Heuristics Lead to Predictable Biases and Inconsistencies Essay Example for Free

Heuristics Lead to Predictable Biases and Inconsistencies Essay The human brain is complex, most especially as a specimen for study regarding decision-making and problem solving. The brain uses very precise methods of compression in order to distinguish the most important features of a certain sensory data. Because of human error, these methods are not perfect. Humans obtain large numbers of sensory data a day, even terabytes worth to be more precise. Most of what a person sees within the day gets erased from his memory, yet tiny pieces of data remain. These are converted into symbolic format, which would connect to the person’s experiences once he is in contact with it. When the sensory data gets abstracted it then becomes symbolical to the person and taken from long-term memory, certain biasing effects arise. â€Å"Biases also operate when the symbols are invoked and manipulated for cognitive operations. † The results of these are our belief systems, representation and anchoring. Anchoring refers to the process where people form beliefs around an anchor and every incoming data should relate towards that anchor even though significantly irrelevant. Representation â€Å"occurs when people expect their outputs to resemble the generating process.† Yet representation doesn’t prove efficient and always true, and this is due mainly because of human bias. Representation and anchoring are examples of heuristics. They are more commonly described as â€Å"rules of thumb† which humans use in reasoning in cognitively economical ways. These are inscribed in the human brain, and it is the same for all, as we all have a pair of hands and a pair of eyes. Heuristics started in the late 1960s and early 1970s and devised by Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman where they focused their studies on human judgment. Heuristics replaced rational judgment and the algorithmic method where they theorized that judgment in uncertainty rests on a limited number of heuristics rather than other more complicated methods. Heuristics became accepted and spread upon almost all forms of knowledge – economics, medicine, law, psychology and political science. This study was revolutionary in its time because â€Å"it simultaneously questioned the descriptive adequacy of ideal models of judgment and offered a cognitive alternative that explained human error without invoking motivated irrationality. † Kahneman and Tversky’s study revolved around the assumption of â€Å"bounded rationality†. In their study, they have also showed that humans indeed are very limited in processing and are probable to erroneous judgment, they attest to the earlier models of judgment where not fit to humans since they are much simpler than what is really happens in human decision making. After wide acceptance and a moving away from the rational decision-making patterns devised in the past, where humans are thought to always choose the best decision by means of probability, Heuristics is still seen to have inconsistencies and laden with biases. The whole concept of Heuristics gives a structured way of problem solving, taking into consideration human brain function and capacity which inevitably makes the process easier. As compared to the old model of thinking where humans are always seen to know probability and choose the best way based on probability computation, Heuristics give a deeper understanding of the human condition. Some failures of heuristics enter when it is presented with data that is not part of its â€Å"domain of expertise† or what is already previously calculated. Biases are a key error in using heuristics for problem solving. A cognitive bias is defined as â€Å"any of a wide range of observer effects identified in cognitive science and social psychology including very basic statistical, social attribution, and memory errors that are common to all human beings. † Biases that are in direct relation to decision making and problem solving affect scientific methods technically designed