WinSysop

Hello,

My Name is Tal Yaron, and I am practitioner and theorist in the filed of deliberation.

I have M.Sc. in biology, and started Ph.D. in biology. While I was reading the scientific literature and participated in conferences, I have noticed that I difficulties following the logic in the scientific communication. When I tried to follow the logic from premiss to conclusions, it did not worked out. I have deepend my knowldge in logic, in order to see the logic in the papers but it didn't follow any roles of logic, I have learned. Therefore I have read Popper's book "The Logic of Scientific Discovery", but again, Popper's logic, was not the one that I found in the literature. The riddle had puzzled me, so I moved to the program of History and Philosophy of Science in Bar-Ilan university. There I was introduced to the constructionists writings on science, yet their writings did not pleased me. I thought it has critical nature but they can not explain the science I have experienced it in my years at biology department. Therefore, I have set my self to try to explain science as I have experienced it. for four years I have devised a model of scientific reason. After four years, and nudge from the head of the program, I have started to show the model to researchers in philosophy. Most of them said it is interesting, but it is too new, and too wide, to be a Ph.D. thesis. I couldn't find anyone that will mentor me. So I left the academy to try to develop this model on my own.

After a while, I have engaged Direct Democracy, and found that the deliberation field is critical for the development of successful direct democracy and participatory democracy, so I have used my model to try to understand how "lay people" reason. Because I was not restricted by philosophy, I could enter in to my model also knowledge from brain research. After experiencing with real life deliberation, and experiencing wide variety of on-line and off-line deliberation, I have started to adjust the model for deliberation. This time, I have integrated knowledge from the deliberation research filed, in order to be relevant to the experts in deliberation. In 2012, with the help of Dr. Azi Lev-On, I organized conferences of experts in the field, and we discused a vrity of methods of deliberation. This was a boost for my experience, and led me to open this wiki. I hope we can build here theories that will explain the mechanism of deliberation, and will create a ground for developing edvance deliberation methods and on-line tools.

Today I am lecturing in Ariel University Center, and Future-Center leader in Ranana municipality.

Questions in Mind

Why do we need Deliberation?

What is the benefits of wide deliberation compared to small group deliberation?

• Share of interests and working as a group: By using good deliberation (we should try to explain what is good deliberation), we may get more people into collaboration, because their private interests are better incorporated into the doing of the group. In ideal-free groups, this will enable larger groups to gather. In Hirarchical groups that pay people to come to work, this will loosens the "ego" (persevering self intrest). And will let people contribute more to the good of the group. For instance, I need a room for the meeting of citizens, but other department need this room for storage of old staff. Because we do not have the same goal, and we may be rivals for power and promotion, the other department will not have intrest to give me the room. But if we will work as a team, and we will be rewarded as a team (and each of us as a contributer to the good of the group), we may be able to give the citizens better products. Especially if the citizens will know that the room is the contribution of department of X.
  • Private reward: When collaborating people get reward from work team (appreciation from team members). But will it work in Hierarchical work places?
    • What are the rewards of managers in work hirarchical work places?
      • Survey on Inc
        • Challenging work.
        • I have a say in decisions.
        • Recognizing when I have done great work.
        • Pay correlates to my performance.
        • Working for a company I can be proud of.
      • Assey on Business Week that say that middle mangers like to be heard and be part of the game
      • Power to control others?
      • Prestige?
      • Feel of excellence?
      • Impulse to change the world around.

If we will create settings in which mangers will have more challenging work, more bright solutions, more cooperation to achieve better solutions, face acting work, have great solutions in groups up to ten (so the people will recognize your unique contribution) and creating a work place to be proud of. Also some cultural-values change should take place, from "I" to "we". From I want to be shown, to We want to be shown. We do better then I. We should also ease up the process of decision making, so that only when people want, they will be part of active decision making (the should always be informed on the summery).

Therefore ==>Mangers will love to do large group deliberation, if the will be with their peers, and preform better. people should work with their peers, and give outstanding results to their superiors.

what is good deliberation?

Tamplates

template:Page under construction