partner with genuine interests.

Pacing means that you identify with the point of view of your opponent by building on your common interests. But how is this done? The golden rule makes a lot of sense for negotiations.

Therefore, treat your opponent with the same affirrnation, dignity and respect that you would like to have. How does this work when you meet hostility from your opponent? This is so because the other person can only resist something youtre doing or saying. The tougher the confliet, the more important it is to build effective relationships by pacing with your opponents and giving them respect and dignity. An example of the dramatic effect that introducing more dignity and respect into negotiations can have is given by Wayne Alderson in his biography.

An ugly strike occurred in the coal mines of Pittsburgh involving 2, miners and lasting for days. Eventually it became the longest coal strike in the nationrs history.

It had a positive effect. To value people is not a religious movement. Rather it is based on the fact that treating people right will be its own reward. Another advantage occurs when you bargain from interests rather than position, because both parties are able to be much more honest with each other. One reason is that you donrt know exactly how firm your position really is. Being honest is also important in treating people right. Honesty is difficult in negotiations because there is always an element of poker or bluff.

The parties are t'creating" an agreement. If they knew where the final outcome was they wouldn't be at the bargaining tab1e, but they do know more precisely what principle they are working towards. Honesty is a virtue that has positive effeets on the success of bargaining. Honesty will disarm some of the natural hostility of your opponent to your bargaining position.

When you succeed in improving the relationship between the parties you will also succeed in improving cormunication in negotiations. Responding to Opposition with fntegration In traditi'onal bargaining the approach is basically an eye for an eye.

If your opponent inflicts damage on you because you will not 7accept his position then you escalate the conflict by inflicting damage on him. In many negotiations both parties become blind from the retribution of the eonflict. Under the alternative of principled bargaining the approach is different.

When faced with opposition, you turn this problem into an opportunity to integrate, that is, by bargaining over interests or principles you frustrate the struggle of will that leads to so much damage.

Bargaining becomes a more rational process. Ours is the age of integration. Integrated bargaining means matching or co-ordination of the parties progress. It is achieved by timing the different phases in the process of bargaining so everyone is on the same step or phase.

Prenegotiation, 2. Formula 3. Crisis and settlement, 4. Detail and execution If you get all parties into the same phase at the same time this is integrated bargaining.

For example if one side has no will to negotiate they are in phase one and the other side starts offering options for a formula they are in phase two. This means the parties are not participating in integrated bargaining and as a result the negotiation often ends badly. By looking for a solution that provides higher benefits to each side you disarm your opponent positional push.

When you counter his opposition with support for a solution that meets his interests you take the negotiations to a higher level. The tough side of integrated bargaining comes from the strategy of matching, to be employed once you have primed the pump with some co-ordinative behaviour. Before integration is possible, the parties must clarify their interests. For example, in the Vancouver bus strike it was not possible to integrate the opposing positions of part-time drivers versus no part-time drivers because the parties did not clarify what interests or principle they were trying to achieve.

Also, integration is a concept that helps a negotiator with the "inner game" of bargaining. There is an inner game of negotiations just there is an inner game of tennis. This means that you believe what you say and what you believe. The strength of inner unity is best illustrated by perhaps the most successful negotiator of all time - Mohandas K.

Gandhi, who won the independence of India from England by practising some very simple virtues. Self-control was key to the power of his personality. Gandhi was a man without guiIe. Finding an Agreement Based Upon the Justice of the Situation Traditional adversarial bargaining is viewed as a power struggle between the parties with the most spoils going to the most powerful.

The notion of legitimacy or justice is often absent from positional bargaining. There is no judge of what is right or wrong and therefore anything goes. What the parties believe to be "fair" is the test of the justice of the situation. How does the idea of justice work in negotiations? I suggest that an important factor is that the "justice" of the new formula influenced the key players to consent to the dea1. I'Although it is not necessarily helpful to a successful outcome to make that aspect of the discussion explicit, it is useful for the parties to know what they are doing.

A further value of principled bargaining is that the parties will be able to address the justice of the situation more effectively than positional bargaining allows. This is true because the bargaining is focused on interests or principles that can be measured by standards or objective criteria. The Vancouver bus dispute offers another vivid example. If the interest was to increase service during peak traffic periods, then this objective can be measured very precisely.

How many more passengers are to be carried and on how many routes? With this objective information in hand it is possible to assess whether there are options that satisfy the justice of the situation better than increasing the number of part-time drivers. For example an option may be to negotiate a longer working week.

Because an agreement may be frustrated unless it satisfies the partiesr basic needs it is important to be concerned about the quality of an agreement. By looking at the justice of the situation between the parties it is more likely that an agreement will be reached that will endure.

Make Timely and Positive Commitments Many veteran negotiators state that timing is everything in bargaining. Timing is very important to commitments. There is a basic need in negotiating to go through two distinct phases or seasons. The first phase is directed towards finding a formula.

During this phase, the essential activity is inventing a variety of possible commitments. The next phase is directed towards making a deal based on the options available. During the second phase, the essential activity is deciding what commitments should be made. The best advice is to invent first and to decide later.

The result is misunderstanding. Making commitments is of critical importance in negotiations. There are two kinds of conmitments: positive and negative. In traditional bargaining one of the problems is that too often commitments are negative. According to Dr. The principle, therefore, is to make positive rather than negative commitments. For example, in the Vancouver bus dispute the transit union made a negative commitment on the issue of part-time drivers.

Their position was that they were opposed to this change that management wanted. A preferred alternative would have been for the union to say what positive measure they would be prepared to support in order to resolve the problem, i. The result would have been to bring the bargaining back to the issue of principle. And so we must know not only when to generate alternative solutions to a given problem but also what form is best to express our commitments.

