Psychology settings for deliberation

1 Introduction 2 Introduction 3 theory 3.1 brain research: two decision systems 3.2 human needs and motivations, needs create 3.3 Filling the needs in the various decision-making 4 shows the theory 4.1 Troling - need for status and attention 4.2 ego and need recognition 4.3 shouts, and shop and listening - the need for security and control 4.4 physiological needs 4.5 Addiction to FFFF Val - PFC 5 Discussion and Conclusions 6 references

Contents

Introduction

Democracy Dlibertibit based on the ability of the public to discuss openly and freely about any subject that interests him. Many writers have talked about the importance of open public debate. Rousseau 'Does social "meeting suggested that every time you go from place to place, allowing all citizens to participate. In practice, however, it was difficult to create an open public discussion of the absence of advanced communication technologies. Even after appearing press, radio and television, still it was difficult to open public discussion. Controlling shareholders of the mass media are calling the subject, and chose the speakers and interviewers. Only recently, with the development of the Internet and social networking was first possibility, technologically developing free discussion of many - to many big groups, without the state or anyone else could control the discourse in liberal [1] [2] . In principle, for democracy Hdlibertibit, the Internet would be an excellent basis for the development of wide-ranging public debate. But in practice, most of the discussion is the discussion that is not convergent understandings and conclusions, and many times creates a dialogue deaf and ideological clash arena. To create a productive dialogue between denominations, different approaches have evolved as management by Modrtrim forums, groups and cultural discourse accept open source forces the participants to comply with the normative Dirshu ruling group. All these approaches are domineering attitudes that allow the elite to block dialogue and determine what can and can not say in the forums. These approaches actually hit some extent the freedom of expression necessary discourse Hdlibertibi. So we looked for ways to allow open discussion management, control, enabling the development of constructive dialogue. We noticed this problem a direct democracy movement. Direct Democracy movement is a group of activists and thinkers who tried to promote direct democracy. When we have identified the problem of not being able to reach agreements on social networks, we began to develop a unique culture of debate in Israeli discourse. We have developed tools, methods and ways to contact our interlocutors to reach broader agreement and hold a positive and productive. Culture slowly swelled network, and we saw more enterprises using this Debate. And multiplied online discussion processes, and as we are clear that the parts are widening public attempt to reach consensus, it was clear that not only the culture debate we have and we need to understand in depth how public discourse is conducted, and what psychological mechanisms - cognitive manage the public debate. We concluded that we understand the mechanisms behind the processes of hearing, so it will be possible to develop a more open discussion and more productive. In this paper, I review two psychological insights - Kognitiobiot, who helped us develop a deeper understanding of the processes of discussion, and to develop procedural methods allow the development of an open and critical dialogue.

Introduction

Growth of the Internet and social networking create ample potential for the development of democracy Dlibertibit. For the first time in history can audiences of many millions to discuss among themselves without government restriction or supervision else. Variety of social networking platforms are competing among themselves for BIO public and his desire to manage the way you enjoy discussion and attract the audience. Freedom, was much hope for anyone interested rise Dlibertibit democracy, participatory democracy and direct democracy. But in practice, we can see that this potential is far from being realized at this time. A large part of the public discourse is the discourse of non-convergent agreement. At least in the Israeli discourse, one can see a lot of dialogue polemical, argumentative and often aggressive in order to defeat the opponent. Situation talkbacks often even worse, and it can be shown impassioned dialogue and incites hatred against the other side. In this situation, it is very difficult to conduct a serious discussion about the various solutions Llbaiot them going public or the reasons for the problem. Discourse as it exists today is largely superficial dialogue and can not serve as a solid foundation for the realization of democracy Dlibertibit. Many forums are not managed by supervisors quickly become a battleground literally at the speed had been abandoned by moderate members, and then abandoned even by militant friends, until eventually completely abandoned forum. To deal with the phenomenon of The Flaming existing social networks, and that tends to break forums, develop management techniques of the forums. One of the earliest methods of network management discussion groups were conducted accept the Usnets [3] . These groups conducted in secret the forums by obstruction of participants problematic and private correspondence notes that participants who behaved according to the criteria of the members condenser. Contractor groups rightly aroused opposition, because they were not elected by the public participant and the rules they chose were not public discussion. Members often tried to deny the existence of condenser condenser groups to avoid criticism. Discussion of the capacitor groups became so profitable that took root in the discussion group using the acronym TINC mark the sentence There Is No Cabal. Monitoring groups also agreed not always enjoy public support. An example of this could be found in one of the stages of development of the discussion forum of ancient North neighborhood. In 2010, when the forum was growing up, some participants began to demand to keep the agreed rules forum. For this purpose it was decided that the group will be established to oversee the Forum [4] [5] . After three months when tested again the need group, found that people do not feel the need to monitor the forum, and they preferred to work on their own to monitor the forum. The continued development of the forum, the forum members preferred to continue to suffer sometimes a little irrelevant information so as not to be controlled by a closed group. Other means for managing Board is set Modrtor (monitors) in charge of the forum. Monitors forum is usually the person who started the forum or appointed by the founders of the forum to manage the forum. Monitors or monitors are not elected and they get their Hlgitmtzih to participants who realize that they are entering the forum run by a particular person. So happens good being monitored can increase the Board and monitor are not doing their job properly are not able to increase their forums. Though this process is considered a legitimate player more, but in practice the mantra has a good ability to block opinions that are not liked them and determine the direction and spirit of the discussion. situation is not suitable for Democracy procedural seeks to avoid the ability of individuals to direct the discussion and determine its course. Moreover, the existence of a forum which is monitored by small groups enables the development of group thinking and radicalization of opinion . Facebook's discussions array appears that developed another method for dealing with the fllaming. Facebook people connect or friends they love, or are members of groups and pages they like. In general opinions received by other authors are like top and opinions people have not signaled that they love disappear at the bottom and forgotten. Idea that monitoring by large audiences without the need that monitor individual (pages and groups also monitored by the individual., But it is not necessary apparatus). This creates a positive monitoring. Facebook also allows monitoring negative by the opportunity to indicate whether a particular user is a troll or a spammer or a user submits a material that is newsworthy, Facebook. This allows users to prevent other users from the freedom of expression. Well as the positive control and negative control, allow a state of groupthink. Melee of friends who love to listen to the participants like them their opinion and option to block with different opinions, can lead to a state of groupthink and to radicalization Group , as at least the Israeli Facebook often can be seen [6] . But this situation encourages extremism and difficulty producing group discussion and consensus processes wide. To create the appropriate discussion Dlibertibi discussion, we must find a way to generate discussion where no central control, and many opinions are heard without generated flaming. To succeed in this situation, I began to develop with the direct democracy movement members initially process called culture of debate, and then turned to the theory that deals with understanding the different needs of litigants. By theory and by understanding Afistmiologiot constructs developed that allows access to discussions without control, and without blocking users. Theory and method to describe due to observational experience - acquired intervention over four years of managing forums, participate in discussions and deliberations management face - to - face, as well as personal conversations with hundreds of people trying to understand the psychological mechanism is hidden under discussion processes. In this article I will present the theory and introduce accidental example of this theory. Theory

Fruitful discussion on Gstil [7] is created when there are social conditions (social process) and conditions Afistmiim (Analitic process) match. These usually take care debate executives formation appropriate conditions. Discuss worried equal division of time discussion between the participants, it encourages mutual understanding, and offer alternatives. Epistemologically supervisor encouraged based on admissible evidence. Focus on the important issues and assisting in selecting various options. This process should allow the development of rational discussion of public space from Idel equal Hhbrmasit [8] . As management of the discussion, the process Hdlibertibi, the show everyone is a process regulated and administered by the central leaders debate. This can harm the offsets of the discussion and it hits democratic principles of equality Shiwionn ability to influence and expression. When asked to democratic debate by discussing managers, a concentration of power in the hands of the organizers of the debate can cause hearing routing solutions and desired destinations organizers, as shown restraint [9] . To prevent this, we must find ways to develop capabilities for public discussion without hearing drivers. That capability Mtfttht when there is public consensus about the appropriate conditions fruitful discussion and fruitful discussion of the importance of itself. Inheritance of culture fruitful discussion, requires a broad consensus among the public dealing and willing to accept the terms of the debate. Mnissioneino as more natural Debating users and is more reasoned and explained, the easier it is for large audiences receive it. If the end of the process, new users also feel that the discussion and culture contribute to the participants, the participants Hhdshimiamtzo the culture of debate and will be joined willingly.

(There is Hazrttiot in the above paragraph for the third time .... find a way Lhhabir relevant to the attributional and delete) Base theory is used to explain the psychology of the discussion I will use both the older theories emerged diverse disciplines, and together can explain a wide range of procedural effects. One theory is due to brain studies conducted two decades and especially in recent years. These brain studies help to understand cognitive processes that occur in the minds of litigants and will help in understanding the complexity of their responses. The second theory is more established and has been raised by Abraham Maslow in 1943. Maslow's theory of human needs and engaged in our context will try to show how discussion helps to fill these needs and how to shape the culture of dialogue that the participants' needs are met optimally together with achieving a fruitful discussion.

Brain research: two decision systems

Participation in the discussion requires participants in the meeting listen to others, acquire new knowledge, to retrieve old information and finally make a decision on how to respond to take in order to achieve necessary correspondence for which the person participates in the discussion. For this he has to combine decisions that work in the brain, and the realization of the different needs them trying Hmstmslmla. In theory I present below, I will try to show how the decision-making systems in the brain work to fulfill the various needs and how to fill needs integration between systems and different decision-making affecting the conduct of the hearing. Brain studies show that the brain there are several therapists in different areas of decision making. Of these systems there are two systems that operate in different psychological situations and create different resolutions character. Variance between them is sharp, making it easy to distinguish between them. If it unlikely that our knowledge of brain research will get better, you will notice the growing complexity of decision-making systems of the brain [10] Both systems are used for equity psychological situations. One system operates in a state of emergency, and another in a relaxed learning.

