Difference between revisions of "Decision making"
From Deliberative Democracy Institiute Wiki
m (→Dunning-Kurger effect) |
(→Desirability bias) |
||
| (36 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
This is a first scatch of the process of '''decision making''': | This is a first scatch of the process of '''decision making''': | ||
| + | |||
| + | Decision making is that people look at the pros and cons of different courses of action and assign a positive value to the pros and a negative value to the cons. Then they evaluate the probabilities that the pro will happen, as opposed to the con. On the basis of this evaluation, they make the choice that has the best possible outcome<ref>Games At Work: How to Recognize and Reduce Office Politics by Mauricio Goldstein, Phil Read, Kevin Cashman, p.110</ref>. | ||
| + | ==Group Decision making== | ||
| + | Group decision making raze many problems and obstacles. The basic problem is the [[the problem of coordination|problem of connection lines]], which implies that as the number of members in a group of decision makers grows, the time needed for decision making raze by the power. Another problem is the need to create mutual language (also calle [[SON]]). And also, different deductions, different values and different interests, may make coordination even more complex. Above these, there is a need for mutual culture of deliberation which enables productive discussion, a culture that permit criticism (which is needed for falsification) and culture that enable the creation of the minmiun-sublte solution which is needed for effective solutions. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===See also=== | ||
| + | *[[finding creative solutions in a group|Finding creative solutions in a group]] | ||
| + | *[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiral_of_silence#Background Spiral of silence] | ||
| + | *[[decision making in social networks]] | ||
| + | *[http://2012books.lardbucket.org/books/a-primer-on-communication-studies/s14-03-problem-solving-and-decision-m.html Problem Solving and Decision Making in Groups] | ||
==Intuitive Decision Making== | ==Intuitive Decision Making== | ||
Most of the time, people use intutive thinking when they make decisions, which is carried by [[system 1]]. Intutive thinking is somtimes not logical, nor it is sutiable to precise reasoning (which is handeld by [[system 2]]). This creates logical mistakes, and may influance decision making proufundly. Understanding the way system 1 works, is important to thus who want to faciltate wise deicsion by [[deliberation]].Most of the work in this page was based on Kahnaman's book "Thinking Fast&Slow"<ref>[http://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/0374275637 Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow (p. 512). Farrar, Straus and Giroux.]</ref> | Most of the time, people use intutive thinking when they make decisions, which is carried by [[system 1]]. Intutive thinking is somtimes not logical, nor it is sutiable to precise reasoning (which is handeld by [[system 2]]). This creates logical mistakes, and may influance decision making proufundly. Understanding the way system 1 works, is important to thus who want to faciltate wise deicsion by [[deliberation]].Most of the work in this page was based on Kahnaman's book "Thinking Fast&Slow"<ref>[http://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/0374275637 Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow (p. 512). Farrar, Straus and Giroux.]</ref> | ||
| + | |||
| + | automatic decision making is more prevalent when most of the information is known, whereas slow decision making is more prevalent when a new knowledge must be acquired<ref>[http://journal.sjdm.org/13/13426/jdm13426.html Deliberation versus automaticity in decision making: Which presentation format features facilitate automatic decision making?, 2013, Anke Söllner, Arndt Bröder, Benjamin E. Hilbig]</ref> | ||
===Biased Observations=== | ===Biased Observations=== | ||
| Line 38: | Line 50: | ||
The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than average. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their mistakes. | The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than average. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their mistakes. | ||
| − | Actual competence may weaken self-confidence, as competent individuals may falsely assume that others have an equivalent understanding. David Dunning and Justin Kruger of Cornell University conclude, "the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others"<ref> 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.</ref> | + | Actual competence may weaken self-confidence, as competent individuals may falsely assume that others have an equivalent understanding. David Dunning and Justin Kruger of Cornell University conclude, "the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others"<ref> Kruger, Justin; David Dunning (1999). "[[feeling of knowledge|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.</ref> |
| + | |||
