Neuropsychology elements in decision making
Decsions are conducted in a "logical" the manner through the cognitive elements of decision making. Yet this "logical" thinking is mostly not common. usually people are influenced by an "illogical" ways of thinking. scientists from several disciplines were able to describe these "illogical" ways of thinking, and some of the neural and cognitive mechanism that produce the "illogical" thinking.
Contents
PFC vs FFFF
Influence of FFFF on Decision Making
One of the main effectors on decision making is a cognitive mechanism that work when a threat is perceived. This reaction which is named Fight or Flight[1], or in it's current name Freeze, Flight, Fight or Fright[2]. seems to influence decisions. FFFF influence decisions in several aspects:
- Reduce exploring mode, and heighten doing mode.
- Thus, reducing the ability to learn while in action of handling the threat. Yet after the threat was over, then more resources will be devoted to learning about the threat.
- There is a tendency to impulsive reactions[3].
- Perceiving the world as divided to bad and good, or more schematic.
- Impulsive reaction will inhibit the usage of system 2.
- may resort more to group defense and to look for strong leadership.
On the other hand, while not in FFFF mode (the PFC mode), people will tend to be more:
- Will be more receptive to exploring mode, caused by RPE.
- Increase the ability to learn while doing.
- A more educated decision will be taken
- Perceiving the world as more subtle
- Less inhibition on activation of system 2.
- Less need for group defense and strong leadership.
Implications in Deliberation
When in FFFF mode, participants will have trouble deliberating from the next several reasons:
- When in FFFF, participants tend to look for well accepted theories, that they can rely upon. They will look for the most simple solutions, and therefore will resist more subtle and complex examination of the situation.
- They are not in an exploring mode, and therefore will resist attempts to explore other solutions and perceptions.
- They are working toward group consolidation, within their ethnic or other reliable group, and may see the other group as a threat. They will judge the other group proposed information as deceiving.
- They will judge leaders by their "strength" as it reviled by the leader's rhetoric.
- As a result, It seems that conservatives tend to less participate in deliberation[4].
Facilitating Deliberation in FFFF situations
To enable deliberation, therefore I'll suggest two main routes should be taken. One is elevating the level of trust between groups, and the other is to make deliberation more time-efficient. The threat perception should be reduced, by creating games and interactions that make the participant know more of each other, and trust each other. One example, I have heard of was a of a facilitator that worked with Israeli and Arab youth. Both team didn't trust each other. To elevate trust, the facilitator ordered the youngsters, to help him carry wooden logs from one side of the camp to the other. To complete the mission, both groups needed to work together. This mission, the facilitator testified, helped bring the groups together and the deliberation improved afterward.
By making deliberation more efficient, people with FFFF mode, will feel that the decisions are less time consuming and produce decisions that help the group act in a unify way, and with more strength (something FFFF decision making mechanism, prefer).
Another way to help promote deliberation, is to see the deliberative as a game, and less as something the group has to rely upon, when trying to make decisions. This attitude may reduce pressure, and mat lead to more relaxed decisions.
Many of the characteristics of FFFF mode exists in conservatives, while the PFC exists more in liberals. for further reading, please see conservatives and liberals
Thinking fast, thinking slow
One of the most known ideas about illogical thinking is the system 1 and system 2 methods of thinking popularized by Daniel Kahnman in his book "Thinking fast, thinking slow"[5]. Khanman describe two systems the brain uses to reason about the world. The first, system 1, is a heuristic method of thinking. when we try to choose a solution, most of the times, we will use system 1, which is fast and do not cause high cognitive load. The problem with system 1, is that is tend to be wrong when the solution is not a simple solution, and that people tend to depend upon system one for most of their decision making. Another problem that is similar to system 1 fast thinking, is that most people tend not to recognize their lack of knowledge in the subject of decision making[6][7][8][9]..
Explorers and Doers
Individuals who exhibit a tendency towards action, often referred to as "doers," seem to possess a greater degree of cognitive closure, enabling them to arrive at decisions more rapidly. In contrast, those inclined toward contemplation and analysis, commonly termed "Explorers," tend to engage in more collaborative and discursive processes before reaching conclusions. Consequently, the motivational or "global energizing factor" among explorers may be relatively lower.
There appears to be an intricate balance between the benefits and drawbacks of excessive collaboration or excessive action-orientation. When there is an overemphasis on "doing," there is a risk of hastily implementing decisions without sufficient consideration of potential consequences or alternative perspectives. Conversely, an excessive focus on "thinking" can lead to analysis paralysis, where opportunities are missed due to protracted deliberation.
Interestingly, the dichotomy between explorers and doers appears to have some correlation with the ideological divide between liberals and conservatives. Liberals are often associated with a more contemplative and open-minded approach, embracing diverse viewpoints and favoring extensive discourse. Conservatives, on the other hand, are frequently characterized as more decisive and action-oriented, prioritizing efficiency and pragmatism over prolonged deliberation.
To optimize decision-making processes and harness the strengths of both mindsets, it is crucial to strike a balance between collaborative thinking and timely action. Effective teams and organizations should strive to cultivate an environment that encourages thoughtful contemplation while empowering individuals to take calculated risks and implement well-informed decisions in a timely manner.
Explorers and doers is a phenomena that seam to have some correlation to liberals and conservatives.
 This page is a stub. It is not ready for publication and is used to aggregate information about a subject. You can add further reading and add information to the page. If you want to prepare this page for publication please consults with the creator of this page. |
Comments
References
- ↑ Cannon WB, 1932, The wisdom of the body, New York, Norton
- ↑ S. Bracha at al, 2004, Does "Fight or Flight" Need Updating?, Psychosomatics 45:448-449, October
- ↑ Samuel M. McClure, David I. Laibson, George Loewenstein and Jonathan D. Cohen, 2004, Separate Neural Systems Value Immediate and Delayed Monetary Rewards, Science 15 October 2004: Vol. 306 no. 5695 pp. 503-507
- ↑ Tal Yaron, 2014, Do conservatives tend to avoid deliberation?, The deliberative democracy institute blog
- ↑ Khanman D., 2011, Thinking fast, Thinking slow p. 36
- ↑ Kruger, Justin; David Dunning (1999). "Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 77 (6): 1121–34.
- ↑ Kennedy, Ellen J., Leigh Lawton, and E. Leroy Plumlee. "Blissful ignorance: The problem of unrecognized incompetence and academic performance." Journal of Marketing Education 24.3 (2002): 243-252.
- ↑ Dunning, David, et al. "Why people fail to recognize their own incompetence." Current Directions in Psychological Science 12.3 (2003): 83-87.
- ↑ Dunning, David, Chip Heath, and Jerry M. Suls. "Flawed self-assessment implications for health, education, and the workplace." Psychological science in the public interest 5.3 (2004): 69-106.
Enable comment auto-refresher
WinSysop
Permalink |
WinSysop