It now seems that a significant part of the decision making process in emergency affected by a brain region called the amygdala, which is a small part within the limbic system is responsible for functions more "primitive" brain. The amygdala is involved in the processes of response for emergency situations, and it seems that is primarily responsible for operating the emergency response mechanism to fight - or - run away (fight or flight) [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] . The second system is designed for decision-making in a relaxed and probably is more concentrated in the foreground lobe (Prefontal cortex). This system I will call it for simplicity promoted lobe system ( PFC ), is a system that considers the different options and choose between different options. Participants in the areas of expertise that are responsible for various aspects of decision making. Two areas we know are areas called dlPFC and vmPFC. Dorsal part - the sides of the frontal promoted (dlPFC) participates improper visual information [17] . Called the ventromedial PFC probably responsible for calculating probabilities of occurrence of future activities [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] . Some information related to anterior cingulate cortex responsible for the improper value of each option [28] . The ACC is part of PFC, but it is close to him, and for convenience we will refer also to the system as a PFC. Future more we know about the parts of the system, it will set it properly. Parts described are Folim alone. Today with the development of knowledge about the various brain parts and their function, are revealed more and more parts related to decision making. The more knowledge about the different regions grows, so that we can better understand the decision-making processes.

Frontal lobe system usually operates in situations of relaxation and more time is required from the decision-making for emergency situations, to make decisions. Sometimes it wait until S"covd evidence "overwhelming one way or another, and sometimes it consider a complex set of information to decide how to act [29] . While various decisions is great, and sometimes, in my experience, people with severe and concentration problems require weeks and months to make decisions. People who do not have ADHD can make informed decisions for a few seconds to days, depending on the complexity of the decisions they take, Bainabtzih they employ and their impulsivity. Because usually people are not an existential threat Hudrs operation of the emergency system fight or flight discussions we would expect users to use the system makes decisions in situations of relaxation, ie at PFC., But in practice, at least in the many discussions taking place on the social networks, we see that litigants use times Many hearing impassioned and aggressive. Quantity listening and learning among forum participants is low and it seems that the participants do not use the system Hfrfontlit but in the fight-or-flight. system also exists in the minds of ancient and is designed to help organisms respond effectively to situations of threat.

System - fight or flight is an ancient system that is in many animals and is designed to help protect the animal. Now generally believed that the system is characterized by a typical initial response and the choice between three options of courses of action [30] . The first reaction when there is a fear of the threat, it is freezing in place, in order to weaken the ability of the predator denied recognition or source of danger, and to help threatened to try to identify clearly the source of the danger. Frozen state machine - Freeze. Usually most people Iaidfo in a terrible state to avoid the threat and deal with it (Flight), because confrontation with a dangerous enemy may rise in injury or death. If you do not find and need to deal with the threat Iokoon brain the body to attack the threat (Fight) In case a threat too hard and there is no way to escape or avoid the threat selects the victim shows signs of surrender in the hope that the attacker sees attacked a weak opponent, there's no point in dealing with him, or in the case of predator, the predator decides Shipwrecked sick or dead and unhealthy eating it (Fright). Because now acceptable use more complex description of the system - fight or flight I shall call it a shortcut to the FFFF. Although people in Western society are not an existential threat, not prey animals and other humans, and therefore are not supposed to use in the FFFF in everyday situations, it appears that many of the public used the most widely. Surfers often Forums conflict situations. People on the street can respond to each other aggressively. It also seems that the media learned to radicalize the use of information represents an existential threat to to run this system and get high ratings. Most mainstream Israeli press, which has developed almost always in the news for rape, murder, bribery, corruption security threat, low achievements in education and so on. The reason that the media prefer to make representations threat is that - FFFF feel terrible danger to stimulate it very easy for most of the population. As a result people are drawn to the advantage of the news and media sources ratings produced a sense of reality threatening.

Discussion is also in discussions themselves can easily turn to inflamntory if one correspond identify other participants threaten him personally, for his ideas or the group - voiced his. When one of the participants feel threatened he may choose to attack the threat factors. Aggression has a feature contagious, because whoever attacked himself may feel a sense of threat and response will also FFFF. As a result, the system participants in their FFFF into option fight, react aggressively towards each other and created a flare forum. To the flaming has another negative effect. Because the system is intended for most of the population into flight mode and not to fight, the result of aggression forums will be the flight of most of the population forums. That may be why, according to press sources reported that monitor the amount of internet readers, only about one percent of the readers of articles respond. And the same percentage usually responds aggressively. According to the model FFFF, is it a small percentage of the population that responds to information response fight. This phenomenon is called Israel a "culture talkback" and it rejects many users from reading the talkbacks because of the violence and Bulgari lot in common. Such discussion culture, it is very difficult to motivate people to discuss complex. Emergency system is built complex decisions, and it is not suitable for learning new topics, but mainly to preserve the existence, and thus, the knowledge, and to postpone new knowledge.

Another typical phenomenon resulting from the use of knowledge threats in the general press, is a phenomenon of indifference. After long exposure to threats knowledge, it seems that the key public indifference. Indifference in our model fits the model of fright, which is a type of depression or apathy (expand a little on the fright).

Human needs and motivations, needs create

Another important psychological model for understanding the processes of discussion groups is Maslow's model for understanding human motivation stemming from human needs. Understanding motivation and needs will allow us to understand how different behaviors of the participants, provide different needs. Seminal article in 1943 [31] , shows that Maslow human motivation created by the needs, which ask people to provide by different actions. Maslow organized the pyramid-shaped needs when claims satisfied the lower needs allows the emergence of higher needs. Maslow divided into five levels of needs. Most basic level, are physiological needs, including the need to drink, eat, keep healthy, keep your body temperature is essential to life. Maslow put this level the need for sex. The second level of needs deals with the need for security. To fill this need the person to understand the environment and to understand how to survive unscathed. The third layer is about belonging. In this dimension, people feel the need of company, belonging needs, and love others. To satisfy the social needs of people try to work to receive from the feelings of belonging, love and friendship. The fourth level, people will try to provide the necessary respect, status and recognition. These workers fill a need for respect and status, shall be conducted, the other participants will acquire them respect and cherish them. Finally, the fifth level people try to realize their full potential. This level pianists will try to reach perfection in their performances, artists try to create masterpieces, and builders the best building they could produce. Into this layer, according to Maslow, only reach a few people, who managed to fulfill all four previous levels.

Since Maslow published his theory, steadily improved knowledge Hfsichlogy, biological and cognitive functioning. Our understanding of the different needs, stages of development and its cause was more accurate, and keeping up to date knowledge, has changed little understanding of the interaction between needs. In 2010, offered Knrik and others update of Maslow's model in light of knowledge gained since the submission of the initial model [32] . Knrik and others, leaving the bulk of the pyramid of Maslow in place, but they alter the factors leading to the appearance of needs, from a performance gradual and follows, as described by Maslow, the emergence of needs from personal development, Aontognzh (personal development that occurs in accordance with the development Haboltzionit) and response to the environment . For example, the needs are not only graded (ie Yafia the ancient needs fulfilled), but they also depend on the evolution of man and his life history. Much physiological needs are already in the first hours after birth, such as the need to breathe, eat and drink, to maintain body temperature and prevent physical harm. But not all physiological needs are at this time of life. Need for sexuality in Maslow considered physiological necessity appear in adulthood, long after the needs of security and belonging already appear in children. Aontognzh is the physiological development of the human or animal, according to the process that was being Hablotzioni. According to this principle, we mimic the physical Vatfthotino we evolutionary development. Thus the need for love and belonging appear a little later for eating and drinking, because the brain centers earliest Aboltzionit related eating and drinking before developing other areas of the brain that affect the need for love and belonging. Also the operating principle of environmental needs are not fixed. Should appear according to different situations and aggregate information.

For example, while a wealth of resources, females tend to breed a couple, because the level of dependence son - a pair that will provide them resources decreases [33] . Under conditions similar to people with different psychological characteristics will trigger systems and other needs. For example, people with social anxiety react defensively when they feel rejection of the social environment, and the social security people react the same pursuit to connect environmentally hostile social situation [34] .

In addition to offering Knrik and others, need a target top people is not greatness, as suggested by Maslow, but the need for choosing a - pair, reproduction and parenting. Necessary consistent with the theory of evolution, according to which all human behaviors and animals that they can put their offspring existing tests optimally nature and society put them. Analysis, we hold, does not deal with the order of appearance or upper needs all of the theories suggest, but we will deal with the four dimensions of Physiology agreed, security, belonging and appreciation. So we keep it simple discussion at this point.

Fill needs in the various decision-making

Needs are measures of the brain to tell us we need something. It may be I need to enter the body, or to obtain a warmer environment when the current environment happened immediately and the body's energy is lost, or need more friendships. Below for a component that is actually trying to get the brain to allow proper person, and when the component is provided, to sense the need to disappear. Therefore sense is a vital process needs development and the existence of man.