| + | ===Overcomming of errors in decision making,due to intutive decision making=== | ||
| + | I will suggest ([[User:WinSysop|Tal Yaron]]) that for most of these difficualties, the solution will be a very constructed, [[PFC]] style talk, can improve the results. Also making knowledge explicit, and testeable, will make it more reliable (Popper's demarcation creterion) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===See Also=== | ||
| + | * MindTool - [http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/avoiding-psychological-bias.htm#np Avoiding Psychological Bias in Decision Making] | ||
==Brain process involving decision making== | ==Brain process involving decision making== | ||
| − | Usually People uses [[system 1]] to decide. They will try to [[ | + | [[File:Indevidual decision operatous.jpg|center|640px]] |
| + | |||
| + | Usually People uses [[system 1]] to decide. They will try to [[options|decide which option]] will give best [[value|values]], based on information gatherd in the [[dlPFC]]<ref>[http://www.yorku.ca/vgoel/reprints/Goel_Cognition_03.pdf Dolan, R., Explaining modulation of reasoning by belief, Cognition, 2003, 87, 1, B11-B22]</ref>, and calculated by the [[vmPFC]]<ref>[http://www.its.caltech.edu/~psh/European_Journal_of_Neuroscience_2012_Sokol-Hessner.pdf Sokol-Hessner et al., Decision value computation in DLPFC and VMPFC adjusts to the available decision time, 2012]</ref>. Dolan also found that the PFC also connected to conflict solving. | ||
When people scurtenise the world, they are compering the phenomena to information they gatherd in their [[MON]]s. A contrediction is detected by the [[ACC]] and will intiate [[RPE]], which activate [[system 2]] in order to solve the contrediction. system 2 will oprate also when a novel task or complext rational task will presnt themselves. | When people scurtenise the world, they are compering the phenomena to information they gatherd in their [[MON]]s. A contrediction is detected by the [[ACC]] and will intiate [[RPE]], which activate [[system 2]] in order to solve the contrediction. system 2 will oprate also when a novel task or complext rational task will presnt themselves. | ||
When in stress, the [[FFFF]] system is put action. It seems that it inhibit ACC activation, thus, closing the actvation of [[system 2]], and probably closing also jeneral empathy. The FFFF system may open a process to strength "famely" relations to strength group cohesion. | When in stress, the [[FFFF]] system is put action. It seems that it inhibit ACC activation, thus, closing the actvation of [[system 2]], and probably closing also jeneral empathy. The FFFF system may open a process to strength "famely" relations to strength group cohesion. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Finding answers to comlex questions during a brake=== | ||
| + | Suggesting: '''Neural redirection''' is done while the brain is "rest". When we try to solve problems we try to go along familiar paths, but when we give the brain a rest, he finds alternative paths which are more minimum-energy (more efficient or more suitable). He basically finds solutions to complex answers during a break. What is the mechanism of redirection, I do not know yet. | ||
| + | |||
| + | [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep_and_learning#cite_note-3 Sleep can boost learning]<ref>[http://therapeuticliteracycenter.com/the-role-of-sleep-in-learning-memory-and-health/ Role of Sleep in Learning, Memory, and Health, Maria Bagby]</ref><ref>[https://sleep.med.harvard.edu/news/120/To+Understand+The+Big+Picture+Give+It+Time+And+Sleep "To understand the big picture, give it time – and sleep". EurekAlert. April 20, 2007. Retrieved 2007-04-23.]</ref><ref>Stickgold, R. & Walker, M.P. (2004). Sleep-dependent learning and memory consolidation. Neuron, 44, 121-133.</ref><ref>Peyrache, A.; Khamassi, M.; Benchenane, K.; Wiener, S. I.; Battaglia, F. P. (2009). "Replay of rule-learning related neural patterns in the prefrontal cortex during sleep.". Nature Neuroscience 12 (7): 919–926.</ref> | ||
| + | |||
| + | The best brakes are good overnight sleep and early in the morning when we are awake in bed. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Desirability bias=== | ||
| + | When people desire somthing tohy will overestimate the likelihood. They will also behave in accordance to the chances they believe it will happen<ref>[http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bdm.1918/abstract?campaign=wolearlyview Scherer et al (2015) Behaving Optimistically: How the (Un)Desirability of an Outcome Can Bias People's Preparations for It]</ref> | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Social desirability bias=== | ||
| + | [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_desirability_bias Social desirability bias] is a social science research term that describes the tendency of survey respondents to answer questions in a manner that will be viewed favorably by others. It can take the form of over-reporting "good behavior" or under-reporting "bad", or undesirable behavior. The tendency poses a serious problem with conducting research with self-reports, especially questionnaires. This bias interferes with the interpretation of average tendencies as well as individual differences. | ||