to eliminate these exact chances of bias. Biases in Heuristics are difficult to notice for three reasons. First, the human thinking process that is used to judge and assess in problem solving is in itself full of biases. Second, biases are common and widespread that it is difficult to notice and third, the decisions that are made through the use of Heuristics feel good therefore it satisfies the person, regardless if it right or wrong. According to a University of Pennsylvania law school research paper, principal findings in behavioral economics and cognitive psychology through the years have shown in studies that humans â€Å"deviate from ideal precepts of rationality in many settings, showcasing inconsistent judgment in the face of framing and other formal manipulations of the presentation of problems.† In their research paper entitled, â€Å"Heuristics and Biases in Thinking About Tax†, they have suggested that citizens especially in the United States suffer from a wide range of biases in the understanding of the basic features of the tax-law design and reform, like the perceptual biases more studied in the domain of the private markets, like the evaluation of â€Å"risky choice† and consumer finances. The main goal of the paper was to show that in evaluating the tax systems present in the country, citizens are vulnerable and exhibit a wide range of Heuristics and biases, which lead to inconsistent judgment and evaluation. Prevalence of these biases show that there is indeed room for â€Å"skillful† politicians and facile political systems to â€Å"manipulate public opinion, and that tax system design will reflect a certain volatility on account of the possibility of eliciting preference reversals through purely formal rhetorical means. † Due to the inconsistencies and biases of Heuristics, decision theorists have studied this phenomenon more closely. It turned into a respected field, founded by of Kahneman and Tversky, commonly known as â€Å"Heuristics and biases.† Heuristics may work well in problem solving, but can also turn to harmful biases. A few examples of heuristics and biases include Framing, which means viewing a need in the real world as a â€Å"problem† you can work on solving and the counterpart bias is mistaking your view of the problem for the real need. Status quo, a heuristic that implies â€Å"Business as Usual† or â€Å"If it ain’t broke don’t fix it† may incur bias against anything new. Cognitive overconfidence is the same as decisiveness and refusal to be haunted by doubt which may lead to the bias of self-delusion. The Heuristic Prudent Estimation means â€Å"conservative estimates† which may lead to missed opportunities which are especially dangerous in group problem solving. Most likely scenario has the Heuristic explanation of avoiding wasting time on possibilities that probably won’t happen, but the bias is rare events can be the most important. Guessing at patterns implies quickly spotting the trend or the big picture, with a corresponding bias of â€Å"Outguessing randomness† and seeing patterns that doesn’t exist. The last example Recall ability or Availability which implies, if an idea doesn’t fit in with the obvious data, it’s surely suspect. The corresponding bias for this is, non-obvious things can be most important or even most common. These examples of Heuristics are common in everyday life, and these rules of thumb do help in assessing situations such as deals in business, economics, or day to day domestic problems. It is common knowledge that these Heuristics can fail predictably, which are also known as â€Å"hidden traps† when a person succumbs to the counterpart bias. It is already a given that Heuristics bring about inconsistencies and biases, but there are some methods of control. For example, for the Heuristic Framing, advice is to not automatically accept initial framing, strive for objective neutral framing, and challenge other people’s framings. These are remedies to biased formed Heuristics, which will generally help in problem solving, whichever stage of the problem the person is at.