In order to fulfill the required components to our existence, the human to interact with the world that is missing will be filled from the world around us. To achieve this, the brain to try to predict the behavior of the world and decide what actions will be undertaken to fill the gap effectively and wasteful [35] . After that the brain makes a decision, it must perform the actions and expect that proper action will be the missing element in the environment and fulfill the requirement. Accordingly, a person lacks nutrients to the body, to feel hungry and need to get food will increase. To get food to evaluate and consider where the food source. To perform a series of actions to get the food, and then check in here and eat. If you decided true of a series of actions required and managed to get an object that looks as food, after eating the food, if considered and decided about the quality of diet correctly transmit the stomach to the brain after a while, the feeling of satiety and hunger disappears. This cycle of balance allows the human body to supply the need by the interaction between the brain and sensory decision making various needs. If the operation, resulting in the decision was appropriate environmental behavior where the person lives, the need to be completed and accepted sense of filling the need.

The decision on how to act to achieve the necessary resources to satisfy the need, depends on the decision-making system in which the person uses to get his way. Each system will be different courses of action to satisfy the needs. We expect the system to find ways to PFC complex, sophisticated and deliberate find a way to fulfill the needs, while the decision-making system-FFFF, act of aggression, escape or surrender to fulfill the needs. For example, to get food, people with dominant PFC learn a profession, work for a living, support themselves, and with the money buy food. People in their dominant system is FFFF, use more violence or submission to get food. Aggressive people will try to get food by threats, theft and robbery. In contrast yielding more or begging will face the mercy of the company, to get food or money to buy food. There is of course a dichotomy. These systems are linked, and more or less dominant. When we are at work and get the income through the use of knowledge acquired through the PFC systems, we also can use FFFF reactions to earn more resources by the exclusion of competitors aggressive verbal responses. It is a rare case of competition between colleagues may competitors use gossip - negative to reduce the chances of their competitors applying for a job, and improve their chances of admission to the position sought.

In the next chapter we will examine the various instances of conduct on the forum and try to learn from them what may be necessary to be trying to deliver, and which system is used. Since we are dealing with the process of discussion, usually requiring the system - PFC we also propose ways we have learned from experience how to move the discussion into a form that would allow optimal use of users in the PFC.

The theory shows

Troling - need for status and attention

One of the most prominent and interesting Sthkimo forums before Hdominntadtiot of Facebook was a side Htroling. . Trolls on web-trolls, they write discussion forums and try to harass people, annoy them and take them off-balance, regardless of the topic of discussion. Any attempt to calm logically trolls often falls on deaf ears. All her discussion about her acceptance further agitation. Troll "effective" can upset other participants and become his hearing, loud and aggressive and to escape using moderate the forums. To deal with the problem Htorling developed a number of approaches. Many forums where there is usually effective monitoring can usually rule out the use of forum trolls. Different culture Shtfthth for Btroling called "dont feed the troll" Experience shows Scshar not answer trolls they disappear and move to another place where they can get angry responses from other users. Although this process is possible, not always easy to avoid other participants to respond to trolls. To assess what motivates trolls act the way they operate, you can look at their actions and knowing what needed both designed to provide. Questions and Answers section newsgroup Andrew Oakley offers trolls behavior characteristics [36] . Successful troll, especially from Oakley is a troll who wrote and acted over many discussion groups on the most, with the most minimal investment. Oakley distinguishes between professional trolls that interfere with many forums, and Trolrim seeking attention. Troll enjoying fooling forum users and show them fools. One trolls "effective" managed to attract 3500 responses per year, and cause the removal of a high school girl because she was accused Btrlonig.

If you try to imagine what makes trolls to act in this way, you can see what trolls are interactions with other users of this form of communication. One of the needs we see here is particularly evident is the need for attention to other users. The second need is a sense of power and superiority over many other people. Separation of Oakley strengthens this hypothesis. Separation between those who are looking for attention and those are professional. Unions, it seems, are working to achieve superior new users and experienced, and enjoy hurting them. Probably the paramount need is a strong need, and is accompanied by a lack of empathy and understanding of the consequences of their actions on the users affected. Suggested that the process involved a lack of empathy is reinforced by studies Troling conducted among school children participating trolls look showed lower performance on tests of empathy [37] . Because empathy is important for the development of inter - personal and group integration [38] absence, can cause the owner of a lack of empathy also lack the ability to integrate into the group. Therefore, in order to get attention or to achieve dominance, lack empathy can turn a verbal process to meet their needs. User lacking empathy will try to deceive other participants and lead them to where they see so stupid to drop. This provided the writer's need to troll supremacy casualties. The more casualties, the troll will get a higher sense of superiority. Participant who has difficulty empathy and only feel the need belonging, bullying people and Hargztm can provide a sense that people recognize him, and he is a well known forum. As disruptive students are that teachers recognize them before they know the students quiet, so annoying troll forum, will make known figure. One very big forums I participated in them. Forum in the tens of thousands of participants, one participant Doug Bug people vocalizer and difficult questions about anything. Since the Forum gave him great influence, acceptance of ideas demanded his consent. One of the interesting phenomena that occurred was face to face meeting organized forum. During the meeting people went with stickers and signs calling for him to compromise more. Thus the action of bullying and punctuation, the participant was able to win the consciousness of tens of thousands of people. A study on the relationship between narcissism, empathy and a desire for power and control over others [39] , shows that the need for control and power in men is correlated reverse intimacy, and positively correlated narcissism. Forums can provide a sense of superiority for people who have a great deprivation and the need to control power and self-aggrandizement, but can not get it in the real world. Perhaps that's why people brought trolls often described as people who can not to anything outside the virtual world, and enjoy mistreat innocent people. How trolls operate is through aggressive. They enjoy hurting others, and get attention from others by bullying, harassment, provoking and humiliation. From this we can estimate that the likely trolls turn the system to their FFFF to make decisions. Sophisticated which may also activate the PFC system to manipulate the situation in which other participants can troll hit optimally sacrifice. Since Strolimfogaim other Forum members, in most cases, it's also likely affected members also respond using the system FFFF to escape, or attack back. Theoretical system that can explain both the phenomenon of the fight, which is the Troling, and the escape process which takes place Troling forums. To prevent Troling, not by removing from the forum trolls, he could move himself to allow violation of freedom of expression entirely legitimate, we must find ways to prevent the phenomenon of psychological Htroling. One tried and true methods to handle this issue is to avoid responding trolls. This comment was called Do not feed the troll. Avoidance response does not allow a troll to attract the "prey" trap, and prevents the creation of the required effect of lowering another person or made me angry, and therefore needs a troll not be provided. As a result of the trolls need not doubt they will take other forums, where they can get the needed attention - attention and need for control and supremacy.

The method still - Do not feed the troll might cause even those who express legitimate player, but a bit aggressive or irritating filtered this method. To allow maximum freedom of expression, we had to develop a method that would allow discussing psychological, even when people come to discuss troll behavior. The solution I found was using empathy brings. When I came across the phenomenon Htroling, and I was not aware of the theory described in this article, I tried a number of methods for dealing with Troling activity. And one of the most effective methods developed in light of the feeling I had back then, that the need Shtrolistim trying to get is attention. Accordance with this feeling, I tried to make the troll part of the community. I did this by directing positive attention troll. Once the troll into the community, instead of raging on I approached him love and a notebook. I used phrases like "How nice touch", "Yes, we are happy to have you and would love to hear your thoughts." During the discussion, I try to assign a place of honor according to Troll and encourages community members to deal with the claims, even if they sound strange at first. Keywords closeness and warmth were able to make almost all the trolls partners off relatively quickly. This approach was particularly effective. Almost all the trolls have quickly become part of the community and continued harassment. The only time I encountered who could not handle the matter was referred to the case of a troll call him "Mutti" (so as not to give him the story of the publication). Moti is a troll walking communities have left agenda, and bully other members by making very provocative positions matching the Palestinian position. One of his main arguments was that the Jews are Khazars, and Arab Jews are Jews Haotntim that make it right to live here, under the auspices of a Palestinian state stretching from the Mediterranean to the Jordan River. Moti managed to annoy regularly used in many forums because his extreme views. At one point, Moti came to my blog and began to argue his claim newsletters. As I did with the other trolls turned to Moti fondly. I've heard the arguments, and praised him for his thinking interesting. When I tried to have a dialogue with him was mysteriously immune counters rationalization process and the reliance on evidence. Would seem that insists on staying Moti antagonistic position no matter what. Moti is the only troll I remember standing in front of the process that brings and sharing. Efficient method that brings, is consistent with the theory needs. If you need a troll is to obtain attention, then empathic attitude that respects and listener, fills this need very effectively. Furthermore, the troll gets positive attention, in terms of need is probably provides more negative attention, he feels an intense need to keep his place in the community. Therefore, the participant who troll will attempt to adopt a more respectful form of discussion and more detailed. Typically, the participant will be required aggressive time to update the language and probably the complex processes of thinking and aggressive. It may from time to time to respond aggressively, or throw statements and run the forum. Therefore it is very important at this stage to accompany the participant all the way to use the system to teach complex thinking and to be an active and contributing forum. Sometimes this may take even months of discussion, but in my experience, many participants began troll behavior, have participants use time and respectful communication complex, characterized by decision makers in the PFC.

Author and Hmocir process, teaches the litigants how to take into account the opinions of others, and how to express your opinions in a rational and reasoned. I can not assess whether Hhmsttf behaved troll, stop the aggressive behavior elsewhere. My assessment is because, at least in places I've seen. Even the study of Stefan and others [40] shows that when teaching the aggressive empathetic communication, they stop the aggressive behavior. Apparently once one learns to express himself respects and informed, he will prefer this communication over aggressive communication, as it allows him to provide a better sense of belonging and attention. Sometimes you may currently use learning to use complex media, he finds himself in trouble expressing the knowledge required to manage a call equal with other participants in the forum, because of the high level of knowledge of the forum participants. The feeling I get in conversations I had with people have changed and moved to the change forum where participants are Wadia high time they stop to participate in the discussion, but continue to listen, but the culture of dialogue and learning, they give other forums where they have a statement and a better understanding. That they help to spread the culture of debate that uses more than in the PFC.