==Decision Making Settings== | ==Decision Making Settings== | ||
[[participation function]] | [[participation function]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Decision Making and Voting== | ||
| + | |||
| + | People do not vote according to self interest,but by group orientation<ref>Kinder D.E., 1998, "Opinion and action in realm of politics" in handbook of social psychology, 4th Ed., Gilbert, Fisk and Lindzy, 778-867, New-York: McGraw-Hill</ref><ref>look at Haidt , the righteous mind, p.99</ref> | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Methods in Collaborative Decision Making== | ||
| + | *[[Systematic Decision Making]] | ||
| + | *[[sanhedrin]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Decision-making under uncertanity== | ||
| + | See also [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Info-gap_decision_theory nformation-gap theory], and this article<ref>[http://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=147395&fileOId=625124 ROBUST DECISION-MAKING UNDER SEVERE UNCERTAINTY FOR CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT]</ref> | ||
| + | ==Decision Making and Technology== | ||
| + | [[decision making by emails|Decision making by emails]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[decision making by face to face meetings|Decision making by face to face meetings]] | ||
==Other subjects of decision making== | ==Other subjects of decision making== | ||
| + | [[organizational politics]] | ||
| + | |||
[[counter influence]] | [[counter influence]] | ||
| Line 77: | Line 127: | ||
[[decision making times|Decision making times]] | [[decision making times|Decision making times]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[experience|Experience]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[neuronal decision making model]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ===Collaborative Decision Making Software=== | ||
| + | * [[Ekkli]] | ||
| + | * [https://www.loomio.org Loomio] - very good concept | ||
==Further readings== | ==Further readings== | ||
* [http://cntrics.ucdavis.edu/c2meeting2/Day1Talks/Day1M_Wallis_CNTRICSIIA-1.ppt A power point presentation] about the role of [[vmPFC]] and [[OPC]] in decision making from 2006. OPC is value based decision making, and mPFC is involved in options selection. | * [http://cntrics.ucdavis.edu/c2meeting2/Day1Talks/Day1M_Wallis_CNTRICSIIA-1.ppt A power point presentation] about the role of [[vmPFC]] and [[OPC]] in decision making from 2006. OPC is value based decision making, and mPFC is involved in options selection. | ||
* [http://research.chicagobooth.edu/cdr/docs/pleskac2010.pdf mathematical model for decision making] (2010). | * [http://research.chicagobooth.edu/cdr/docs/pleskac2010.pdf mathematical model for decision making] (2010). | ||
| + | * [http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/subject/code/BA23/titles Journals on decision making]. | ||
| + | * [http://www.amazon.com/Decision-Making-Process-Concepts-ebook/dp/B00BQ146G6/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1374559447&sr=8-1&keywords=Decision-making+Process%3A+Concepts+and+Methods Decision Making Process: Concepts and Methods] (217$) | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
Latest revision as of 22:23, 26 October 2015
 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. |
This is a first scatch of the process of decision making:
Decision making is that people look at the pros and cons of different courses of action and assign a positive value to the pros and a negative value to the cons. Then they evaluate the probabilities that the pro will happen, as opposed to the con. On the basis of this evaluation, they make the choice that has the best possible outcome[1].
Contents
- 1 Group Decision making
- 2 Intuitive Decision Making
- 3 Brain process involving decision making
- 4 Decision Making Settings
- 5 Decision Making and Voting
- 6 Methods in Collaborative Decision Making
- 7 Decision-making under uncertanity
- 8 Decision Making and Technology
- 9 Other subjects of decision making
- 10 Further readings
- 11 References
Group Decision making
Group decision making raze many problems and obstacles. The basic problem is the problem of connection lines, which implies that as the number of members in a group of decision makers grows, the time needed for decision making raze by the power. Another problem is the need to create mutual language (also calle SON). And also, different deductions, different values and different interests, may make coordination even more complex. Above these, there is a need for mutual culture of deliberation which enables productive discussion, a culture that permit criticism (which is needed for falsification) and culture that enable the creation of the minmiun-sublte solution which is needed for effective solutions.
