{"title":"Value and Values","authors":"C. Phelps, G. Madhavan","doi":"10.1093/OSO/9780190871147.003.0002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/OSO/9780190871147.003.0002","url":null,"abstract":"Many decisions are done intuitively. Sometimes, this works well, and sometimes they lead us astray. Tools of systems engineering recognize human biases and ask about what we do best—specify what is most important to us under the circumstances. This chapter presents a brief introduction into this world (multi-criteria decision analysis) using an example comparing three fictitious wines to show how different preferences lead to different rankings of wine quality, even when using the same “objective” data. This is as it should be—tastes differ, and good decision support systems take this into account. At this point, we focus on decisions made by one person. Later chapters focus on combining a diversity of individual preferences into a group choice.","PeriodicalId":242759,"journal":{"name":"Making Better Choices","volume":"3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128805718","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Systems of Complexity","authors":"C. Phelps, G. Madhavan","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780190871147.003.0001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190871147.003.0001","url":null,"abstract":"Every day people make decisions, from trivial to critical, just as organizations. Groups making decisions commonly have some rules guiding their approach—bylaws, constitutions, or just custom. Each approach can be vague and subject to different interpretation and also manipulation. This chapter starts off our discussion about how to make better choices, individually but primarily in groups where the preferences of multiple individuals must somehow be combined to create a collective choice. Decision making on consequential matters often come down to making tradeoffs. Becoming better off on one dimension might mean becoming worse off on another. These decisions are innately matters of sacrifices and compromises. Both systems analysis and social choice analysis focus on how to make these types of tradeoffs. These issues form our goals for this book—how to help organizations make better decisions, by focusing on all three of the key issues: who gets to decide, how do they decide, and what should they decide.","PeriodicalId":242759,"journal":{"name":"Making Better Choices","volume":"55 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"120968885","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Epilogue","authors":"C. Phelps, G. Madhavan","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780190871147.003.0008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190871147.003.0008","url":null,"abstract":"Two major branches of social and engineering sciences—social choice theory and systems analysis—seldom come together. Social choice theory guides the methods we use to choose among a given slate of alternatives. Systems analysis helps us think of new choices. Our efforts in this book are to show how the two areas of thought can be combined fruitfully to enhance organizational decision-making. Systems perspectives encourage thinking about how things interconnect. Deliberation processes that allow nonlinear thinking encourage systemwide thinking. Multi-criteria decision methods tell us how to evaluate choices with multiple dimensions of value. New methods of social choice give people methods to vote on all the choices together, holistically. Combining all of these will lead to a system that produces better design, decisions, and democracy.","PeriodicalId":242759,"journal":{"name":"Making Better Choices","volume":"8 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122323053","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Poll Vaulting","authors":"C. Phelps, G. Madhavan","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780190871147.003.0006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190871147.003.0006","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter provides a set of real-world examples of how the process used for decision-making dramatically affected the outcome and shows how different voting rules would have led to different choices. Examples include the 2000 U.S. presidential election (Bush vs. Gore, with Nader intervening) and the choice of finalist candidates in the 2016 U.S. presidential election (Clinton vs. Trump). It also includes a famous vote by 11 wine judges in France in 1976 (sometimes called “Judgment of Paris”), where we have the actual preferences of the judges. American wines won the blind taste-testing, shocking the French and eventually leading to the “democratization of the wine world . . . a watershed in the history of wine.” This chapter shows that even votes by small numbers of people can have significant effects and that the choice of voting method in part determined which wine “won” the contest.","PeriodicalId":242759,"journal":{"name":"Making Better Choices","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130387146","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Insincerely Yours","authors":"C. Phelps, G. Madhavan","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780190871147.003.0005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190871147.003.0005","url":null,"abstract":"Every known voting method can be manipulated, hence the tactic of “strategic voting.” But some voting methods are harder to manipulate than others and therefore encourage “truthful revelation” of voters’ preferences. These interact with the problems that various voting systems have (following from Chapter 4) when voters are asked to choose between more than two options. Many organizations try to deal with the “problem” of many choices by breaking every decision down into a set of “yes/no” votes. The most famous of these “parliamentary process” procedures is Robert’s Rules of Order, widely used throughout the world. Controlling the sequence of “yes/no” votes can often manipulate the outcome, which is known in political science as “agenda control.” Other ways to manipulate outcomes includes how the choices are described (“framing” effects) and the biases (either explicit or implicit) of “decision facilitators.” This chapter discusses these issues and suggests ways to avoid their being used adversely in group decision-making.","PeriodicalId":242759,"journal":{"name":"Making Better Choices","volume":"116 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121427513","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：