It seems that a particularly good connection method Aborr participants seeking attention, but might be a less effective with "trolls experts" who want to show us the other sense. By providing love, we do not provide their real need for status, prestige and honor. In cases where the primary need is the desire to honor and prestige status, we found that other more effective ways.

The ego and the need Bhukra

Need for respect and recognition is a universal need. People wish that people will cherish them, appreciate them and respect them. This need is very influential on organizations and processes discussion. This is because in order to appreciate the person to excel or stand out in relation to its members. As a result, appreciation and respect need to invest much effort to get to most of the evaluation. Some will try to excel in their field and hope that regard. It seems that the place where you can win as many of recognition, is the location of the management group or organization. Management Group requires all managed voiced manager, so the manager is at the center of attention. Often, struggles on the center of attention, affect the conduct of organizations, and power struggles (directing psychology popular language, "ego struggles") affect the conduct of many organizations. As the importance Hhtzorc dignity, often distorted decision-making processes so that instead of serving the organization, the decision will serve the improvement of the state of ego organization leaders.

Forums as well as any other organization, trying to get recognition plays a significant role in the conduct of members of the forum. But forums, those in power can not use force to demand dismissal threat than the other forum members to recognize them and honor them. Nature, forums are a place more transparent Mmmkomot work (though still some groups get that work behind the scenes to manage the forum). As a result, the manager has less impact forums and job does not allow him to win almost automatically recognition. In fact, in many cases Hadminsttor Aotsiidr not considered a source of esteem, but more as a source of conflict. One of the functions prestige to a discussion so are moderators, but Berry - an authority recognized by the forum participants as such.

Bar - an authority is a participant in the discussion and has respect for other participants the knowledge and abilities in the discussion. Bar - authorities often have better knowledge enables him to resolve conflicts, present problems and to discuss a more informed and educated. So many discussion participants needed Bree - an authority that will help in making effective discussion. Berry authorities often fail to present the views of some participants more convincingly. Actually bar - authorities often becomes speaker of participants who share similar views to those of the wild - authority and represents them better than if they were trying to explain the issue themselves. As a result, Berry - authorities are participating more and winners Llhukra much support forum participants.

As in other cases, the need for respect can provide his bar - authorities through two decision-making systems. One requires complex thinking processes and other uses aggression. Basically, if you look at the purpose of discussion, the role of Berry - authority to advance the collective insights, and allow the group to learn and if necessary make informed decisions. This requires knowledgeable, which will enable and promote group learning process. Bar - authoritative procedural, is a bar - an authority that while expressing his opinion, when required, but it will allow others to express their opinions, and allow open discussion. Even when the group will meet for a decision, Bar - good authority decision will help the group meet, without forcing their opinions, and of respect for the process of consent.

Not always the role of Barry authority. The reason is that it is not easy to get the position of a bar - an authority. Transformation of a bar - an authority requires great emotional control, very knowledgeable in the field of hearing and sometimes even beyond the knowledge of the group's discussion topics. All these require the investment of resources in developing the ability to self-regulation (self-control) investment wide learning resources and learning capabilities and require high processing. As a result, a way to make the bar - authorities also requires many efforts and capabilities that are not available to most of the population. So often, people who want to get the position of a bar - an authority quickly, looking for ways to circumvent. To seek shortcuts are many ways. Field of rhetoric makes aspiring to show bar - an authority widely variety of tools that allows a person to simulate longer - an authority, even without the need for in-depth study or experience. This can show a bar - authorities without real knowledge and abilities, is in many cases not be found in a population in layman knowledge can not confront and criticize the speaker's knowledge and therefore tend to use social cues instead to evaluate the capabilities of the speaker [41] . So it seems that most of the tools provided by the theory of rhetoric before seeking shortcuts are divided into two groups, one based on misleading viewers to appreciate that the speaker is knowledgeable, and the second is undermining the position of the speakers opponents. Viewers of deception method first is the use of tools Hartorim knowing body language, intonation knowledgeable and Jargon "professional" to indicate expertise. The second toolset is based on an appeal reliability and legitimacy of Barry - opponent by finding small mistakes and turning them into words that shares the focus, demand that the speaker will read literature composed before it gets discussed, ridiculed morals corrupted, and so on. Mostly likely method for controlling the capacity of the Bar - Hflgta system combines the use of FFFF, because it combines attempt to humiliate and subjugate the bar - adversary.

When considering the best interests of the group, Barry - these authorities have a number of adverse effects on hearing. The first of these is that not once they attack opponents participants their opinion. Their attack was so unpleasant and it comes from a source that looks strong and authoritative, to escape, or it causes paralysis of the object. This increases the chances of creating groupthink and along with it the extreme radicalization of the group (group polarization). These effects impair the ability of the Group's discretion. Another problem ha fragments - spoofed authorities often put information not based enough, and the absence of micro processes in the group, this information into consideration of the Group and may adversely affect the Group's ability to make decisions based on reliable information.

Here it is important to define the boundary question between the bar - an authority basing himself largely on rhetoric - aggressive and less on knowledge-based and authority endowed with knowledge-based, which uses as a tool to promote informed decisions for the group. This distinction is not easy and can not be determined from the tools Hartorim broke - authoritative use. After all, sometimes wild - real authority lay in angry about not studied enough and wasting forum time, and sometimes wild - false authority can use keywords sweets to move the support forum users side. Rhetorical tools form the basis for influencing the forum speakers and will be difficult to distinguish from using them who is the bar - an authority - real and who is a bar - an authority - false (or at least that his opinion is not based as it presents it). To resolve the issue can be evaluated based on the area of ​​the philosophy of science. This area deals with understanding the science has produced very interesting statements about the optimal workings of human knowledge. Philosophers of science investigating the processes of human knowledge ever since the days of Socrates, and the question is not Moses in philosophy over 2500 years back. In the philosophy of science increased and was based in 80 years a theory that can help us on the question of the distinction between types Berry - authorities. This theory is called "separation criterion" (demarcation criterion) developed by Karl Popper [42] . Krtrion distinction suggests that the way to distinguish between scientific theories are scientific theories is through our ability to put them to the test refutation (Falsifability of Theories). Baibrit created a shortcut of two steps and is commonly referred to Krtrion separation as a "principle of refutation." According to this principle, theories designed so that you can review them and refuting them, are scientific theories, and theories that are not scientific theories are examined. For example, a theory suggesting that bacteria are the causes of disease, can be spotted by the wide public. By Koch's Postulates (a series of Thilichi transfer disease) and therefore can confirm or refute the claim that bacteria livestock diseases. In contrast, the theory that there are entities - that are not natural human examination is not a scientific theory. That used the principle of refutation, as a basis to distinguish between what is scientific and not scientific.

Although the principle of refutation is intended for science, I propose that it can also be used to distinguish Barry - authoritative rules forums. The reason for this can be to examine the Berry - authorities on the principle of refutation is broken - an authority in all he is a man supposed to be a knowledge-based field. All knowledge is based should be known that you can test it and to test refutation. For example, we can examine an expert who claims that Social - Democracy improves the life expectancy of humans. Even the expert and other users can upload forum set up to try to show social states - democratic that low life expectancy countries where there is no social regimes - Democrats, or that statistically not found such a link. Such a claim is viable - a refutation. Him. Expert argue that there is reincarnation, but he does not suggest ways in which Panelists will offer evidence to the contrary, it is actually a bar - an authority - an - taxing.

The distinction between Barry authority not only do they present information provided for the exam, but whether their behavior encourages attempts refutation. Qualified researcher in the field of chemistry - organic, which participate in the hearing and will use rhetorical means to stifle dissent shall be - an authority - an - taxing, just like a bar - an authority that uses incontrovertible theories. Bar - an authority who will laugh at his opponents, look for any error negligible presenting their position to crush the will or the ability of the resist to express an opinion, even though he may be knowledgeable in the field, also speaking - without - taxing.

Here it is important to set another condition for examining the expertise of the speaker. Forums are a source of learning and development group, they unraveled when a group of participants resolving to understand each other and test each other's words. Each forum is naturally different learning levels. There are forums where a very high level of expertise, while others participate in forums or people lay their level of expertise is very basic in the discussion forum. Often when the forum has a high level of specialization, people entering low level of specialization, low knowledge may have to slow down and hinder the learning process of the group specializing. Laymen can raise unsubstantiated theories or not be able to follow the argument, so to answer that point. As a result, we often see a process of exclusion of lay people. This process is necessary for the existence of a forum with a high level of specialization.

On the other hand the tendency of collaborators with expertise Forums higher to prevent Mhdtiot could disrupt discussion group thinking and prevent external review. Therefore critical to preserve the forum's important that the Forum will aim to allow new participants to join the forum to challenge the theories of experts Forum participants. An example of such tools, can be seen in the scientific community that train students publish scientific journals - to help popular digital mass education, and developing the ability for the public to explore and experiment appliances. Also other forums, seeking to maintain a critical spirit, to create a training tool that will allow new participants to join the discussion without too many obstacles.