See also
- Finding creative solutions in a group
- Spiral of silence
- decision making in social networks
- Problem Solving and Decision Making in Groups
Intuitive Decision Making
Most of the time, people use intutive thinking when they make decisions, which is carried by system 1. Intutive thinking is somtimes not logical, nor it is sutiable to precise reasoning (which is handeld by system 2). This creates logical mistakes, and may influance decision making proufundly. Understanding the way system 1 works, is important to thus who want to faciltate wise deicsion by deliberation.Most of the work in this page was based on Kahnaman's book "Thinking Fast&Slow"[2]
automatic decision making is more prevalent when most of the information is known, whereas slow decision making is more prevalent when a new knowledge must be acquired[3]
Biased Observations
Media Baised Observations
To sell, the media should produce interesting news, therefore it will describe only events that may interest it's public. Kahneman suggested that the reason he thought that politicians fornicate more then physician and lawyers, is since politicians are the subject of news, while the others do not make headlines when they are caught in adultery (Kahneman, p. 7). He suggested that the media bias will influence much of what we think about the world, and divert our ability get well informed and unbiased information.
Media bodies will also frame the message in such a way as to conceive their readers give faith in the agenda that the media owners maintain.
Emotional Baised Observations
Fear Baised Observations
People that are stressed may look at their surrounding in more dichotomic view, sorting the social world in to good and bad, and will generalized from very few observations. Especially if the subject of observation is categorized as bad. For instance if a member of another ethnic group will behave in a negative way, the observer will conclude that all the members of the ethnic group behaves in a similar negative way. This is due the need of the FFFF system, which is activated feeling of emergency, to make very fast decisions. It has to decide whether other subjects may harm us or help us. Usually, Conservatives are more liable to dichotomic views, caused by fear[4], but there are observations that people with far left-wingers also may have inclination to dichotomic observations. The Marxists theory divide the world in to proletarions and owners of the means of production, the frist are good, while the latter are bad, and the redumption of the working class can only come after a strugle between the two parties.
Affect heuristic
For more details read Kahnman's Thinking fast and slow, p. 103
The affect heuristic is a heuristic, a mental shortcut that allows people to make decisions and solve problems quickly and efficiently, in which current emotion—fear, pleasure, surprise, etc.—influences decisions. In which people lets their likes and dislikes detrmain their beliefs about the world. In other words, it is a type of heuristic in which emotional response, or "affect" in psychological terms, plays a lead role. It is a subconscious process that shortens the decision-making process and allows people to function without having to complete an extensive search for information. It is shorter in duration than a mood, occurring rapidly and involuntarily in response to a stimulus. Reading the words "lung cancer" usually generates an affect of dread, while reading the words "mother's love" usually generates an feeling of affection and comfort. The affect heuristic is typically used while judging the risks and benefits of something, depending on the positive or negative feelings that people associate with a stimulus. It is the equivalent of "going with your gut". If their feelings towards an activity are positive, then people are more likely to judge the risks as low and the benefits high. On the other hand, if their feelings towards an activity are negative, they are more likely perceive the risks as high and benefits low.
It seems that affect heuistic, is one of the main casues of deicisions-by-emotions. Kahanm wrote that system 2 is lazy and therefore it does not stop system 1 heurisitic problem solving. To change it, we hace to activate system 2 by RPE or some other procedure.
Khanaman also wrote that we substitute "logical" questions to emotional and asociative questions. Therefore, our basic reasons are usualy emotional.
Baised Perception
Truthnness Effect
When something was stemped in the neural networks, it has a feeling of femiliarity. If it will be encounter again in hearing or reading, it will be sound more true. Accordingly, when one rights good (According to the roles of The science of scientific writing)[5]
Dunning-Kurger effect
The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than average. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their mistakes.
Actual competence may weaken self-confidence, as competent individuals may falsely assume that others have an equivalent understanding. David Dunning and Justin Kruger of Cornell University conclude, "the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others"[6]
Overcomming of errors in decision making,due to intutive decision making
I will suggest (Tal Yaron) that for most of these difficualties, the solution will be a very constructed, PFC style talk, can improve the results. Also making knowledge explicit, and testeable, will make it more reliable (Popper's demarcation creterion)
See Also
Brain process involving decision making
Usually People uses system 1 to decide. They will try to decide which option will give best values, based on information gatherd in the dlPFC[7], and calculated by the vmPFC[8]. Dolan also found that the PFC also connected to conflict solving.