Political Objectives of the Falklands War

Political Objectives of the Falklands War War as a Strategic Tool of Policy: The Falklands War Did War prove to be a Successful Means of Achieving Political Objectives? Examine from both UK and Argentinean perspectives. In an essay of this brevity it would be impossible, and indeed unnecessary, to discuss fully the history of the Falkland Islands; we will therefore begin by discussing the immediate origins of the conflict before going on to discuss the strategic, economic and finally political objectives of both participants before reaching a conclusion as to weather the war proved a successful means of achieving each sides political objectives. Development of a Crisis. Argentina had been smarting for some years after the 19th century British occupation of the Falkland Islands, but the matter began to come to a head when they raised the question of sovereignty at the United Nations in 1964. At that time the British position was that sovereignty was non-negotiable, but that they were open to discussions regarding contact between the Islands and Argentina, as well as issues regarding the welfare of the Islanders themselves. An the beginning of 1966, the British Foreign Secretary held discussions regarding the Falklands with officials in Buenos Ares and later a meeting was held in London with the same issue on the agenda. The British strategy during these discussions was to defuse and potential difficulties and to essentially to maintain the then current position. The Argentinean delegations, however, wanted nothing short of a return of the Malvinas to Argentine sovereignty; from the very beginnings of the growing crisis the two sides had differing and indeed mutually exclusive, political and strategic objectives. After the discussions the British publicly stated that they had no strategic, political or economic interests in the Falkland Islands, all of which were untrue as we will see. The growing tension was not only felt among the higher echelons of Government, but also among the public, particularly in Argentina and on the Islands themselves. In September 1964 a light aircraft landed at Port Stanley and planted an Argentine flag, the pilot then took off and returned to Argentine without opposition. Exactly two years later a hijacked Argentine passenger airliner was forced to land on the Island and despite suspicions to the contrary the argentine government denied any involvement. These incidents helped to raise the existence of a British colony on its very doorstep to the Argentine populace, as did the British response of stationing a platoon of marines on the east of the Islands. In November 1966 the British proposed a thirty year freeze on discussions, after which time the islanders would be allowed to decide their own future, this was rejected by the Argentineans as it did not serve their immediate political objectives of a return of the islands. In March of the following year the British subjected that, under certain conditions, they would be prepared to cede sovereignty of the islands to Argentina. There were conditions attached, however, most notably that the wished of the islanders would be paramount. The islanders themselves lobbied parliament and the matter was dropped. The condition that the wished of the islanders be sacrosanct was to become the key underlying theme of British foreign policy with regard to ownership of the islands. The islanders themselves wished to remain a British protectorate and thus the British Government were forced to discount all proposals to the contrary. To the Argentineans, sovereignty was the key issue; thus their respec tive political objectives set the two nations on a collision course. With the political objectives seemingly firmly entrenched and mutually exclusive, it seems a little strange that the two sides continued to negotiate throughout the 1970’s. In the middle of June 1970, talks were concluded that resulted in improved communications between the Argentineans and the Falklanders. The Islanders were offered travel documents that allowed them to move freely in Argentine, as well as a generous range of financial incentives. The Argentines believed that they had made significant concessions and that the British had not reciprocated at all. In 1974 the British proposed a condominium, essentially joint control of the islands. The islanders themselves balked at the idea however. If the Argentine concessions of 1970 had been intended to sway public opinion among the islanders in their favour, it had evidently failed. By the mid 70’s, the Argentine Government had evidently grown tired of attempts to seek a purely political resolution and their position hardened. Argentina began to increase the strength of its rhetoric and openly implied the possibility of invasion. This was followed at the beginning of 76 by an Argentine destroyer firing upon and attempting to board a British vessel. March 1976 say a military coup in Argentina; the military