Another important measure of the Forum stands led experts to enable the layman public criticism about the concept of forum owners is to put the arguments Berry - direct examination authority. This will allow the scientist to show layman scientist visited the ability to predict both long eye improved relative to those who do not have the scientific knowledge. Such a variety of predictions, usually tip the balance for watching from the sidelines, and displays the scientists Cabri real authority in their field. There is still a layman critical outlook that opposes science can find arguments against these direct findings, but the bystanders, who do not have a clear link to the position of the opponent, Cabri scientists see real authority. And as the refutation principle is true of scientists and this is also true for all areas of existing knowledge, which man claims to be a bar - an authority. Astrologer - Expert can predict events, and allow the inspector, even though they do not understand the theory of astrology to examine whether the bar - authority has knowledge reliable. Htmmoddot with Barry - an authority A - Hfrctiim.

Often dealing with Barry authority - an - Hfrctiim, it is especially difficult when a crowd formed around support. This phenomenon creates a state of incoming groups thinking - Group and radicalization groups, it is very difficult for rebuttal. As groups grow, their persuasion effect increases, because imitation effect [43] , and can create a tidal wave of ideas for wide population.

(Dealing with cults)

The phenomenon of non Bikrotiot thinking largely typical radical religious currents and sects, Ach is not limited to them. This phenomenon is social networking spaces and places in which to conduct micro Cbakdmih discussion. Dealing with the phenomenon of group thinking is essential for people who wish to produce dialogue - Micro, promoting learning and finding new solutions.

Mnissionino most effective way to deal with the phenomenon of group thinking forums and social networks, is to remove the discussion of the protected circle discussion groups - eccentric and transfer them neutral forum where there is a wide audience Neutral willing to listen to both sides without preliminary positions. Forum discussion refutes the optimal Lninaol is neutral forum whose members understand enough about so they can judge the arguments of the parties. That people lack interest in the discussion can participate and win the debate for the claims are based. Because groups produce groupthink generally use enabling conditions and extreme lack of control group, then their knowledge is not optimized for dealing with a rebuttal, when the environment is Nitlrit hearing. Therefore neutral forum non claims based group thinking hiding under the eyes of the participants seem absurd neutral and therefore arguments of the group will and crumble.

One time when we tried to put the idea of ​​civil initiative (possibility of citizens to propose laws and to bring them to a referendum) characterized by groupthink forum, we encountered strong opposition. Any attempt to show that there is a civil initiative in countries like Switzerland, the United States and Canada were negative and resistance. During the discussion forum responsible for blocking some of us and threatened that if we, being expelled for good. To deal with this problem, we presented the case to neutralize forums and blogs that deal with democracy, and subjected the non Dlibertibit behavior of forum members. As a result, the breaks we stopped, and subsequent times, new ideas were more easily created. Even neutral forum where users do not have enough understanding about the question, can form the basis for collective thinking softening of cults. As we said, if participants do not know enough to judge, they use social cues to assess the quality of the speakers. Since that time competences - not - taxing uses aggressively to rivals into submission, offensive behavior, is considered by audiences Ntrilm negative process group, and usually out of neutral protection of the victim. Whether the victim would keep quiet tone, the other member of the forum will recognize it as a speaker legitimate player and support him. For example, during the discussion between me and two with advanced degrees in political science neutral forum, the concept of direct democracy (which would not sell them but made Atzlhm resistance), developed attack ad - fat on me. When the hearing was held forums in which they were permanent members, I got from the others attacks. My experience show that my words are based was derided. But when the discussion moved to neutral forums Jihad attacks - hominem continued, the audience reacted sharply to a very large attacks and severely criticized both, even if the audience does not possess a real ability to examine whether the remarks are based more words of the pair. Beyond the work of transferring neutral discussion forums, groups, encourage critical discourse has another advantage. Because they are based requires extensive use of knowledge, resources and critical discourse calm, members of these forums to become knowledgeable. When they reach other forums, much of this knowledge, and have the ability to get the Ammon other members of the forums, so spread the critical discourse around the web. To achieve this, it is necessary to be patient and calm that allows for PFC to operate. The development lasted irrefutable knowledge, opening Bikrotit thinking groups, and enrich their knowledge, with respect and the possibility for more and more people join the critical discourse, the influence of Hhdion rebuttal increases with time throughout the network.

Shouts, and shop and listening - the need for security and control

It seems that a significant part of the discussion aggressive factors is not necessarily for trolls seeking attention and control, or in those with a need Bhukra suppress critical thinking, but much simpler processes, and a more basic level of needs pyramid. Need for security and control in a world where we are.

It seems that some people use discussion to try to convince others the way they themselves believe to be true. That they hope to gain control of the situation to make all group members synchronize and act in concert with understanding. They hope that through coordination between all of them, created a world more predictable, safer. Since there is no consensus on how "right" conflicts Dlibertibiot about how "right" to operate them. Conservatives hope that they can convince the Liberals to be loyal to the state and to the flag and to visit the country, while liberals hope to convince conservatives to be more critical and more empathic weak.

Gain control allows for participants to feel secure. As with any needs we have described so far, even to gain control and security, people will use one of two decision-making systems, or a combination of both. Using the PFC system, will focus more complex in an attempt to find ways that can build consensus on the interpretation of the participants in the hearing world. To reach a common agreement, without coercion, prepare for an examination of the evidence, theories, criticism and refutation date granted and a constant search for the optimal worldview that will enable to produce a consensus about how to act.

According to the characteristics of the emergency system observed using the system FFFF will be reflected in the attack and attempt to quell ideological opponents, or escape from such a confrontation, in order to impose on the forum the speaker's worldview.

Most forums that I worked was tension between the two approaches. Discussions basically liberal society should be characterized by more widely used in the PFC, and use in the FFFF, should be entirely legitimate. Many times the actual discussions in which consensus was not created, cruise discussion aggressive. Our need for security is necessary so strong, that if we can not get anyone on the way, or we can not bring him critical discussion (which is a particular way of thinking), we can go very quickly Mclino. Discussion begins presenting general theories and presenting evidence, can browse quickly attempts to control and suppression measures. Participants can find themselves very angry, very hurt and very critical towards Berry - their opponent. Aggression is manifested in attacks Ed - Huminum, undermining the wisdom of the other side of his morality, and finally a discussion of Israel, the final stage of the discussion, as defined by law Godin (the Israeli version of it), the fault of one party by the other party is behaving like Nazis [ 44] . By the way, the way in which the law expressly Godiwein Israeli Internet and the way in which the law expressly Godiowein English Wikipedia [45] , there is a difference. Difference is fundamental to understanding the culture of dialogue and the use of Israeli aggression. Original Godwin's law talked about that discussion takes, so the chance to remember the Nazis will cost. Later began to appear as the Nazi isochronous insight also brings the end of the discussion. While Israel's Wikipedia entry, the description of the law says that when there mention of the Nazis, ending the discussion. I believe the reason is that for Israelis living in Israeli consciousness empowering the Holocaust, remembering the Nazis are evil and absolute top. There is no greater evil. While the rest of the world, the status of the Nazis is not embedded as a culture. If the discussion was that one side accuses the other side the Nazi leadership, then it most difficult verbal attack, not worse. In this situation, there is nowhere else to go, and the battle ends. Law - Israeli Goodwin also argues that first brings the Nazi's claim is that the loser. It can be assumed that the reason for this name raises the argument Nazis is lost, due to the fact that for the other group members accusing conduct Nazi is that he lost his temper more quickly, and therefore his attacks have become relevant, arguments become less convincing and he turned to maximize mute Israeli discourse allows.

The phenomenon of de - moral or judicial legitimacy (ie the opponent's inability to properly judge the world), diagnosed either by Doron Tzur. Doron engaged in the process Dlibertibi innovative, trying to help the Palestinians and the Jews build consensus on the new layout, some participants found that dominant, describe their ideological opponents as evil or too stupid to make an informed decision [46] . That they are trying to de - legitimacy opposing views, thereby reducing the complexity of the difficulty to solve problems that require the consent of large audiences.

