Difference between revisions of "Personal Optimising ROI Selection Criterion"
From Deliberative Democracy Institiute Wiki
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Personal Optimising ROI Selection Criterion Is the process by which the different options evaluated by the group's members. | Personal Optimising ROI Selection Criterion Is the process by which the different options evaluated by the group's members. | ||
| + | ==The common good principal== | ||
Because deliberation is a liberal method of coordination the liberal values are set in order to help the group choose the best option. In liberal values, every person is a free person and he is free to associate himself with any other free person. | Because deliberation is a liberal method of coordination the liberal values are set in order to help the group choose the best option. In liberal values, every person is a free person and he is free to associate himself with any other free person. | ||
When in deliberation large amount of options are evaluated as a solution for a common issue, Some options may harm some of the individuals, While other individuals make a profit from those options. In conservative values, members may choose the "[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_good common good]" principle as a method to select an option, Which means that on average most of the members profit even though a minority of members may lose. | When in deliberation large amount of options are evaluated as a solution for a common issue, Some options may harm some of the individuals, While other individuals make a profit from those options. In conservative values, members may choose the "[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_good common good]" principle as a method to select an option, Which means that on average most of the members profit even though a minority of members may lose. | ||
| − | Under the free choice and free association principles, the group cannot ask a member to sacrifice herself for the common good. Therefore another criterion is needed. I'll suggest that the individual should be a member of the group and comply with the group decisions although she may lose in the current decision if she evaluates that her own personal [[ROI]] will be positive in the long run. If [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributive_justice distributed justice] is important to her, should also evaluate if the ROI she | + | ==personal good prinicpal== |
| + | Under the free choice and free association principles, the group cannot ask a member to sacrifice herself for the common good. Therefore another criterion is needed. I'll suggest that the individual should be a member of the group and comply with the group decisions although she may lose in the current decision if she evaluates that her own personal [[ROI]] will be positive in the long run. If [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributive_justice distributed justice] is important to her, she should also evaluate if the ROI she believes she will get will be distributed according to her preferences of the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributive_justice#Types_of_distributive_norms type of distributed justice]. I believe that the type of distributed justice should be that which in the long run will optimize my own personal ROI. | ||
| − | trust | + | ==Tit-for-tat== |
| + | According to the tit-for-tat theory in such conditions under multiple games members will try to select an option with ROI, which is best for most members, and does minimal damage to those who lose from the selection. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Also according to the first principle if a group will hurt an individual ROI too many times the individual will leave the group. Also, individuals will prefer groups that will reward them with higher ROI, And therefore there will be an evolution for best-resulting ROI groups. | ||
| + | ==A group can exclude harming individuals, under restricted cinditions== | ||
| + | In such cases, the individual may enter a group and may try to contribute as little as they can, and profit as much as they can. To prevent such behavior the members can decide to remove from the groups, members which they think can hurt them. But removing members should be done carefully, especially in groups of [[stakeholders]]. removing a member can create a rivalry between the groups and create a conflict between the groups. Therefore individuals which perceived as harming the group should be persuaded to be more aligned with the accepted distributed justice type which is regarded as accepted by the members. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Trust== | ||
| + | During the interactions of the group members and in for the interaction yields good ROI, members will elevate the [[trust]] in the group, and will invest more in group efforts. | ||
[[category: definition]] | [[category: definition]] | ||
Revision as of 09:42, 2 April 2021
Personal Optimising ROI Selection Criterion Is the process by which the different options evaluated by the group's members.
Contents
The common good principal
Because deliberation is a liberal method of coordination the liberal values are set in order to help the group choose the best option. In liberal values, every person is a free person and he is free to associate himself with any other free person.
When in deliberation large amount of options are evaluated as a solution for a common issue, Some options may harm some of the individuals, While other individuals make a profit from those options. In conservative values, members may choose the "common good" principle as a method to select an option, Which means that on average most of the members profit even though a minority of members may lose.
personal good prinicpal
Under the free choice and free association principles, the group cannot ask a member to sacrifice herself for the common good. Therefore another criterion is needed. I'll suggest that the individual should be a member of the group and comply with the group decisions although she may lose in the current decision if she evaluates that her own personal ROI will be positive in the long run. If distributed justice is important to her, she should also evaluate if the ROI she believes she will get will be distributed according to her preferences of the type of distributed justice. I believe that the type of distributed justice should be that which in the long run will optimize my own personal ROI.
Tit-for-tat
According to the tit-for-tat theory in such conditions under multiple games members will try to select an option with ROI, which is best for most members, and does minimal damage to those who lose from the selection.
Also according to the first principle if a group will hurt an individual ROI too many times the individual will leave the group. Also, individuals will prefer groups that will reward them with higher ROI, And therefore there will be an evolution for best-resulting ROI groups.
A group can exclude harming individuals, under restricted cinditions
In such cases, the individual may enter a group and may try to contribute as little as they can, and profit as much as they can. To prevent such behavior the members can decide to remove from the groups, members which they think can hurt them. But removing members should be done carefully, especially in groups of stakeholders. removing a member can create a rivalry between the groups and create a conflict between the groups. Therefore individuals which perceived as harming the group should be persuaded to be more aligned with the accepted distributed justice type which is regarded as accepted by the members.
Trust
During the interactions of the group members and in for the interaction yields good ROI, members will elevate the trust in the group, and will invest more in group efforts.