had no doubt been increasing in power as the hardening of the Argentine line on the Falklands of the previous few years indicates. Soon after the coup in Argentina, a patrol helicopter from the HMS Endurance discovered an Argentine military presence on Southern Thule, part of the Falkland Islands, a clear violation of British territory. The British Government failed to react in any more serious way than making a formal protest. This Argentine base was allowed to exist unchallenged for five years, right up to the outbreak of the war in 1982. If there was any one factor in the pre war years that convinced the powers that be in Argentine of the lack of political and/or military will to maintain control of the Falkland Islands it was the failure to react appropriately the they unchallenged presence on southern Thule. 1979-80 saw, along with the election of a new Conservative Government in Great Britain, the revival of the lease back idea first proposed by the British in 1975; the idea being that formal sovereignty would transfer to Argentina whilst the British would maintain a military base and continue to administer the islands. The proposal was vehemently opposed by the islanders and their supporters in Britain. Despite this opposition, the Foreign Office pursued the policy whilst Lord Carrington advised the new Prime Minister Thatcher of the likely political consequences at home. The policy was eventually rejected. Following the breakdown of talks, a summit was held in New York, but, as reported in the Economist, the British diplomats were politically restrained and had little or nothing to offer regarding concessions over sovereignty. By the beginning of 1982, the Argentine military junta was thoroughly dissatisfied with the level and pace of progress and, although publicly stating that their aim was a diplomatic solution to the problem, the unstated agenda was sovereignty by the end of the year. The invasion was, perhaps inevitable. Strategic objectives. The strategic importance of the Falkland Islands is very easy to assess, a simple glance at a map is enough. The islands were one of the very few bases for the British in the Southern Atlantic; from the islands the British could maintain a vigil upon activity throughout most of the southern part of South America. For this reason too, it was of vital (probably even greater) importance to Britain’s key ally, the United States. The importance of the islands in friendly hands can be suggested by the unofficial assistance provided to the British task force by the American navy. Thus Britain’s policy objectives were inseparably bound within strategic considerations. The Argentineans perspective was precisely the reverse; they could no longer tolerate a base so close their coastline. An analogy may be seen in the position of the United States over Cuba during the Cold War. The desire to recover the Malvinas Islands was not new, but the military coup did provide new impetus to the policy, along with putting in power people who were not afraid to explore, and finally execute, the military option in order to achieve the objective. Economic objectives. The economic objectives of both sides as a cause of the conflict have been largely ignored by historians. In 1966 the British unofficially told the Argentines that they had no economic interest in the islands at all and that they were largely self sufficient. Although this may have been the case at the time, this position soon changed. By 1975 the British Government established a working committee under, Lord Shackleton, to investigate the economic potential of the islands. The report concluded the islands had enormous fishing potential, as well as potentially significant oil and natural gas reserves. The oil crisis of 1973 and a recent (1973-75) geological survey in the region had suggested the significant potential for the development of local oil and gas fields. Thus, economically the British Government could not allow the islands to pass out of the British sphere of influence. The Argentines were also aware of the economic potential of the islands as the geological survey was not secret, this led to suspicion in Buenos Ares that the â€Å"British were after the islands oil† The importance of the discovery of oil in the region can not be overstated as a reason for increasing tensions in the region. It would have been politically unsound to say the least for the British to cede control of significant new reserves to a foreign power so soon after a global oil crisis. To the Argentineans, the potential exploitation of a major new oil field just a few miles off their coastline, by a foreign power, was unacceptable. Political objectives. Margaret Thatcher had become Prime Minister of Great Britain in 1979; after wresting the leadership from Edward Heath after the electoral defeats of 1974. The early years of the new Thatcher Government were not easy; inflation was a major issue, as was the entrenched power of trade unions. Oil prices were high following a crisis with Iran, further fuelling inflationary pressures. High interest rates and an increase in VAT did not help the domestic economic position, nor did it help British industry, leading to record unemployment and recession. By 1980, both inflation and unemployment were double what they had been at the election the previous year. The obvious domestic political result was a massive slide in popularity of the new Conservative Government and a significant personal decline in the popularity of the Prime Minister. By 1981 unemployment reached 2.5 million and there were riots in Brixton and Toxteth; the following year unemployment stood at 3 million, where it remained for five years. With this domestic backdrop it is hardly surprising that the British put so little emphasis upon the developing crisis in the Southern Atlantic., and the lack of appropriate response to the landings on Southern Thule. The Argentine invasion allowed the Thatcher government to move the focus away from the failing domestic agenda to matters of foreign policy. She surrounded herself in calls of patriotism which the country responded to. The British task force was assembled with remarkable speed and despatched to the Falklands. The recovery of the islands was hailed as a personal triumph for Mrs. Thatcher, and the general feeling of deep political failure with which the crisis began, had been transformed into a sense of resounding and overwhelming success by its conclusion. The Falklands crisis was a major success for the Thatcher Government; confidence was restored, popularity was again high, despite the domestic situation not having improved at all. For the new military junta in Argentina, there was only one possible course of action. Recovery of the Malvinas Islands was a priority. Military regimes generally do not pride themselves on economic success, but rely on strength of arms; an invasion of the islands became inevitable therefore. The unopposed landings on Southern Thule had had a positive effect in Argentina, reinforcing the belief that the islands would return (and soon) to Argentine control. The invasion came soon after and acted to stabilise the political situation in Argentina, the new regime was acting to secure the islands and thus the nation’s borders from foreign imperialist powers. Initially therefore, the invasion was a huge success, although it quickly turned to disaster as the Argentines underestimated the desire of the British to maintain control of the Falklands. Ultimately the invasion was as negative a force for the Argentine junta as it was positive for the Thatcher Government. Conclusion. Despite the initial successes of the operation for the Argentines, the strategy of militarily occupying the islands proved an utter failure. Progress that was being made on diplomatic means of recovery of the islands, even if that had been some kind of shares control, was lost completely. The Thatcher Government began the crisis in deep difficulties on the domestic front, but a victory in warfare, the defending of the realm as it were, proved a resounding success for the Government and restored its failing popularity, despite the dire domestic situation remaining unchanged. The war was, therefore, a significant success for the British. With hindsight we can also say that it helped to lead to eighteen years of Conservative Government, a feat that would surely have been impossible without the Falklands campaign, or with any kind of a failure to recover the islands. Bibliography. P. Beck, The Falkland Islands as an International Problem (London 1988) L. Freedman, Britain and the Falklands War (Oxford 1988) L. S. Gustafson, The Sovereignty Dispute over the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands (Oxford 1988) M. Hastings S. Jenkins, The Battle for the Falklands (London 1983) D. Kinney, Anglo-Argentinean Diplomacy and the Falklands Crisis, in A. Coll, and Anthony C. Arend, (eds.), The Falklands War: Lessons for Strategy, Diplomacy and International Law (London 1985) G. A. Makin, The Military in Argentine Politics 1880-1982, Millenium: Journal of International Studies, 1983a, 12.1 G. A. Makin, Argentine Approaches to the Falklands/Malvinas: was the Resort to Violence Foreseeable, International Affairs, 1983b, 59.3 M. Middlebrook, Task Force: The Falkland Islands War, 1982, (London 1987) D. Sanders, H. Ward, D. Marsh, Government Popularity and the Falklands War: A Reassessment, British Journal of Political Science, 1987, 17.3 Lord Shackleton, Economic Survey of the Falkland Islands, vol’s 1-2 (London 1976) J. H. Wylie, The Influence of British Arms: an Analysis of British Intervention since 1956, (London 1984) D. S. Zakheim, The Southern Atlantic Conflict: Strategic, Military, and Technological Lessons, in A. Coll, and Anthony C. Arend, (eds.), The Falklands War: Lessons for Strategy, Diplomacy and International Law (London 1985) The Economist, January 24th 1976 The Economist, June 19th 1982 The Times, January 19th 1976