תופעות אלו, הן חלק אינהרנטי בדיון אנושי, והן תוצר של תוקפנות שמתאימה למערכת ה-FFFF, שאינה מאפשרת את הדיון המושכל והמורכב. כדי למנוע היווצרות של תוקפנות בפורומים, המבוססת על ניסיונות להשיג בכוח "הסכמה", השתמשנו בכמה כלים אפיסטמילוגים. הכלי הראשון הוא הצבת בסיס אפיסטמולוגי-מטאפיזי שיאפשר דיון מורכב על תפיסות עולם שונות. הכלל אומר בערך את הדברים הבאים: " אף אחד מאתנו אינו יודע את האמת לאשורה. כולנו רואים רק חלק מסויים במציאות. על ידי בחינת ודיון על התיאוריות והמידע הנמצאים אצל כל אחד מאתנו תיווצר תמונה שלמה ורחבה יותר". כיוון שאנו מניחים מראש שכל אחד מאתנו ניחן ביכולת חלקית להבין את המורכבות, וכל אחד מאתנו רואה חלק מהמורכבות, אם אנו טועים זה בסדר וליגטמי, ולא מעיד עלינו שאננו בורים או חסרי יכולת שיפוט. כלל זה מאפשר לשחרר את הקשר בין טוען-לטענה. קשר שמקרי דיון רבים מהווה מחסום משמעותי להתפתחת שיח ביקורתי. באופן טבעי משתתפי דיונים מקשרים בין הטוען לטענה, ואז כדי לערער על טענה מתקיפים את הטוען. כתוצאה מכך הטוען מתגונן על ידי התקפה חוזרת על התוקפים, וכך מתדרדר הפורום למאבקי כוח. על ידי כך שאנו מודים מראש כי איננו אוחזי האמת ויתכן כי אנו רואים רק ראיה חלקית, או מסיקים מסקנות לא נכונות, אנו מאפשרים לכולם לנתק בין עצמם לבין הטענות, ומאפשרים דיון רגוע על הטענות ולא על הטוענים. אנו מרשים לבני אדם לטעות או לראות תמונת עולם חלקית. אנו מרשים לאדם לאמר את אשר הוא מרגיש, מבין, חש, מבלי שהוא עצמו יזכה לביקורת. הטענה שלו נשמעת, אך הקבוצה יכולה להקשיב ולקבל או לא לקבל, בהתאם ליכולת של הטענה לעמוד בבדיקה הציבורית. כך נמנעות התקפות אישיות, ובמקביל נוצר מקום טוב לספר את הסיפור האישי. תהליך שהוא עצמו חשוב מבחינה פסיכולוגית. גם מבחינה אפיסטמית צרופה, תפיסה זאת קריטית להתפתחות ידע מבוסס. הטענה האפיסטמיולוגית הזאת תואמת הן לעקרון ההפרכה של פופר, הן לעקרון השיח הרציונלי של הברמאס ולתפיסה הפנומנולוגית של הוסרל. הברמאס כינה אותה פנומנולוגיה-אינטרסוביקטיבית. כלומר, אנו מניחים כי העולם שאנו רואים הוא משותף, ובאמצעות השוואת הפנומנות (הקלט של החושים) נוכל לבחון האם תיאוריות שחברים אחרים מציעים, תואמים להתנהגות הפנומנות שאנו חשים. על פי תפיסה זאת, כל המשתתפים מעלים השערות, מפריכים אותם ומאפשרים רק לטענות שעמדו בביקורת ציבורית רחבה לשרוד. מבחינת פופר, זאת ההתפיסה המבחינה בין מדעי לשאינו מדעי. בכך אנו יוצרים את התשתית להתפתחות ידע מאושש ואמין.

תפיסה זאת נחשבת מערבית ותואמת לשיח המערבי-מדעי. אבל בשימוש בשדה סמנטי שונה במקצת ניתן להתאימה לקבוצות דתיות ליברליות. דתיים לאומיים יוצאים מתוך ההנחה שהאמת נמצאת בידי הרבנים. זאת מתוך הטענה שמובאת בספר הכוזרי כי התורה וגם תורה שבעל-פה ניתנה למשה מאלוהים (שהוא מקור האמת הניצחית) בסיני והועברה בנאמנות עד דורנו. כיוון שרק הרבנים מוסמכים לקבוע מה אמת ומה לא, עלולות להיווצר התנגשויות עם השיח ביקורתי. טענות ביקורתיות כלפי מסקנות רבניות, יתקבלו בהתעלמות ולכן ימנעו יכולת לפתח שיח ביקורתי. על מנת לאפשר את השיח הבקורתי, ניתן להשתמש בטענה המבוססת על הקבלה. על פי הקבלה, אלוהים הוא אין-סופי (אור אין-סוף), ואנו כאפס אל מול האינסוף. גם הרב הגאון ביותר, תמיד יראה רק חלק קטן וסופי אל מול האינסוף. לכן אם אנו טוענים שאנו יודעים את האמת, אנו חוטאים ביוהרה נגד הקב"ה בהניחנו שאנו יכולים להבינו. טענה זאת מאפשרת לחזור שוב אל שיח ביקורתי, בו כל אחד רואה חלק מאותו אינסוף, וביחד אנו יכולים ליצור תמונה גדולה יותר. טענה זאת תופסת בתחומים רבים בשיח שבו השתתפו חילונים ודתיים-לאומיים, אך בתחום ההלכה, קשה מאד לדון בשיח ביקורתי, כיוון שבתחום זה עדיין הרבנים הם הפוסקים העליונים וכיוון שההלכה היא בסיס החיים הדתי-לאומי, נראה כי דתים-לאומים לא יוותרו על האותריטה הרבנית. הדרך ליצור תהליך דיוני בתחום זה, כנראה עדיין דורשת השתלבות של רבנים בשיח הביקורתי.

הקבוצות גם מגדירות לעצמן כללים ספציפיים שמונעים תוקפנות. סט ההכללים הנפוץ מכיל את הכללים הבאים: להימנע מהתקפות אישיות. להמנע מביטויים שעלולים להרגיז משתתפים אחרים (אפשר להגיד דברים קשים, אך יש לנסח זאת בצורה שלא תפגע באחר). אלמנט חשוב נוסף, הוא הסרת האחריות היצוגית. כדי למנוע מצב בו אדם יצטרך להגן על הציבור אותו הוא כביכול מייצג, וכך שוב להכנס לעמדת מגננה/התקפה,כל אדם מייצג את עצמו ורק את עצמו. הוא אולי יכול להסביר דעות ומהלכים בתוך הציבור אליו הוא משוייך, כיוון שהוא מכיר אותו טוב יותר ממתדיינים שאינם חלק מהציבור הזה, אך הוא אינו אחראי, ואינו נדרש לפעול כדי לשנות את הציבור אליו הוא משוייך. אותו אדם אחראי רק על עצמו. הדבר יכול לתסכל משתתפי פורום שמבקשים להשפיע על קבוצות אוכלוסיה דרך "נציגיהן" בדיון. אך אם מחברים בין אדם לקבוצה שלו, דורשים ממנו להגן על הקבוצה, וכך נוצר שוב בסיס להתקפה אישית-קבוצתית, והדיון יכול לגלוש ל-flaming. מצד שני אם משחררים את הצורך במחויבות אישית לקבוצה, ככל שעובר הזמן, והקבוצה עוברת התאמת דעות, יכול ה"נציג" לאט לאט להפוך סוכן שינוי ברשתות שלו. כלל חשוב נוסף, מתייחס למצב בו נוצרות מחלוקות קשות בקבוצה. במקרה כזה המשתתפים מתבקשים לנסות לפתור את הבעיות במגוון דרכים שונות, כמו שיחות אישיות בין ברי-הפלוגתא, שימוש במגשרים ומפגשי פנים-אל-פנים המרככים את הכעס. רק במקרי קיצון, קבוצות יסלקו אדם שמשתמש בשפה קיצונית. באופן כללי איננו מעודדים סילוק אנשים כדי למנוע מצב בו משתתפים שמאתגרים את דעת הקבוצה מורחקים. רק במיקרים חריגים מאד, כאשר אדם לא מכבד את כללי הפורום, או פועל בצורה שעלולה לחבל בפורום, ורק לאחר דיון ציבורי פתוח, בו האדם יכול ללמוד ולהגן על עצמו אנו מרחיקים אדם מהפורום.

כלל נוסף שמצאנו כיעיל, הוא התווספות הדרגתית של משתתפים. כדי שתרבות הדיון תשמר, וכדי שההכרות האינטמית, הדרושה ליחסי רעות ואמון תתפתח. כך אנו מאפשרים את צמיחתו שלל הבטחון האישי וההכרות שמאפשרות למערכת ה-PFC לפעול. מצד שני כיוון שהצטרפות האיטית עלולה לגרום חשיבה קבוצתית, בעיקר אם הצטרפות החברים החדשים מבוססת על שיטת "חבר מביא חבר", חשוב להקפיד על כך שהאנשים החדשים שיצטרפו לקבוצה יהיו בעלי דעות שיאתגרו את חברי הקבוצה, וחשוב להעניק להם מקום להתבטא ולהביע את דעתם, מבלי חשש.

שמירת הביקורתיות של הפורום, מחייבת כלל נוסף שאומר כי על אנשים להשתמש בדוגמאות ובעדויות כדי להפריך דעות של אחרים ולבסס את דעותיהם. שמירה על כלל זה, איפשרה לא מעט פעמים לאנשים משתי קצוות הקשת הפוליטית למצוא את עצמם מסכימים בסופו של דבר.

כל הכללים הללו נבנים על ידי הקבוצה ונוצרים בהסכמת הקבוצה, והם עומדים לדיון במידת הצורך. מהניסיון שלי בקבוצות דיון, כללים אלו שהצגתי מקובלים על ציבורים נרחבים, מהדתיים לאומיים, דרך הימין הקלאסי ועד השמאל והשמאל הרדיקלי. הקבוצות הבולטות שעימן לא הצלחנו לגשר באמצעים הללו היו חרדים וערבים. לא ברורה לגמרי הסיבה. יתכן כי עם הערבים מדובר על פערי שפה, ודומיננטיות יהודית שגורמת לערבים להרגיש חלשים בדיון. אצל החרדים יתכן כי מדובר על תפיסת עולם מאד שונה, שכמעט אין לה שיג ושיח עם התרבות המערבית שמהוה מכנה משותף לכל הזרמים שכן הצליחו להתחבר. ההערכה האישית שלי היא שאלו לא הבעיות שמשפיעות על חוסר היכולת להתחבר באמצעות שיח הפרכתי. הבעיות נובעות לדעתי מכך שגם החברה הערבית וגם בחברה החרדית ישנם מנגנונים חזקים המונעים שיח הפרכתי. בחברה הערבית נהוג הדיון הנבנה (מוסאיי, דון...) ואילו בחברה החרדית, יש מנגנוני אנטי-הפרכה שרואים בכל מידע שאינו מן התורה ככפירה. כתוצאה מכך, לא ניתן להפריך נרטיבים, ולא ניתן ליצור תפיסת מציאות משותפת.