Principled bargaining means that you treat your opponent in the same way that you would like to be treated. Principled bargaining is therefore the golden rule of negotiating because it prescribes an approach based on the best practices of the veterans in this field of confliet resolution. Principled bargaining is not a short cut or pat answer to complex problems. Being principled in bargaining does not mean being weak in the face of opposition. There will still be fighting when either party thinks it can win more by fighting rather than co-operating.

But the fighting will be more constructive and less damaging when the bargaining has been over principle and the justice of the situation. In other words there are fair fights and there are unfair fights that are destructive and principled bargaining makes the difference. Do you use principled bargaining if your opponent does not?

It will enhance your negotiating success if you work from interests and integrate and make timely and wise commitments. Principled bargaining presents an opportunity to make a difference in the success of our negotiations by using the power of rationality.

Notes I Dr. He co-authored, with Maureen R. Berman, the text The Practical Negotiator New Haven: Yale University Press, and is the only scholar to emphasize the value of "justice" in negotiations. See also, for a useful overview of the conflict, Edward McWhinnev.

He has a narrold bandwidth, a high noise 1evel, is expensive to maintain, and sleeps eight hours out of every twenty-four. Nierenberg and Henry H. Dean G. See also at p. Fisher and Fry, Getting to Yes, p. What about life and death crisis is negotiation smart for leaders in charge when every minute counts? Do you have a more optimistic or pessimitic temperament?

As Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman found, Optimistic individuals play a disproportionate role in shaping our lives.

Their decisions make a difference; they are the inventors, the entrepreneurs, the political and military leaders — not average people. They got to where they are by seeking challenges and taking risks. They are talented and they have been lucky , almost certainly luckier than the acknowledge.

Life in Manihiki was very primitive with no electricity, running water, sewer, roads, trucks and stores. Our survival also depended on the infrequent interisland bringing supplies from Rarotonga. But in early , the boats did not arrive and no supplies of food and necessities came for 4 months. We ran out of everything, including flour, salt and baby food.

We became very hungry. We decided to take action and seek new sustenance by reaching our to Rakahanga a much bigger atoll 25 miles away. We divided the island into four and chose crews to sail four clumsy open boats. See the two atolls side by side. This humanitarian mission created an unnecessary tragedy and loss of life.

The boat for my part of the island was a tiny sloop, not longer than 16 foot, with a huge sail. It was barely seaworthy on the open ocean. Four of the seven died and Teehu Makimare my close friend is credited with saving the three remaining. He was selected from all the Commonwealth for showing the most courage and leadership of the highest order. The images following are from his book.

Sadly the apparent reason is hunger but the real answer is leadership failure. He decided to speak to Enoka again: "There, Enoka, I told you the others are sailing much closer to the wind.

They are right, we are wrong, let us change course and follow them or we will be blown to the lee of Manihiki and have trouble getting in.

We were second into harbor on the outward journey: I know what I am doing. Get on with your job! Four men died of starvation. Three survived the terrible ordeal thanks to the heroic efforts of Teehu. Why did Enoka make this tragic mistake of leadership? Did his leadership of the boat suffer from overconfidence and an unwarranted optimism?

Recent research by Daniel Kahneman winning the Nobel Prize in economics offers a possible answer. Enoka likely was victim of his fast brain system and his cognitive and optimistic bias in the crisis moment.

The book delineates cognitive biases associated with each type of thinking. From framing choices to people's tendency to substitute an easy-to-answer question for one that is harder. Framing is also a key component of sociology, the study of social interaction among humans. The book highlights several decades of academic research to suggest that people place too much confidence in human judgment. This theory states that when the mind makes decisions, it deals primarily with Known Knowns, phenomena it has already observed.

Finally it appears oblivious to the possibility of Unknown Unknowns, unknown phenomena of unknown relevance. He explains that humans fail to take into account complexity and that their understanding of the world consists of a small and necessarily un- representative set of observations.

Furthermore, the mind generally does not account for the role of chance and therefore falsely assumes that a future event will mirror a past event. A plausible explanation of the Manihiki tragedy is that Enoka was victim of the fast brain cognitive bias for optimism in crisis. Teehu and the crew on the other hand became concerned using their slow thinking system taking account of known unknowns — the storm and the overweight of food.

After my talk a student asked as optimists is there anything we can do to avoid the pitfalls of fast thinking? Can our cognitive illusions be overcome? Kahneman answers that question, Remember despite its flaws, our System 1 works wonderfully most of the time as in kicking the soccer ball or dancing etc.

This is so important for leaders to understand that when you are captain it will be listening to your crew that is the only hope to prevent disaster from your fast brain mistakes!

He said the book failed to describe the pain of nearly starving to death. Everyday I am reminded of the tragedy when I was only 21 and four strong Polynesians friends died trying to help me and the villagers in Manihiki.

The memory is poignant and spurs my resolve to make a difference in this crazy world so their sacrifice is not in vain. Here is a cartoon to remind you of how vulnerable you are to the cognitive bias of optimism. Why such feckless leadership at this critical moment? Only later, as the ordeal drags on and it it necessary to maintain morale, do social leadership skills become important. Survival history shows in my opinion that crisis leadership demands a broad perspective thinking of all viable options.

Profound conservatism may be comforting but also disastrous as the fate of the Essex proved Tahiti would have been the much better destination. In the Heart of the Sea is an upcoming biographical thriller film directed by Ron Howard. It is based on Nathaniel Philbrick's non-fiction book of the same name, about the sinking of the whaleship Essex. Because I lived on Manihiki at the time and Teehu was my good friend I have a passion for these tragic sea stories.

Both styles ended in tragedy. I submit that Daniel Kahneman two types of thinking is relevant. For Enoka he ignored the slow brain thinking of his crew resting on the lazy fast brain thinking that made him believe no change in course was needed.