When people scurtenise the world, they are compering the phenomena to information they gatherd in their MONs. A contrediction is detected by the ACC and will intiate RPE, which activate system 2 in order to solve the contrediction. system 2 will oprate also when a novel task or complext rational task will presnt themselves.
When in stress, the FFFF system is put action. It seems that it inhibit ACC activation, thus, closing the actvation of system 2, and probably closing also jeneral empathy. The FFFF system may open a process to strength "famely" relations to strength group cohesion.
Finding answers to comlex questions during a brake
Suggesting: Neural redirection is done while the brain is "rest". When we try to solve problems we try to go along familiar paths, but when we give the brain a rest, he finds alternative paths which are more minimum-energy (more efficient or more suitable). He basically finds solutions to complex answers during a break. What is the mechanism of redirection, I do not know yet.
Sleep can boost learning[9][10][11][12]
The best brakes are good overnight sleep and early in the morning when we are awake in bed.
Desirability bias
When people desire somthing tohy will overestimate the likelihood. They will also behave in accordance to the chances they believe it will happen[13]
Social desirability bias
Social desirability bias is a social science research term that describes the tendency of survey respondents to answer questions in a manner that will be viewed favorably by others. It can take the form of over-reporting "good behavior" or under-reporting "bad", or undesirable behavior. The tendency poses a serious problem with conducting research with self-reports, especially questionnaires. This bias interferes with the interpretation of average tendencies as well as individual differences.
Decision Making Settings
Decision Making and Voting
People do not vote according to self interest,but by group orientation[14][15]
Methods in Collaborative Decision Making
Decision-making under uncertanity
See also nformation-gap theory, and this article[16]
Decision Making and Technology
Decision making by face to face meetings
Other subjects of decision making
Mere-exposure effect - people will prefer objects they were more exposed to, but to a some degree. If the object was disliked in the first place, it will be more disliked. The effect is limited in duration, after 20 exposures, the effect diminish. When people were presnted with comercial to a drink with happy faces in mere exposer effect, they preferd it, over the same drink, without smiling object. This strenght the concept that people may decide in acordance to their feelings and not on a rational base.
neuronal decision making model
Collaborative Decision Making Software
Further readings
- A power point presentation about the role of vmPFC and OPC in decision making from 2006. OPC is value based decision making, and mPFC is involved in options selection.
- mathematical model for decision making (2010).
- Journals on decision making.
- Decision Making Process: Concepts and Methods (217$)
References
- ↑ Games At Work: How to Recognize and Reduce Office Politics by Mauricio Goldstein, Phil Read, Kevin Cashman, p.110
- ↑ Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow (p. 512). Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
- ↑ Deliberation versus automaticity in decision making: Which presentation format features facilitate automatic decision making?, 2013, Anke Söllner, Arndt Bröder, Benjamin E. Hilbig
- ↑ Johen, J., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A., & Sulloway, F. J. (2003). Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129(3), 339–375.
- ↑ Kahnman, Thinking slaw and fast, 2011 (the truthness effect)
- ↑ 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.
- ↑ Dolan, R., Explaining modulation of reasoning by belief, Cognition, 2003, 87, 1, B11-B22
- ↑ Sokol-Hessner et al., Decision value computation in DLPFC and VMPFC adjusts to the available decision time, 2012
- ↑ Role of Sleep in Learning, Memory, and Health, Maria Bagby
- ↑ "To understand the big picture, give it time – and sleep". EurekAlert. April 20, 2007. Retrieved 2007-04-23.
- ↑ Stickgold, R. & Walker, M.P. (2004). Sleep-dependent learning and memory consolidation. Neuron, 44, 121-133.
- ↑ Peyrache, A.; Khamassi, M.; Benchenane, K.; Wiener, S. I.; Battaglia, F. P. (2009). "Replay of rule-learning related neural patterns in the prefrontal cortex during sleep.". Nature Neuroscience 12 (7): 919–926.
- ↑ Scherer et al (2015) Behaving Optimistically: How the (Un)Desirability of an Outcome Can Bias People's Preparations for It
- ↑ Kinder D.E., 1998, "Opinion and action in realm of politics" in handbook of social psychology, 4th Ed., Gilbert, Fisk and Lindzy, 778-867, New-York: McGraw-Hill
- ↑ look at Haidt , the righteous mind, p.99
- ↑ ROBUST DECISION-MAKING UNDER SEVERE UNCERTAINTY FOR CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT