4 ms·
A very good approach. Frequently talked about, rarely applied.
by drb311 10y ago
A very good approach.
Frequently talked about, rarely applied.
- dalke 10y agoI find it hard to figure out if I'm only finding the answer I'm looking for. Apply 5 whys to "Why did Snowden leak classified information?" I can think of multiple directions it can go: "he's a traitor who managed to get around security policies", "the US spies too much", and "contractors aren't covered under internal whistleblower protections so leaking was the most likely way to get things to change."
- dsr_ 10y agoThat's fine. Coming up with multiple answers is useful, and then you can either explore all of them or you can filter. For example, I think that you are jumping down too far with your first responses. Snowden leaked because: 1) he had access to it - exploring the why's here will improve your security 2) he was appalled at what he saw - exploring why's here will lead to discussion of whether he was right
- drb311 10y agoI can, in no more than 5 whys, get from ANY problem back to my own personal hobby horse issue.
- mesozoic 10y agoTypically you'd avoid subjective analysis in 5 why's so transform traitor into person and too much into empty string and in the third answer it should probably have "was perceived by Snowden as the most likely"