Difference between revisions of "Analytic model"
From Deliberative Democracy Institiute Wiki
(Created page with " category: Theory category: Decision making model") |
(→Selection) |
||
| (27 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | In this Theory I will propose that Deliberation is built from several elements, and is influenced by several fields. The basic elements are epistemic elements: the way knowledge is built. Then come influences by the way communication is built and massages are transformed, further is the way participants react to information, and to psychological ques transformed through the network of communication, and eventually, at the social level where different socio-dynamics and socio-settings can influence deliberation. In this model I’ll suggest how these elements are constructed and how they interact. | ||
| + | The foundation level will be the epistemic level, where knowledge is built and manipulated: | ||
| + | ==The Analytic Parts== | ||
| + | Deliberation is focused in bringing up optimized and agreed solutions to the needs of [[stakeholders]]. Therefore, deliberation should find out who are the stakeholders, and what are their needs, and what they try to achieve and the problems they address. | ||
| + | ===The Group=== | ||
| + | ====Stakeholders==== | ||
| + | Let’s assume that every deliberation starts, when one person tries to solve a personal problem, and he finds that in order to solve his problem he may need the help of others, or may need to get their agreement. She needs to identify the stakeholders. The stakeholders may be people that may invest in the solution (''investing stakeholders''), or may need to agree (''influenced stakeholders''). | ||
| + | For instance, a Bedouin find that he lacks drinking water for his cattle. To solve this problem, he can call his neighbors and suggest that they will dig a well together, and take water for their cattle their common well. These neighbors will be the investing stakeholders. He may also find, that some other neighbors, have already dag a well, and they fear that if he will dig a new well, the water in their will dried out. These are the influenced stakeholders. The composition of investors and the influenced may vary with the change in solutions and interests and the level of trust. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ====Needs and Resources==== | ||
| + | Every stakeholder has several needs and some resources available for the common action, and they have to identify them in order to identify possible solutions that may address the needs. | ||
| + | ===Epistemology=== | ||
| + | ====SONs and MONs ==== | ||
| + | Every member of a group [[MON|has her own unique understanding and perceptions about the world]]. For every need the group will try address, every member has her own understanding on how to fulfill this need. If we will ask for solutions, the number of solutions and understanding of the problem will be very large. Therefore, when we try to solve a problem, we have to find ways to include all world views held by participants. We can try to do it by taking into account all various thoughts and understandings, but then we body of knowledge we will have to deal with, will be very big. | ||
| + | |||
| + | To solve this problem of overwhelming understandings, is to create a common field of knowledge. For [[Epistemology|epistemic reasons]], I will call it Social Objects Network or [[SON]] for the acronym. The process of creating SON, is critical for common decision-making. The group should create a SON in order to understand each other and estimate togther what will be the best options. The process of creating SON is done by critical thinking, challenging group previous consumptions etc. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Where disagreements do occur, the results of decision of the group may validate whose SON is more adapted, in due time. Therefore, deliberating citizens should develop tolerance to other people views and ideas. They should understand, that in due time, and as the experience of the group will grow, the knowledge will be more suitable for finding good solutions. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Our [[SON]]s and [[MON]]s are built from [[theory|theories]]. The theories suggest how the world is working. Which event will cause other event or events, and what are the properties of objects in our world. In trying to manage the world around us we are using our theories. For instance, when we want to reach some destination in our city, we can use several alternative theories, to build a way to reach that destination. We know about cars, and public transportation, and cycling and walking, and we can figure out which is the most economical or fast way to reach our destination. Some of our theories are explicit, and probably most of the are implicit. When we suggest a way of action, our mind uses these theories to propose a way of action. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Different people have different levels of theories. In further parts of this book we will address the [[Laymen-experts gap|consequences of these differences]]. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ====Falsification==== | ||
| + | In order to corroborate the solutions , the solutions should be put to a scrutiny and falsification. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ====Common Goal==== | ||
| + | One of the first topics the stakeholders should address is what is their common Goal. What do they try to achieve together, if they want to put their resources into common action or in agreement, if they want not to be harmed by the common action? | ||
| + | |||
| + | ====Problems==== | ||
| + | When trying to solve the common goal, many problems may arise. Stakeholders may have conflict of interests, where one solution may help one or more stakeholders, but have negative effect on other stakeholders. The contributing stakeholders may not have sufficient resources, or the technology is not enough to solve the problem with the current state of resources. Whatever the problems are, the stake holders should identify them in order to find solutions that can overcome these problems. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ====Options==== | ||
| + | When we try to fulfill a need, we have several options which we can follow to fulfill the need. The options are based on the theories we have on the SON or MON. Every option has also other implications, that can be caused if we will follow them. For instance, if we want to fulfil our need to drink, and we will choose the option of juice, we may solve the need, but one of the implications may be weight gain, due too much caloric value the juice contains. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Evaluation and Selection=== | ||
| + | ====Value==== | ||
| + | Every implication that each options carry with it, has a value for us. The juice may have good taste, which has positive value for us, and also to high caloric value, if we want to lose weight, and therefore it’s value is negative. For every option there are positive and negative values. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ====Evaluation==== | ||
| + | |||
| + | The value we put on each implication, may vary. When we are kids, we do not put any value of caloric intake, but as we get older, and the caloric intake may have implication on our health or weight, we may start to change the evaluation of too much caloric intake. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ====Selection==== | ||
| + | Based on the values we choose between the different option. Ideally we will try to take the best value option, but in realty we make choose less suited options. For instance, if we have a habit we ma void new course, because it demands too much new learning. Or we may be in a hurry, and choose the most simple option. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==see also== | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[Systematic Decision Making]] | ||
[[category: Theory]] | [[category: Theory]] | ||
[[category: Decision making model]] | [[category: Decision making model]] | ||
Latest revision as of 00:56, 10 February 2016
In this Theory I will propose that Deliberation is built from several elements, and is influenced by several fields. The basic elements are epistemic elements: the way knowledge is built. Then come influences by the way communication is built and massages are transformed, further is the way participants react to information, and to psychological ques transformed through the network of communication, and eventually, at the social level where different socio-dynamics and socio-settings can influence deliberation. In this model I’ll suggest how these elements are constructed and how they interact. The foundation level will be the epistemic level, where knowledge is built and manipulated:
Contents
The Analytic Parts
Deliberation is focused in bringing up optimized and agreed solutions to the needs of stakeholders. Therefore, deliberation should find out who are the stakeholders, and what are their needs, and what they try to achieve and the problems they address.