Prejudice Against Native Americans Essay -- essays research papers

Prejudice Against Native Americans These people began migrating thirty thousand years before Christopher Colombus "discovered" the Americas. Native Americans migrated from Asia, crossing a land bridge where the Bering Strait off the coast of Alaska is today. Over the centuries these people spread throughout the continents of North and South America. Since the arrival of the Europeans in 1492 the American Indian has been dehumanized, decivilized and redefined into terms that represent a dominate European view. The Spanish explorers under Colombus were the first to use the terms "Indian" to mean a Native American. These explorers were under the false impression that the had reached the West Indies. This term is still used today. From the first interaction with the native peoples the Europeans inatiated dominance and superiority. There are three distinctive reasons that the Europeans were able to dominate and later oppress the Native American culture such as; the Native American relgious beleifs and practices, the lack of interaction between Native Americans ans Europeans and the lack of orginization of the Indian tribes. All of these aspects had a strong influence the Europeans to become dominate figures on the Native American land. These factors can still be attributed for the way that Native Americans are viewed in society today. After the Revolutionary War the new United States government sought to gain land through treaties. Th...

Script on aboriginal

I have chosen to do my following script from when Molly, Daisy and Gracie have just been captured and are being taken to Moore River Native Settlement. The reason I have chosen to start my script from there is because there will be a range of emotions that will be felt by the girls at that time I and will develop on them and hopefully get a bit of understanding of the torment they must have been going through. Molly Daisy and Gracie are in the back of Mr. Neville's care on the way to Moore River. Gracie is crying and Daisy is shaking. Molly: (Whispers to Daisy) It's going to be all right Daisy, I will get us back home. Daisy: (Still shaking) OK Molly, I trust you. Molly: (Turns to Gracie and whispers) Remember the spirit bird Gracie, remember spirit bird†¦ Gracie: (Tears running down her face, wipes her nose with her hand) The spirit bird will guide us home. Where are we going Molly, I'm scared Molly, I want to go home. Daisy: (in aboriginal) Molly is going to get us home Gracie. I know she will. Mr Neville: (sharp cold tone) Oi! Enough of your filth language. If you are to talk, talk in English. (to himself) Bleeding half-breeds. Molly: (Now shaking herself) Where are you taking us? Mr Neville: (not even looking at Molly) You will see in due time. But first I need to stop And fill up the tank. (He turns to Molly with a frightening look on his face) if You even think about trying to run away, I will do something even your spirit Bird can't guide you through. Mr Neville exits the car to talk to the petrol pump attendant. We see Molly's Grandmother enter the scene running and screaming in aboriginal. She runs to the car and tries to open the door, but Mr Neville was too quick. He whipped his cane across the face of the helpless old lady. Molly: (in shock, speaking in aboriginal) Grandmother! Molly covers Gracie's eyes as she begins to cry. Daisy tries to open the door of the car, but Mr Neville gets back in. Mr Neville: (laughing) I don't suppose you girls want to go the same way as your Grandmother, do you? No I didn't think so. Now you know what the Punishment will be if you ever try to escape from under my nose. Gracie: (still crying) Your big nose! Mr Neville: (fury overwhelming him) What did you just say?! Molly: (quickly) Nothing Mr Neville, sir. Honest. Mr Neville: (deciding not to take any action) As I was saying, even if you do succeed in Escaping, you won't ever see your grandmother again. Daisy: (with courage) You an evil- Molly: (coughs loudly) Mr Neville: (evil sneer) Where your going will change you lives forever. And it will be all Down to me. Over the years you will realise how much good is doing†¦ They slow down as they approach there destination. Molly looks around, already thinking about how they were going to escape. This script shows elements of power, freedom and control throughout. Mr Neville who is one of the most powerful people in the process of biological absorption has control over the aboriginals. He mentions what would happen to them if they tried to escape because all they want is freedom. It was an important part of the play because it was the first time that they were being taken to the camp. Everyone in the scene had different feelings and they all showed them in different ways.

Instant Coffee Essay

Everyone will not believe that coffee is the second people income in the world. There are 30 millions people who gain their income from growing coffee. As the article which had been read by Bob told that coffee has been grown by a lot of farmers in different countries. The type of coffee are Robusta, Arabica, and labarica . Usually, Robusta coffee use to make instant coffee. The first country which grows robusta coffee is Uganda and Indonesia is the second producer of this coffee. Generally, Indonesia is the fourth country which grows coffee in the world. The height of robusta coffee is below 6 meters .The next type coffee is Arabica. That is the coffee which Bob was drunk. It usually uses to make premium coffee. The height is between 600-2000 meters and the largest producer is Brazil, followed by Columbia and Kenya. The last is Labarica coffee. This coffee grows in few areas which has below 2000 high meters. It uses to make blended coffee. Based on the article there are also 3 style of coffee that is instant coffee, espresso coffee and brewed coffee. Brewed coffee is usually drunk by the European country. But, it was strange that U.K mostly choose instant coffee. Britannia supposes to choose espresso coffee while American chooses instant coffee. In Asian, Japan drink more brewed coffee. There is also institution which maintains market price of coffee, is called ICO who was made up by United Nations in 1963. They act as mediator between producing countries and consuming countries.

