Two-person concept

To minimize the possibility of human error in any procedure involving a nuclear device, the U.S. Department of Defense has developed the two-person concept. Two or more persons, each capable of undertaking the prescribed task and of detecting an incorrect or unauthorized step in a procedure, are assigned to the task. One person accomplishes the procedural step and the other checks the action to verify it has been done correctly. It is not necessary that both persons have equal knowledge of the task, only that each is able... 

Consideration of deviation Did the maintenance program make allowances for human errors Was a two-person concept used for critical operations Did supervision monitor difficult, tedious, or other error-prone tasks ... 

Siace the 1970s an interesting evolution has been the concept of mini-breweries or pub breweries, which began ia the United States, especially in towns of a reasonable size without "their own domestic brewery." The idea has spread to Europe and Asia, and the result is several thousands of small breweries, serviced by one or two persons, all over the world. 

Some cost-benefit analysis (CB A) performed on climate change reach an optimal level of C02 concentration in the atmosphere of 650-700 parts per million (ppm) within a century or two (Weitzman 2009). Furthermore, the whole concept of assigning monetary values to the above mentioned is for many persons morally upsetting. 

In fact, the two-point method can be considered a special case of the more general S-G concept, since it can be considered the application of the set of convolution coefficients —1, 0, 1 to the data. Of course, these convolution coefficients were created ad hoc, and not according to the general scheme that produces the S-G set. Nevertheless, it is convenient to group them together for the purpose of further examination. We are also indebted to David Hopkins for invaluable discussions concerning the properties of the S-G convolution coefficients (D. Hopkins, 2002, personal Communication). 

Factor analyses of the PCL-R (e.g., Hare, 1991) identified two underlying factors interpersonal-affective (Factor 1, including such traits as callous ) and antisocial behavior (Factor 2, e.g., juvenile delinquency ). The interpersonal-affective features are generally considered to be central to the construct (e.g., Harpur, Hart, Hare, 1994). It is important to note that a similar construct is included in the DSM—antisocial personality disorder— but it is defined primarily in behavioral terms and does not match many of the nonbehavioral aspects of Cleckley s description. Moreover, both constructs overlap substantially with the concept of criminality, but they are not isomorphic with it. An individual can be a psychopath and can still be successful and without a criminal record. 

For human beings, two different memory categories have been introduced. According to Schacter, imphcit (or unconscious/unaware) memory is revealed when previous experiences facilitate performance on a task that does not require conscious or intentional recollection of those experiences. Explicit memory, in turn, is revealed when the performance of a task requires conscious recollection of previous experiences. These are descriptive concepts that are primarily concerned with a person s psychological experience at the time of memory retrieval. Accordingly, the concepts of implicit and expUcit memory neither refer to nor imply the existence of two independent or separate memory systems (Schacter 1987). As these two memory categories cannot be easily appHed to the situation in animals, they will not be further considered in this chapter. 

Four approaches to describing what it means to be effective have been selected for presentation here. The first two, described in Boxes 2.1 and 2.2, start with a concept of what personal effectiveness is and then suggest what a person needs to be or do in order to attain this concept of effectiveness. 

The conception of freedom of the will I allude to raises many problems.2 Obvious questions concern the understanding of the phrase "to have the will one wants to have." 1 believe there are two related but distinct questions here. One question concerns what it is to possess freedom of the will, to be a free and responsible person. A second question concerns what state one is in when one fails to have the will one wants to have. The approach to freedom of the will 1 briefly presented earlier may collapse these two questions into one. 

---