An invetation for delibartion about Deliberative Theory

Written on:February 25, 2016
Comments are closed

Who ever tried to conduct real life deliberation, knows it is a messy bussines. People want to talk in the same time, many options are raised and the topics fly in an abstract way. I find that even highly experienced facilitators find it hard to produce agreements and decisions in reasonable time.

To make sense of the process of deliberation, I’ll suggest that we have to understand the basic elements that deliberation is made of. The idea of finding the elements of deliberation is not new. From the turn of the century, scholars tried to defined these elements (eg. Black et al 2011). The understanding of the elements is crucial for successful research. Every field of science need a corroborate paradigm to evolve. As a theorist and practitioner of deliberation, I found Balck’ et al. defenition of the elements, intersting, yet I find it lacking many elements needed for doing real life deliberation and creating apps for deliberation. As we now aim at creating apps for deliberation (delib.org), we need a more accurate paradigm of elements. In the following months, as we progress with our designing of the app, we will need to relay upon a good theory. And this is what we are going to do. We will write down a theory about the elements in a public domain of delib-democracy.org and we will ask you, members of the community of deliberation to help us falsefy the theory by giving criticism, contemplating and suggesting better theories.

To follow the discussion, please follow this blog, or register to delib-democracy.org (please send me email to register: tal.yaron@gmail.com).

P.S: As my English is not the state of the art, I will realy appriciate if sombdy can profread the blog and the wiki.

Intro

In the model I suggest that there are five levels of elements. There is the level of mental elements (the element of doing the calculation of decision making in the brain). The group elements (Who are the stakeholders, and what are the common needs and interests). The communication elements which deals with how the different properties of the lines of communication influence the communication between members of deliberation. For example, when we use face to face communication only one member can talk, otherwise the noise will be too scramble to effectively communicate. On the other hand, face to face commination help better transfer social communication like gestures and intonations.
On the next level we will find the psychological elements. When people are at different psychological states, they will evaluate knowledge differently.

Above the psychological level there is the social level. Different social situations will result different behaviors. For instance, in a close Homogeneous group, groupthink and group polarization may result.
In this post and in the coming posts, I will suggest bit by bit, the elements and the levels, we will discuss them.
Here is the first proposal: the mental elements: please deliberate :-)

The Mental Elements

For the wikipage look here.

Basic decision elements

I will suggest that decision making have several mental elements that works together to produce a decision. These are the elements:

Need: every decision starts with a need or needs. Need is a biological process in the brain, signaling that there is a lack of some resources. The resources may be physical resources or emotional resources. From a psychological perspective see Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.

Options: A need can be fulfilled in many ways. Every way is an “option”.

Mental Objects Network: The options are implementation of theories the brain holds about the world. These theories are connected with each other and describe how the world works and what we can do to change our surrounding. We use these theories to change the surrounding so our needs will be fulfilled. The network of theories is built from mental objects representing of the world, and therefore will be called Mental Objects Network (MON). For further explanation, see epistemology.

Outcomes: For every ‘’option’’ there are outcomes. Some of the outcomes may fulfill the ‘’need’’, and some may have side effects.

Value: The outcomes have an effect on our physical or emotional resources. They carry a value. The value may be rewarding, neutral or taxing. The Magnitude of the value can also vary from none to fatal in taxing value or from none to overwhelming good, in positive values.

Probability of success: Every option has some chances to succeed. Every option is constructed from cascade of events, and every event has some probability to happen. It may depend on the known probabilities of event to happen (for instance we may assume that our chances of winning the lottery has a probability of 1 to a million), or the level of corroboration (the amount of times we tested the theory). The more we corroborated the theory we may have more confidence we can predict her chance to occur (from epistemological perspective we do not have any way to predict the future, bet let’s leave this for now). Consequently, when an option has many steps (events that should occur in order for her to succeed), or/and when the events are not well tested, the probability of success fall.

Resources: For every action, which is based on the option we selected, there is a tax on our resources. Before we evaluate an options, we should also consider how much resources do we have, and if we have the specific resources needed for the option.