The Group
Stakeholders
Let’s assume that every deliberation starts, when one person tries to solve a personal problem, and he finds that in order to solve his problem he may need the help of others, or may need to get their agreement. She needs to identify the stakeholders. The stakeholders may be people that may invest in the solution (investing stakeholders), or may need to agree (influenced stakeholders).
For instance, a Bedouin find that he lacks drinking water for his cattle. To solve this problem, he can call his neighbors and suggest that they will dig a well together, and take water for their cattle their common well. These neighbors will be the investing stakeholders. He may also find, that some other neighbors, have already dag a well, and they fear that if he will dig a new well, the water in their will dried out. These are the influenced stakeholders. The composition of investors and the influenced may vary with the change in solutions and interests and the level of trust.
Needs and Resources
Every stakeholder has several needs and some resources available for the common action, and they have to identify them in order to identify possible solutions that may address the needs.
Epistemology
SONs and MONs
Every member of a group has her own unique understanding and perceptions about the world. For every need the group will try address, every member has her own understanding on how to fulfill this need. If we will ask for solutions, the number of solutions and understanding of the problem will be very large. Therefore, when we try to solve a problem, we have to find ways to include all world views held by participants. We can try to do it by taking into account all various thoughts and understandings, but then we body of knowledge we will have to deal with, will be very big.
To solve this problem of overwhelming understandings, is to create a common field of knowledge. For epistemic reasons, I will call it Social Objects Network or SON for the acronym. The process of creating SON, is critical for common decision-making. The group should create a SON in order to understand each other and estimate togther what will be the best options. The process of creating SON is done by critical thinking, challenging group previous consumptions etc.
Where disagreements do occur, the results of decision of the group may validate whose SON is more adapted, in due time. Therefore, deliberating citizens should develop tolerance to other people views and ideas. They should understand, that in due time, and as the experience of the group will grow, the knowledge will be more suitable for finding good solutions.
Our SONs and MONs are built from theories. The theories suggest how the world is working. Which event will cause other event or events, and what are the properties of objects in our world. In trying to manage the world around us we are using our theories. For instance, when we want to reach some destination in our city, we can use several alternative theories, to build a way to reach that destination. We know about cars, and public transportation, and cycling and walking, and we can figure out which is the most economical or fast way to reach our destination. Some of our theories are explicit, and probably most of the are implicit. When we suggest a way of action, our mind uses these theories to propose a way of action.
Different people have different levels of theories. In further parts of this book we will address the consequences of these differences.
Falsification
In order to corroborate the solutions , the solutions should be put to a scrutiny and falsification.
Common Goal
One of the first topics the stakeholders should address is what is their common Goal. What do they try to achieve together, if they want to put their resources into common action or in agreement, if they want not to be harmed by the common action?
Problems
When trying to solve the common goal, many problems may arise. Stakeholders may have conflict of interests, where one solution may help one or more stakeholders, but have negative effect on other stakeholders. The contributing stakeholders may not have sufficient resources, or the technology is not enough to solve the problem with the current state of resources. Whatever the problems are, the stake holders should identify them in order to find solutions that can overcome these problems.
Options
When we try to fulfill a need, we have several options which we can follow to fulfill the need. The options are based on the theories we have on the SON or MON. Every option has also other implications, that can be caused if we will follow them. For instance, if we want to fulfil our need to drink, and we will choose the option of juice, we may solve the need, but one of the implications may be weight gain, due too much caloric value the juice contains.
Evaluation and Selection
Value
Every implication that each options carry with it, has a value for us. The juice may have good taste, which has positive value for us, and also to high caloric value, if we want to lose weight, and therefore it’s value is negative. For every option there are positive and negative values.
Evaluation
The value we put on each implication, may vary. When we are kids, we do not put any value of caloric intake, but as we get older, and the caloric intake may have implication on our health or weight, we may start to change the evaluation of too much caloric intake.
Selection
Based on the values we choose between the different option. Ideally we will try to take the best value option, but in realty we make choose less suited options. For instance, if we have a habit we ma void new course, because it demands too much new learning. Or we may be in a hurry, and choose the most simple option.