Hi Nelson,

Thank you for your message.  At root, it appears to me  this is a matter of _choosing_ definitions because we are using the terms technically in  building design theory. It is also a  particular  case where reference to dictionary definitions and the etymology of 'judgement' and 'decision-making' doesn't help much. In my experience, dictionaries define these terms pretty well identically and there are two strong pretty well equivalent etymological pathways in Latin:  'judex' ('ius' - right + 'dic' from dicere (to speak)) and 'decidere' (to cut down/away).

There is so much overlap in the dictionary definitions on these terms, that I suspect we are going to make more of a conceptual and terminological mess if we try to define major differences between the terms to use them technically in theories in design research. 

In addition, there is the significant reality that these terms and concepts originated before the current possibilities to look inside humans to see what is going on biologically. I know I keep harping on on this but epistemologically this is really significant. This ability to look inside humans to understand the real physical processes by which we do things such as  'decide', 'intuit' , 'think a new thought' or 'feel' is very recent but already very illuminating and reliable. In previous times, without this ability to look inside at the reality of human functioning, it has been necessary to make all sorts of place holder ideas such as 'knowledge' and 'mind', and to develop theories that in a third hand way to discuss internal human issues in terms of things outside humans (e.g. behaviours, objects, social relationships etc). Times are a changing and these old ways of theorising are becoming redundant. From this point of view, as far as I can see, its better to look to the new if one wants to make good design theory. 

Warmest wishes,

Terry

-----Original Message-----
From: Harold Nelson
Sent: 19/08/2003 12:16 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Judgment and Decision-making


Terry

There is a related idea concerning judgment that Horst Rittel proposed.
Since any rational decision-making process increases options rather
than reduces options, Horst said that every decision-making process was
terminated by an "off hand judgment" leaving one option for further
consideration. In other words it leads to an opinion or 'expert
opinion'. This is demonstrated by the many conflicting expert opinions
that emerge in complex cases. An interesting counterpoint to this is
the emergent popularity of "naturalistic decision making" where
judgment is treated as a process that can be described and explained
scientifically. One of the intentions of course is to create expert
systems that can make judgments in place of humans. I suspect that
judgment and decision-making are distinct processes and that one is not
a subset of the other. But I also believe they are quite interrelated
systemically.

Regards

Harold


On Monday, August 18, 2003, at 04:43 AM, Terence Love wrote:

> Hi Harold,
>
> Drat! I thought this one at least was straightforward.  I can see
> where you are going with your approach. It aligns with the idea that
> 'judgements' as in Law are recorded and hence public information
> 'objects' (no pun intended), and this contrasts with 'decision-making'
> as a human process.
>
> An alternative, which is the direction I had been following has
> 'judgement' as a distinctly human element of decision making. ('a
> mental act or attitude of decision by which the process of
> observation, comparison and rationcination is terminated' as put in a
> rather old fashioned way by Webster Comprehensive Encyclopedic Edition
> (1986)). Thus, from this perspective decision-making is a broader
> process that can include all sorts of activities like informationa
> gathering, analysis, discussion, lobbying, reflection etc. but in the
> limit, it requires a particularly unique human internal process
> involving reflexive activity between imagogenic, emotional, feeling
> and selfconscious processes that  result in a preference for a
> particular outcome as a result of individuals' bodies feeling better
> or worse. This is a pretty unique biological process as it creates a
> real and releatively reliable singular outcome from reflecting on
> situations that may involve complex objects, relationships, contexts,
> perspectives  - physical, social and historical. This is a 'holy
> grail' of optimisation models such as multicriteria, weighting
> methods. If the word 'judgement' is not used for this human activity
> that contributes to decision-making (and it is fairly standard in
> psychological/cognitive  analyses) then we need some other word that
> is at least as good. Any ideas?
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Terry
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harold Nelson
> Sent: 18/08/2003 12:33 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Judgment and Decision-making
>
>
> Dear Lubomir et al
>
> At present I am working on a project developing a course on judgment
> and decision making for a graduate program in Strategic Planning  for
> Critical Infrastructures. The distinction I make between judgment and
> decision making is based on the work I am doing with Erik Stolterman.
> It is based on the understanding that these two distinctions represent
> two types of knowledge. The first type is a form of knowledge that can
> be separated from the decision maker, has application to other
> situations, can be communicated to other decision makers, can be stored
> in information systems etc.  The second type of knowledge cannot be
> separated from the knower and has no instrumental value outside of the
> situation for which it was produced and is only revealed through the
> actions of the judgment maker. Learning how to make good judgments then
> becomes a very different enterprise from learning to make good
> decisions.
>
> Harold
>
>
>
>
Harold G. Nelson, Ph.D., M. Arch.
President; Advanced Design Institute
www.advanceddesign.org
Past-President; International Society for Systems Science
www.isss.org
Affiliated faculty, Engineering, U. Wash.