Evaluation: When we have to choose from a set of options, we should evaluate every option total outcomes values, the resource it demands, and the probability of success.

Selection: We should compere the total value of every options and choose the best value. Yet for many reasons we will discusses later, we may not evaluate at all, or choose the option we are more familiar with, even if there are better options

Conjecture, Falsification & Corroboration: Theories are built and change throughout our entire life. We learn from others, or we conjecture about how things works. We may then test the theories, and see if they are false or corroborate (see Karl popper on terminology[1]).

References

Black, L. W., Burkhalter, S., Gastil, J., & Stromer-Galley, J. (2011). Methods for analyzing and measuring group deliberation. Sourcebook of Political Communication Research: Methods, Measures, and Analytical Techniques, 323–345.

How can humor help deliberation

Written on:June 6, 2014
Comments
are closed
powermex125

Trust is one of the elements that construct deliberation. When people deliberate they have to trust each other motives in order to work together toward a common goal (Mutz, 2002). Therefore establishing trust between participants is an important element in every deliberative event. When I have started to work with groups that have very high tension between the members, I usually noticed that no matter what I have done, the…

Read more...

Do conservatives tend to avoid deliberation (2)

Written on:June 3, 2014
Comments
are closed
time_pressure

Following the previous post which raised the question, whether conservatives tend less to come to deliberative events, Marina Lindell, from Abo academy Finland, sent me a paper of her collogues at Abo academy, that further looked at the data, and asked the above question (Thanks Marina ). Karjalainen and Rapeli (2014), had searched the data for parameters that relates to attrition from recruitment and participating in the deliberative experiment. They…

Read more...

Do conservatives tend to avoid deliberation?

Written on:May 29, 2014
Comments
are closed
Conservatives

When Marina Lindel invited to a deliberation participents with pro and anti-immigration attitudes, she found out that anti-immigrationsits tended come less to the experiment (Lindell, 2014, p. 7). Jost et al, had found that conservatives (in Lindell’s experiment, they are the anti-immigrationists), have higher need for mind closure (Jost, Glaser, Kruglanski, & Sulloway, 2003), and therefore, I speculate that they may less enjoy deliberation, which naturaly open more options to…

Read more...

Converging discussions in SODM

Written on:April 20, 2014
Comments
are closed
Converging discussions in SODM

  One of the questions Miguel raised in Incoma was “How can we help debates to converge to thoughts instead of ramifying it forever?” Convergence of ideas is one of the main chalanges in deliberation. While asking questions and discussing the possible solutions is very natural, concluding which solutions are most valid and which give us the best solutions is much harder.

Read more...

Introduction to Social Objects Deliberation

Written on:April 20, 2014
Comments
are closed
SODM; convergence 3

Social objects deliberation may be the key to one of deliberation’s most eminent problems. In every occasion of deliberation I have ever participated in, that problem persisted. The problem was defined by Habermas, Cohen and others, as how to let everybody participate equally in the deliberative event? The problem arises because in every event participents can have only limited time to speak, and as the number of participants grows, this…

Read more...

Reward Prediction Error, and Why People Like to Learn

Written on:October 24, 2012
Comments
are closed
Reward Prediction Error, and Why People Like to Learn

When we engage in deliberation we hope that the participants will learn and get informed during the process. But people get most of their knowledge from day to day learning, and not while they deliberate. People learn by watching news, reading, self experiencing and more. If we want to understand how we can improve learning while deliberating and also while people exprience the world, we should understand what make people…

Read more...

Two ways to the wisdom of the multitude: Mean and Synthesis

Written on:October 23, 2012
Comments
are closed
Sanhedrin

When talking about wisdom of the multitude, we think on ways that enable our collective ideas to aggregate and present the right answers. A well-known method to acquire the wisdom of the crowds, was publicized by Surowiecki in The Wisdom of Crowds, and was discoverd by Francis Galton (Galton 1907) . Galton discovered that when many people were asked to evaluate the wight of undressed ox, the mean of their…

Read more...