לשימוש במטאפיזיקה פנומנולוגית-אינטר-סובייקטיבית יש חשיבות ביצירת תחושת בטחון קיומי הן אצל שמרנים והן אצל בעלי חשיבה ריאלית. התחושה שהמטאפיזיקה המדעית יוצרת היא תחושת אמת. תחושה שיש מציאות שביחד ניתן לחקור. כאשר משתמשים במטאפיזיקה שאינה ממבוססת על יכולת לשתף עולמות בתפיסה משותפת (כלומר אפיסטמיולוגיה סוביקטיבית), ומאפשרים לכל אחד לספר את הסיפור שלו בלי ביקורת, מתוך הכלה, אנו יוצרים מצב שבו אין אמת משותפת. כל אחד יכול לספר את הסיפור שלו, לבחון את העולם שלו עצמו, מבלי להתייחס לאחרים. כתוצאה מכך פעולות של אחד יכולות להיכנס לתחומו של אחר, מבלי שניתן יהיה להביע ביקורת ולשפוט את הטיב המוסרי של פעולותיו. בעקבות ה"עולמות הפרטיים" וחוסר התקשור בינהם, אין אפשרות ליצור הסכמות,מעבר להסכמה הכללית של "איש באמונתו יחיה". הגישה הסובייקטית נמצאת בבסיס הפלורליסים, שמאפשר ריבוי נרטיבים שאינם עומדים לביקורת, ומונעים היווצרות קרקע משותפת. לכן מרגע שיש מחלוקת והתנהגויות של אחד מתנגשות עם התנהגויות של אחר, נוצרת מחלוקת שאינה ניתנת לגישור או לחיפוש צדק, והדרך היחידה לפתור אותה היא באמצעות הפעלת אלימות של אחד כלפי השני. כתוצאה מכך, אנשים שמרנים, וגם ליברלים-ריאליים מרגישים בתוך כאוס וחווים איום. כתוצאה מכך מערכת ה-FFFF, תיכנס לפעולה והדיון יהפוך אגרסיבי. ימניים ששומעים נרטיבים פלסטינים מבלי שיהיה ללהם דרך להפריך אותם, נכנסים לחרדה קיומית, שמא יתקבלו "שקרי" הפלסטינים. ליברלים-ריאליים שמנסים לבנות הסכמות על בסיס דיון-ביקורתי, גם הם לא ליכולים לסמוך על הנרטיבים, ומרגישים שאין להם אחיזה במציאות. כתוצאה מכך, שמרנים וגם ליברלים-ריאליים יכנסו לתחושת חוסר בטחון וחוסר שליטה במציאות, דבר אשר יגרום לכניסת מערכת ה-FFFF לפעולה. לא כל הקהלים נזקקים לתפיסת מטאפיזית פנומנולוגית-אינטר-סובייקטיבית. מי שיוכל לקבל את המערכת הסוביקטיבית, הם ליברליים-הומניים הדוגלים בגישה המכילה, וגם קבוצות שמרניות-רדיקליות הזקוקות לנרטיבים בלתי-ניתנים-להפרכה כדי להתקיים. הבעיה היא שבפועל הליברלים-ההומניים והקבוצות השמרניות-רדיקליות לא מסתדרות טוב. חרדים ושמאל רדיקלי מוצאים את עצמם בהתנגשות קשה, וכך גם ליברליים-הומנים ואיסלאם-רדיקלי באירופה. לכן, בפועל, כדי לקיים דיאלוג בין עמדות, ולו רק בגלל הערך החברתי שלו המעודד את ה-PFC, יש להעדיף את המטאפיזיקה הפנומנולוגית-אינטרסובייקטיבית, שמאפשרת את השיח הביקורתי.

כל הדברים שנאמרו עד כאן נכונים לגבי יצירת תחושת הבטחון בפורומים מקוונים. אל בדיוני פנים אל פנים ישנו מדבבך נוסף הקשור לתחושת הבטחון והשליטה שלא קיים בדיונים הוירטואלי. על מנת לשלוט בעולם הסובב אותנו, אנו צריכים אפשרות לפעול בעולם. כדי לשלוט בשיח ולנסות לשכנע או להוסיף מידע רלוונטי, נדרש לנו מספיק מרחב וזמן להביע את עצמנו. בדיונים וירטואליים אין מגבלה על כמות המקום העומד לראשותנו. כל אחד יכול להביע את עצמו באריכות, וללא מגבלות. המגבלה היחידה, היא תווך הקשב שאחרים מעניקים לכותב. אם הכותבת תכתוב דברים שמעניינים את הקהילה שלה, אזי היא יכולה להביע את עצמה באריכות, ואנשים יקשיבו. לעומת זאת, בדיוני פנא"פ (פנים אל פנים), או בדיונים וירטואליים סינכרוניים, הזמן הממוצע העומד לראשות כל משתתף הוא מוגבל. כתוצאה מכך בפעמים רבות, יתחולל מאבק על זמן הדיבור המוקצה. יהיו כאלו שינסו להשתלט על השיחה ולהביע את עצמם באריכות. אחרים ישתקו ויעדיפו לא להביע את דעתם, כדי לא להאבק. לא פעם, בהעדר מנהל דיון, גם אנשים לא תוקפניים, ירימו את קולם כדי לגבור על משתתפים אחרים, ולאפשר לקולם להישמע על ידי הקבוצה. לדוגמא, באחת הקבוצות שבהן אני משמש כמנהל דיון, ואשר בדרך כלל מנהלת את דיונייה בעדינות ובתבונה, התאספנו למפגש חברתי לחג הפורים. בגלל שהיה מדובר בערב חג, החלטתי לוותר על הנחיית הערב ולאפשר שיח חופשי. לרוב אני מקפיד לאפשר לכל אחת ואחד זמן דיבור שווה. הפעם, כל אחד דיבר בזמנו, על פי הרגשתו האישית. מהר מאד הפכו הדיבורים לרמים יותר ויותר. יותר אנשים התחילו לצעוק כדי שדעתם תשמע, והשיח הפך לצעקני מאד ומדכא מאד בשביל אלו שלא רצו להרים את קולם. תופעות אלו, אופייניות למערכת ה-FFFF, ואינן מקדמות שיח קבוצתי. לכן, במפגשים סינכרוניים ומפגשי פנים אל פנים, כדי לאפשר שימוש ב-PFC, חשוב לנהל את זמן הדיבור ולאפשר לכל אחד זמן דיבור שווה. טענה זאת נמצאת בהלימה למחקר באינטלגנציה של הקבוצה המראה כי כאשר ניתן לכל המשתתפים זמן שווה לדבר, ומיוחד כאשר שאר המשתתפים מראים אמפטיה ואינטלגנציה ריגשית, האינטלגנציה הקבוצתית עולה [47] . סביר להניח שזמן הדיבור השווה, מקנה למשתתפים בטחון שיהיה להם הזמן הנדרש להביע את עצמם ולהשפיע, ולכן לא יצטרכו להשתמש במנגנונים תוקפניים כדי לקבל אפשרות ביטוי. האמפטיה של חברי הקבוצה האחרים, נותנת את הבטחון כי הנאמר נשמע על ידי החברים האחרים, ובכך נוספת רגיעה ושלווה הדרושים לחשיבה באמצעות ה-PFC. ההקשבה האמפטית מאפשרת לכל אחד להקשיב גם לדברי האחרים וכך הלמידה הקבוצתית, מבוססת ה-PFC מתחזקת, ואיתה האינטלגנציה הקבוצתית.

הצרכים הפיזיולוגיים

הצרכים הפיזיולגים מהווים את התשתית לקיום האנושי. אוויר, שתיה, אוכל, שמירה על טמפרטורת גוף, בריאות ומחסה, הם צרכים בסיסיים בלעדיהם הגוף האנושים אינו יכול להתקיים. אנשים המרגישים מחסור בצרכים אלו, יתקשו מאד להשיג צרכים גבוהים יותר, ואף יתקשו לנהל דיון מורכב. ידוע כי תחושת רעב מעלה את הרוגז, בעוד תחושת שובע משפרת את תפקוד המערכת הפרה-פרונטלית [48] . לכן קיימת מסורת בתהליכים דליברטייבים המשלבים מפגשי פנים אל פנים לנהל דיונים לאחר שהמשתתפים אכלו. גם סעודות עיסקיות, הן תהליך דליברטיבי, המאפשר למשתתפים להגיע להחלטות רגועות יותר. מנוסים בתחום טוענים כי מטרת הסעודות העסקיות היא להרדים את הצד השני, לתת לו תחושת רגיעה ולהפחית את החששות והחרדה המלוים עסקה כלכלית.

Lack of basic needs, and accompanying irritation may explain why lower classes Sotzioakonomim difficult to express their will in a relaxed and Konstorktibit. Often see people Mhmadot Hsotzioaknomiim the rates reflected more aggressive than class based. When you add to that the lack of education and lack of ability to develop educated and intelligent arguments, one can see that during the hearing, the condition of the lower classes Hsotzioakonmiim, will be weaker relative to population based. To solve this problem, you will need to create a situation where the population's basic needs are provided and a good education is provided to all populations. Without these measures, the representation of disadvantaged groups, the public debate will be missing, and the fabric of democracy Hdlibertibit distorted in favor of established populations.

Addiction to FFFF Val - PFC

The goal we set for ourselves was to develop a situation where the forums will work without drivers based discussion system decisions. Against our approach has been argued that intelligent discussion bore the majority of the population, which would make the exclusion of a large part of the population, and leave the process Hdlibertibi small groups and wooden won Higher Education. This argument is based on the fact that much of the public debate based on aggressiveness and power struggles Dlibertiibim. It seems that there is something very appealing polemical debate. This attraction can be explained on the basis of Endocrinology phenomena that occur during system startup aggressive. Although the relationship is still unclear enough, it seems that during the reaction FFFF endocrine substances are excreted as Andrnlin, Aofoaidim, serotonin and dopamine, creating a sense of euphoria and general good feelings. It is very possible that release these substances causes addiction Internet power struggles, because on the one hand we feel the struggle and good feelings forming substances discharged, and on the other there is no real danger to hurt the conflict. That we maximize the feeling of pleasure. Even Aofoaidim and Andnlin are thought to have addictive properties, and therefore may polemical discourse is addictive behavior.

