 |
 |
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 On Sunday, August 17, 2003, at 05:36 PM, Lubomir S. Popov wrote: > How will the concepts of "judgement" and "decision" relate and which > other > concept should be considered in this regard? > > Lubomir Popov > > At 12:40 PM 8/17/2003 +0000, Terence Love wrote: >> Dear Ken and Erik, >> >> Good point about importance of judgement in design. It brings in the >> question of how humans actually make judgements. >> >> To chip in an alternative two-penneth, it appears to me Cognitive >> Science >> and Social Sciences are limited in how they can do this becasue much >> of >> the process is highly dependent on feelings, emotional processes, and >> the >> feelings and changes to sense of self that result from emotion >> responses >> to external and internal imagogenic perceptions. As far as I can see, >> judgement processes cannot be adequately explained in terms of the >> properties of objects or situations, human values, or of cognitive >> constructs (the calculator problem in both cases). They can provide >> some >> correlatory information helpful for exploratory insights but fuller >> explanation and causal theory requires looking at the internal >> physiological processes by which humans undertake judgement. >> >> I feel it is now necessary to be very cautious of the work of earlier >> theorists including early classical authors. These are radical times. >> The >> new means of looking at human issues in a psycho-neuro-physiological >> way >> were not available in earlier times and to a large extent, the work of >> earlier theorists can be seen as building of inherently compromised >> theory to try to make up for the emprical weakness. >> Epistemologically, the problem is simple. The externalist theories or >> theories based on properties of social situations and objects (or >> human >> values) simply cannot adeqautely explain human processes and >> behaviours >> becasue in almost all cases these factors are not directly and >> dependably >> related to how humans function. >> >> Phronesis depends on judgement, and the label of 'wisdom' is usually >> used >> to refer to the skill of a person who is able regularly to make good >> judgements. Making theory about the relationship between the three >> also >> depends on understanding the neuro-physiological processes that >> underpin >> humans' judgement. This also offers good insights into making >> coherent and >> reliable radical theories about both phronesis and wisdom. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Terry >> >> === >> Dr. Terence Love >> Love Design and Research >> PO Box 226 >> Quinns Rocks >> Western Australia, 6030 >> [log in to unmask] >> === >