Difference between revisions of "Analytic model"
From Deliberative Democracy Institiute Wiki
(→Theories) |
(→SONs and MONs) |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
Where disagreements do occur, the results of decision of the group may validate whose SON is more adapted, in due time. Therefore, deliberating citizens should develop tolerance to other people views and ideas. They should understand, that in due time, and as the experience of the group will grow, the knowledge will be more suitable for finding good solutions. | Where disagreements do occur, the results of decision of the group may validate whose SON is more adapted, in due time. Therefore, deliberating citizens should develop tolerance to other people views and ideas. They should understand, that in due time, and as the experience of the group will grow, the knowledge will be more suitable for finding good solutions. | ||
| − | Our [[SON]]s and [[MON]]s are built | + | Our [[SON]]s and [[MON]]s are built from [[theory|theories]]. The theories suggest how the world is working. Which event will cause other event or events, and what are the properties of objects in our world. In trying to manage the world around us we are using our theories. For instance, when we want to reach some destination in our city, we can use several alternative theories, to build a way to reach that destination. We know about cars, and public transportation, and cycling and walking, and we can figure out which is the most economical or fast way to reach our destination. Some of our theories are explicit, and probably most of the are implicit. When we suggest a way of action, our mind uses these theories to propose a way of action. |
Different people have different levels of theories. In further parts of this book we will address the [[Laymen-experts gap|consequences of these differences]]. | Different people have different levels of theories. In further parts of this book we will address the [[Laymen-experts gap|consequences of these differences]]. | ||
Revision as of 04:30, 7 February 2016
The Epistemic Elements
Needs
I propose that every deliberation starts with a need. Deliberation is a costly mechanism to facilitate communal life. We will usually avoid equal deliberation, unless we have some need that is not addressed by the current practices and laws our society currently holds. The need to deliberate arises when people in a society feels that there is a problem fulfilling some need or needs, and that collective action is needed for addressing the needs. If will not address the needs for the members, when some solution we will suggest later on will hurt the needs of some members, they will resist to the new solution. Therefore, in a deliberation we should try and understand the needs of the group, in order to address them better. Understanding the needs help us find solutions for the needs of all members, or at list take them into account.
SONs and MONs
Every member of a group has her own unique understanding and perceptions about the world. For every need the group will try address, every member has her own understanding on how to fulfill this need. When we try to solve a problem, we have to find ways to include all world views held by participants. We can try doing it by taking into account all various thoughts and understandings, but then we cannot understand each other. We could not criticize or understand (to explain more).
The other way is to create a common field of knowledge. For epistemic reasons, I will call it Social Objects Network or SON for the acronym. The process of creating SON, is critical for common decision-making. The group should create a SON in order to understand each other and estimate tighter what will be the best options. The process of creating SON is done by critical thinking, challenging group previous consumptions etc.
Where disagreements do occur, the results of decision of the group may validate whose SON is more adapted, in due time. Therefore, deliberating citizens should develop tolerance to other people views and ideas. They should understand, that in due time, and as the experience of the group will grow, the knowledge will be more suitable for finding good solutions.
Our SONs and MONs are built from theories. The theories suggest how the world is working. Which event will cause other event or events, and what are the properties of objects in our world. In trying to manage the world around us we are using our theories. For instance, when we want to reach some destination in our city, we can use several alternative theories, to build a way to reach that destination. We know about cars, and public transportation, and cycling and walking, and we can figure out which is the most economical or fast way to reach our destination. Some of our theories are explicit, and probably most of the are implicit. When we suggest a way of action, our mind uses these theories to propose a way of action.
Different people have different levels of theories. In further parts of this book we will address the consequences of these differences.
Options
When we try to fulfill a need, we have several options which we can follow to fulfill the need. The options are based on the theories we have on the SON or MON. Every option has also other implications, that can be caused if we will follow them. For instance, if we want to fulfil our need to drink, and we will choose the option of juice, we may solve the need, but one of the implications may be weight gain, due too much caloric value the juice contains.
Value
Every implication that each options carry with it, has a value for us. The juice may have good taste, which has positive value for us, and also to high caloric value, if we want to lose weight, and therefore it’s value is negative. For every option there are positive and negative values.
The value we put on each implication, may vary. When we are kids, we do not put any value of caloric intake, but as we get older, and the caloric intake may have implication on our health or weight, we may start to change the evaluation of too much caloric intake.