Changes

In this Theory I will propose that Deliberation is built from several elements, and is influenced by several fields of knowledge. 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, then how the brain process information in different states and react to this information, and eventually, at the social level 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 Epistemic Elements==

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.

Let’s assume that every deliberation starts, when one person tries to solve a personal problem. The he finds that in order to solve this problem, he need the collaboration of others. He may need their resources or agreement. Therefore, she needs to identify the stakeholders. The stakeholders may be people that are interested in the solution, or may be influenced by the solution.

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?

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.

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.

Different people have different levels of theories. In further parts of this book we will address the [[Laymen-experts gap|consequences of these differences]].

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.

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.

In order to corroborate the solutions , the solutions should be put to a scrutiny and falsification.

Every implication that each options carry with it, has a value for us. The juice may have good taste, which has positive value for us, and also to high caloric value, if we want to lose weight, and therefore it’s value is negative. For every option there are positive and negative values.

The value we put on each implication, may vary. When we are kids, we do not put any value of caloric intake, but as we get older, and the caloric intake may have implication on our health or weight, we may start to change the evaluation of too much caloric intake.

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.

[[category: Theory]]

[[category: Decision making model]]