My Favourite Character

This Essay is about my favourite character in â€Å"To Kill a Mocking Bird. † She is one of the biggest, most important characters; she is considered the main character. She is very important for she helps narrate this story. She helps with the story by describing her thoughts and feelings that is one of the main reasons why I like her. She also helps to develop the plot, themes, and helps to emphasize some of the symbolism. Her name is Jean-Louis, but we all know her as Scout. Scout is a daughter, a sister and a friend.She is a huge tomboy; and she likes to prove it to every one. She prefers to hang out boys rather than girls, and so she does, she spends most of her time with her brother Jem, and in the summers, her cousin; Dill. In the beginning of the book Scout is only a young age of 9, throughout the novel she gets older just like the rest of the characters, and also matures along with her older brother Jem. Although Scout isn’t going through the same stages as Jem she matures just as much.Jem’s turning into a teenager, while Scout is getting older, and is discovering how the world works. The era of this book is set back to around the years 1861 to 1865; this was when the civil war was happening, along with the discrimination of African Americans. Racism is a huge theme in â€Å"To Kill a Mocking Bird. † Scout doesn’t really under stand that racism isn’t good, but it’s not her fault, because she has lived with it and doesn’t know any different.In that time â€Å"blacks† were known as lesser human beings. The â€Å"whites† were known to be greater than any other race; Scout didn’t know that this was wrong, so she went with it. During the trail, one of the biggest parts of this novel, Scout discovers a little bit about racism. The trial is about how an African American is being accused for the rape of a Caucasian woman, during the trial a lot of discrimination happens to the defenda nt, this is when Scout discovers racism.

Richard Neustadt's Studies Presidental Power Essay

Richard Neustadt's Studies Presidental Power - Essay Example Neustadt starts his book with a sober appraisal of the American Presidency. He states that the American people tend to rate a President "from the moment he takes office . . . we are quite right to do so . . . his office has become the focal point of politics and policy in our political system" (Neustadt, p.1). He also argues that "we often make our judgments upon images of office that are far removed from the reality" (Neustadt, p.1). It is this discrepancy between image and reality which is one of the most important elements of Neustadt's book. Neustadt also argues that while it is perhaps natural to concentrate on the President as a single individual, a more accurate portrayal would consider the "presidency" as an institution that includes "two thousand men and women" (Neustadt, p.1). The overall argument that Neustadt makes is that Presidents who lead by persuasion rather than relying upon Constitutional power are more successful. While there are complex reasons for this, the over arching reason is that the President is innately weak under the US Constitution according to Neustadt. How can President Clinton be viewed through the prism of Neustadt's theory of the Presidency Bob Woodward's The Agenda: Inside the Clinton White House takes a very close and unsparing look at the first one hundred days of the Clinton presidency. While a convenient figure, the first 100 days also has historical importance because it was within the first 100 days that President Roosevelt introduced the major elements of the New Deal and swept into existence a whole range of government programmes. This achievement is perhaps an impossible target for any President, but it is the one that inevitably seems to be made. In The Agenda Woodward paints a portrait of a President who was essentially nave, but who nevertheless had good intentions. The idea that Clinton should use persuasion rather than constitutional powers to actualize his agenda is seen perhaps within the surprising fact that Clinton appears to have been greatly influenced by the Federal Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan. Although much older, a staunch conservative and possessed of a distinct lack of charisma (and thus the opposite of the new President), Greenspan and Clinton actually got on very well and the Fed Chairman soon persuaded the Democratic President of the need to take bold action in order to reduce the national deficit. It was the economic success that would ultimately be Clinton's most powerful achievement and one that was based upon constitutionally derived powers rather than charisma. Clinton had attempted to use charisma, persuasion and a Democratic Congress in order to push through a comprehensive healthcare plan that would have introduced universal coverage to American for the first time. Based upon a moral certainty that this was the only ethical course for America, Clinton ignored the practical problems of getting the legislation through Congress when very powerful interests (the healthcare industry) were laid out against it. The picture that Woodward paints is of a President who is often torn between what he wants to do ideologically and what he can do pragmatically. For example, the following occurred during one early Cabinet meeting. The Cabinet was discussing fiscal policy and the two sides of Clinton, the Liberal idealist and the Conservative