I too am surprised -- I wonder if I understand you correctly, is it
that in your original post you would use the word 'judgement' in the
sense of an outcome, a product of a process?
I have always (in context of design) thought of it more as a key part
of the design process, that a designer has to have enough insight and
understanding to be able to practice 'good judgement', because there
are usually no 'objective' criteria or 'knowledge' that can relieve
the designer from that responsibility of subjective judgement.
I find that kind of 'judgement' different from the one you talk about
- it is not an outcome, and does not seem automatically easy to
communicate.
You seem to be talking about a product of a 'judging process'?
best, kh
At 09:16 -0700 18.8.2003, Harold Nelson wrote:
>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.
|