On the other hand, when we held a PFC-based discussions are face to face meeting and Facebook groups have embraced the culture of discussion, many participants reported great excitement. After successfully meeting where we introduced the left and settlers, people reported that they did not sleep a few nights after the incident. The descriptions reported, it seemed the brain very busy trying to contain all the information intersubjective first person exposed to cross-community meeting it. Forum meetings are good, which liberal and conservative partners who have hearing culture stone was attractive, and is active day and night almost endless discussions. It seems that quite a few people have the experience to understand the other, and attempt to crack the understanding of shared reality.

In addition, to strengthen the connection to the forum, we have activities face - to - face periodically, stemming from a desire to affiliate members of the forum. The meetings form friendships and a desire to discuss. As part of social activities arise forum for social change, also add interest in the forum, and create interest in appealing. So in the end, you can see that the PFC-based discussions can be very attractive. Especially if they are based on actual social change. Discussion and Conclusions

דיון ביקורתי במרחב ציבורי פתוח, כפי שהוגדרו על ידי הברמאס נחשבים על ידי העוסקים בתחום הדליברציה כמצב האאופטימלי אליו עלינו לשאוף. במאמר זה הצעתי שכדי שנוכל לממש את האידאה ההברמאסית, עלינו לייצר תשתית חברתית-פסיכולוגית שתתמוך ביצירת תנאים להתפתחות שיח רציונלי, מבלי שאירגון או מנהל דיון ישלוט בדיון. כדי לאפשר התפתחות של שיח כזה, על התנאים שניצור להיות מותאמים לטבע האדם ולתהליכים המניעים אותו. ולכן אני מציע שיש להבין הן את הצרכים המניעים את האדם, והן את התהליכים הפסיכולוגיים-קוגנטיביים המנהלים את האדם ומאפשרים לו למלא את הצרכים. כדי להבין את הצרכים נעזרנו בפרדמית הצרכים של מאסלו. תיאוריה וותיקה שנחשבת מהימנה ואשר נחשבת לאבן יסוד בהבנת המניעים של האדם. אנו משתמשים גם בעידכונים של הידע שהתפתחו מאז המאמר של מאסלו שנכתב בשנות ה-40, אם כי למהלך של הבנת צרכי האדם בדיונים, אין משמעות גדולה לעדכוני התיאוריות. כדי להבין איך הצרכים הללו מומשים באמצעות המודלים השונים הקיימים במוח לקבלת החלטות, אנו מתבססים על תחום הולך ומתרחב של ידע הנוצר בחקר המוח. בשנים האחרונות חקר המוח מאושש את הטענות כי אנו מקבלים את החלטות לא בצורה "רציונלית", אלא על פי מרכזי קבלת החלטות שונים במוח, כשכל מרכז מתמחה בסוג החלטה אחר, וכל מרכז פועל על פי "הגיון" אחר. במאמר זה סקרנו שתי מערכות קבלת החלטות עיקריות, המשפיעות על השיח. המערכת שכנראה מרוכזת בעיקר אונה הפרפונטלית, העוסקת בקבלת החלטות מורכבת. והמערכת הקשורה לתגובת FFFF שחלקים ממנה נמצאים באמיגדלה. הראנו כי בחלק גדול מהשיח (לפחות השיח המצוי בישראל) מערכת ה-FFFF פועלת באופן טיבעי במערכות דיון, והיא עלולה להפריע להתפתחות השיח הרציונלי. שימוש בשפה תוקפנית ובלחצים חברתיים תוקפניים עלולה לגרום להתלקחות התקפות הדדיות או לנטישה של חלק גדול מהמשתתפים מהדיון. הראנו שיטות שונות המאפשרות להעביר את הדיון למצב רגוע יותר, המאפשר את פעילותה של המערכת שאנו כינינו מערכת ה-PFC. כל שיטה הותאמה כך שתאפשר לענות על הצורך שעד כה נענה על ידי מערכת ה-FFFF. לבסוף, אנו מציעים כי אין מדובר רק על פעילויות להעברת שיח רגוע, אלא יש שהשיח הביקורתי עצמו הוא בסיס ליצירת שיח רגוע ובונה. כאשר מדברים על "האמת" (או הנראות האינטרסובייקטיבית שלה), נוצר בסיס לתשתית משותפת להתפתחות הסכמה בין קהלים שאינם דורשים נרטיב. יחד עם זאת, עד כה נראה כי קהילות הדורשות נרטיבים בלתי מופרכים לקיומן לא יתאימו לשיח כזה. לשם כך יהיה עלינו לפתח מנגנונים דליברלטייבים שיאפשרו לעסוק באלמנטים שלא מתנגשים עם הנרטיבים של הקהילות הנרטיביות. אבל בינתיים, כבר השיח הדליברטיבי הביקורתי, יכול להוות בסיס להתרחבות נקודות ההסכמה בין קהלים שכיום מתקשים ליצור בינהם הסכמה.

אנו מציעים כי הבנת המנגנונים הפסיכולוגיים והמוחיים הפועלים במהלך דיון יוכל להסביר בהמשך טוב יותר את הרציונל המסתתר מתחת למערכות קבלת ההחלטות השונות, ואת התופעות המתרחשת בדיון בעקבותן. הבנת המנגונים הקוגניטיבים-פסיכולוגיים יאפשרו לחוקרים להבין את ההתנהגות המשתתפים בדיונים. הבנת המנגנונים יכול לייצר את התשתית להבנה עמוקה יותר של התהליכים המתרחשים בדיונים, ופיתוח מתודות דיוניות פוריות יותר. ==Rק

↑ Shirky C. (2009), Here comes everybody: The power of organizing without organizations.Penguin press. ↑ דרור י. (2006) הפוליטיקה של הטכנולוגיה, הוצאת מפה ↑ See Wikipedia: Cabal groups in Usnets ↑ [ Https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups #! forum / Northkedumim-cn monitoring group] ↑ מכתב ההודעה על הפתיחה ↑ טל ירון, 2011, שיח-קיצונים, מבט-פילוסופי , 11 לדצמבר 2011 ↑ Gastil J. 2008, Political communication and Deliberation, London, Sega ↑ Habermas, 1981 ↑ Mauro Barisione (2012) "Framing a Deliberation. Deliberative Democracy and the Challenge of Framing Processes," Journal of Public Deliberation: Vol. 8: No. ↑ Paper in Science from 2009 ↑ S. Bracha at al, 2004, Does "Fight or Flight" Need Updating?, Psychosomatics 45:448-449, October ↑ Davis, M., Whalen, PJ, 2001. The amygdala: vigilance and emotion. Mol. Psychiatry 6, 13 – 34. ↑ Halgren, E., 1992. Emotional neurophysiology of the amygdala within the context of human cognition. In: Aggleton, JP (Ed.), The Amygdala: Neurobiological Aspects of Emotion, Memory and Mental Dysfunction. John Wiley and Sons, New York, pp. 191 – 228. ↑ LeDoux, JE, 1998. The Emotional Brain: The Mysterious Underpinnings of Emotional Life. Touchstone, New York. ↑ Phan, KL, Wager, T., Taylor, SF, Liberzon, I., 2002. Functional neuroanatomy of emotion: a meta-analysis of emotion activation studies in PET and fMRI. NeuroImage 16, 331 – 348. ↑ Zald, DH, 2003. The human amygdala and the emotional evaluation of sensory stimuli. Brain Res., Brain Res. Rev. 41, 88 – 123. ↑ Causal role of dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in human perceptual decision making. Marios G Philiastides, Ryszard Auksztulewicz, Hauke R Heekeren, Felix Blankenburg (2011) Current biology : CB 21 (11) p. 980-3 ↑ Gläscher J, Hampton AN, O'Doherty JP (2009) Determining a role for ventromedial prefrontal cortex in encoding action-based value signals during reward-related decision making. Cereb Cortex 19:483–495. ↑ Hampton AN, O'doherty JP (2007) Decoding the neural substrates of reward-related decision making with functional MRI. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:1377–1382. ↑ Hampton AN, Bossaerts P, O'Doherty JP (2006) The role of the ventromedial prefrontal cortex in abstract state-based inference during decision making in humans. J Neurosci 26:8360–8367. ↑ Daw ND, O'Doherty JP, Dayan P, Seymour B, Dolan RJ (2006) Cortical substrates for exploratory decisions in humans. Nature 441:876–879. ↑ Knutson B, Taylor J, Kaufman M, Peterson R, Glover G (2005) Distributed neural representation of expected value. J Neurosci 25:4806–4812. ↑ Blair K, et al. (2006) Choosing the lesser of two evils, the better of two goods: Specifying the roles of ventromedial prefrontal cortex and dorsal anterior cingulate in object choice. J Neurosci 26:11379–11386. ↑ Kable JW, Glimcher PW (2007) The neural correlates of subjective value during intertemporal choice. Nat Neurosci 10:1625–1633. ↑ Fellows LK, Farah MJ (2007) The role of ventromedial prefrontal cortex in decision making: judgment under uncertainty or judgment per se? Cereb Cortex 17: 2669–2674. ↑ Chib VS, Rangel A, Shimo