Multiple Views
We are familiar with
using different Logical Views (models) in the course of decision-making.
For example, people often consider
technical parameters of a “thing” and economic parameters (price, cost of
using, etc.). These are examples of different Views, each one is logically
bound, but there is no logical binding between two of them, at least there is
no binding of which we are aware. We often assume that such logical binding
could be found, but no one takes time to find it, and, in the majority of cases,
such logical binding does not exist.
In practically all instances of decision-making,
Logical Views are used as supporting tools. The final step of decision-making deploys
something else, not logic.
When Logical Views are prepared,
they are prepared as tools:
·
they are checked for suitability,
·
tried out,
·
dismissed or modified,
·
expanded.
Expanded Logical Views are carefully
described to be used for making of other decisions.
Logical Views are used to acquire
better understanding of the situation (including understanding of priorities of
people involved in the decision-making) and to exclude some unacceptable
variants of the decision. Benefits of building and expanding of Logical Views
are universally recognized: sciences and mathematics are supported, ability to
think logically is highly encouraged, and logical thinking is trained in
schools.
However, it is practically
impossible to show the need to include a particular Logical View in the process
of a particular decision-making. Selection of the set of Logical Views needed
to make a decision is a part of the decision-making process and it cannot be
done just using logic.
Integration of the knowledge, which
we gain using Logical Views, is not logical - otherwise we would use only one
Logical View.
Selecting the moment, when the
decision-making process has to stop, and the decision has to be made, because we
have enough understanding of the situation, enough information about it, and delaying
decision seems to be detrimental to its quality, is not logical also.
Hence, it seems that we use Logical
Views as a tool of integration of logic into decision-making process to a
degree it is possible. It seems that it is a useful method. However, skills of selecting
and developing Logical Views, integrating of knowledge into one decision, and finalizing
the decision-making process are acquired with experience of making decisions. Unfortunately,
the importance of “not logical” side of the decision-making process is rarely emphasized
or even discussed.
Usually, a poor decision is attributed
to poor logic, because, when consequences of a decision become obvious, it is
easy to build a special Logical View, where mistakes of such decision are seen
clearly.
As one could see, any real life
decision is associated with high degree of uncertainty. When someone
“definitely knows”, which decision is the right one, and which is the wrong
one, there is very large chance, that he does not understand the situation. We
could call it “The Principle of Uncertainty” in decision-making.
There is some general approach to
deal with uncertainty, though:
·
run small experiments and gain better understanding
on the way,
·
try to look at the situation from a few different
points of view,
·
examine consequences
of different variants of actions.
This approach would be advisable in
decision-making also. Hence, every decision-making has to be turned into a
process of exploration and learning. This process of exploration and learning
is all we have.
Various institutions use
a special method of decision-making similar to one based on a set of Logical
Views. It uses Views of various departments of the institution. Often, division
of the institution on departments is done to create an efficient system of
Departmental Views. Each such View uses a set of relevant Logical Views and experience
of decision-making related to the department’s area. Each such Department
develops particular culture, which is reflected in Department’s View on various
situations, where this institution makes decisions. The Department becomes an
expert-adviser in decision-making associated with the Department’s area and
role of the institution in this area.
Departmental Views and
ways to work with them are similar to Logical Views, only, in addition to
taking in consideration the situation at hand, decision-makers have to make
adjustments for skills, habits and aspirations of management and specialists preparing
and presenting Departmental Views.
The decision-maker
guides all this process of preparation and making a final decision, which
involves so many instances of not logical decisions. It is hard to do this
right and it is easy to feel that entire process is highly arbitrary. One needs
to have some “guiding light” inside to do it right. This “guiding light” cannot
be some logical theory or logical picture of the world, nor could it be a
system of moral principles.
The “feeling of
INTEGRITY” could be and often is such “guiding light”. The “feeling” that in
spite of all the visible logical gaps in analysis, in spite of absence of
confidence in our understanding of the situation, in spite of absence of
confidence in our experts, and in spite of bitter experience of decisions,
which turned to be “less than perfect”, in spite of all of this, the situation
at hand, the people involved, actions of people in the process, the learning during
decision-making, all of this is bound together, not accidental.
That mysterious phenomenon provides
us with psychological foundation to carry on and feel that we are doing OK.
Alexander Liss 12/1/2019