Demographics of Conceptual Space: Voting

 

Demographics of Conceptual Space: Voting

Edwin Hutchins, Cognition_in_the_Wild

Eu Parliament

Another set of methods for establishing an interpretation to be acted upon by a group relies on measuring the demographics of the community in conceptual space. ..

A majority -rule voting scheme is often taken to be a way of producing the same result that would be produced by continued negotiation , but short-cutting the communication .

The point is rather that social organization, however it may have been produced, does have cognitive consequences that can be described.

By producing  the observed structures of organizations largely ones in which there are explicit mechanisms for resolving diversity of interpretations- social evolution may be telling us that, in some environments, chronic indecision may be much less adaptive than some level of erroneous commitment. This may be the fundamental tradeoff in cognitive ecology.

The social organization , or more precisely the distribution of power to define situations as real, determines the location of a cognitive system in the tradeoff space.

Where the power to define the reality of situations is widely distributed in a "horizontal" structure, there is more potential for diversity of interpretation and more  potential for indecision .

European-parliament-vote-plenary

 Where that power is collected in the top of a "vertical" structure, there is less potential for diversity of interpretation, but also more likelihood that some interpretation will find a great deal of confirmation and that disconfirming evidence will be disregarded.

Where there is a need for both exploration of an interpretation Space and consensus of interpretation, a system typically has two modes of operation.

One mode trades off the ability to reach a decision in favor of diversity of interpretation. The participants in the system proceed in relative isolation and in parallel. Each may be subject to confirmation bias, but because they proceed independently , the system as a whole does not manifest confirmation bias.

The second mode breaks the isolation of the participants and exposes the interpretations to disconfirming evidence, the goal being to avoid erroneous  perseverence on an interpretation when a better one is available.

This mode trades off diversity in favor of the commitment to a single interpretation that will stand as the new reality of the situation. Often the two modes are separated in time and marked by different social structural arrangements.

Quaker Karar Hükmü

 

Quaker Karar Hükmü* – Oybirliği veya Hiç

Quaker Decision* Rule- Unanimity or Nothing

Edwin Hutchins, Cognition_in_the_Wild

 

Her bir karar ağının çevredeki ortamın yalnız bir yönünü dikkate alacağı bir dünya hayal ediniz, fakat bütün ağlar kendi izledikleri temelinde oluşturdukları yorumları birbirleri ile iletişebilsinler.

Imagine a world in which each network can attend to only one aspect of the environment at a time, but all networks communicate with one another about the interpretations they form on the basis of what they are attending to.

 Bundan daha da öte, çevredeki ortam hakkında diğerlerinden daha tutarlı belirli bir yorum(en iyi yorum) olduğunu varsayalım.  O zaman, kendi başına hareket eden herhangi bir birey, yalnızca çevrenin bu yorum ile ilgili bazı yönlerini dikkate aldığı zaman ya da o yorumla önceden karşılaştıysa en iyi yoruma ulaşır.

Suppose further that there is more information in the environment consistent with one interpretation (call it the best interpretation ) than with another. Then, any single individual acting alone will reach the best interpretation only when it happens to be attending to some aspect of the environment that is associated with that interpretation or when it happens to be predisposed to that interpretation.

 Eğer çok sayıda ağ varsa ve bunların izlediği çevre özellikleri rasgele seçiliyorsa,  ortalama olarak onların çoğunluğu herhangi farklı bir yorumdansa en iyi yorumu destekleyen delilleri izleyeceklerdir,

çünkü tanım olarak en iyi yorum en çok desteklenen yorumdur.

If there are many networks and the aspect of the environment each attends to is chosen at random, then on average more of them will be attending to evidence supporting the best interpretation than to evidence supporting any other interpretation, since by definition the best interpretation is the one for which there is most support.

 Eğer böyle bir gruptaki ağlar başlangıçtan itibaren birbirleri ile yüksek-bant genişliğinde iletişimdeyseler, delilleri dikkate almadan ön koşullanmalarının ağırlık noktasına en yakın yoruma hızla yönelecekler, bir Gala sistemi gibi davranacaklardır.

If the networks in such a group are in high -bandwidth communication with one another from the outset, they will behave as the Gala system did, rushing as a group to the interpretation that is closest to the center of gravity of their predispositions regardless of the evidence.

 Eğer, bir süre için kendi yollarında gitmelerine müsaade edilirse, hem var olan delili hem de önkoşullanmalarını dikkate alıp daha sonra diğerleri ile iletişim kurarak, ilk önce çevredeki bilgiyi örnekleyecek ve daha sonra (grup olarak) en iyi desteklenen yoruma gideceklerdir.

If, however, they are allowed to go their own ways for a while, attending to both the available evidence and their predispositions, and then to communicate with one another, they will first sample the information in the environment and then go (as a group ) to the interpretation that is best supported.

 

Yorumların çeşitliliğini çözümlemede simulasyonlar bu yaklaşımın iki eksikliğini belirtir.  Birincisi, bireyler iletişim başlamadan önce,  birbirleri ile çelişkili çok iyi formule edilmiş yorumlara ulaşırlarsa hiç bir sonuca varılamayabilir.  Yalnızca oluşturmuş oldukları yorumlarla kalabilirler.

The simulations indicate two shortcomings of this mode of resolving  the diversity of interpretations. First, if some individuals arrive at very well -formed interpretations that are in conflict with one another before communication begins, there may be no resolution at all. They may simply stay with the interpretations they have already formed.

 Bazen  inatçı ağlara o anki yorumları ile  çelişen bir delile doğrudan ulaşım imkanı verecek şekilde dağılımı değiştirerek, bunun gibi “katı durumlar” açılabilir.  Yine de bu yaklaşım,  ağı içinde bulunduğu durumun tutarlı bir yorumunun olmadığı kararsızlık haline itebilir.

Sometimes such " hard cases" can be dislodged by changing the distribution of access to evidence in the community by giving stubborn networks direct access to evidence that contradicts their present interpretation. However, this may only drive the network to a state in which it has no coherent interpretation of the situation.

 ·         Quaker-esaslı oylamanın anahtar bileşenleri ortak insanlık ve birlikte karar verebilme inancını içerir.  Amaç “birlik, karasızlık karşıtlığı”dır.  Diğer herkes dinlenilinceye  kadar grup elemanlarının yalnızca bir kez konuşmasını sağlayarak bir düşünce çeşitliliği sağlanır.

·         Key components of Quaker-based consensus include a belief in a common humanity and the ability to decide together. The goal is "unity, not unanimity." Ensuring that group members speak only once until others are heard encourages a diversity of thought.

·         Quakerlar nasıl karar verir?

·         How do Quakers make decisions?

Quaker Modelinde kolaylaştırıcı/memur kişi anlaşılan alanları belirler ve tartışmayı daha derine yönlendirmek için anlaşmazlıkları isimlendirir.  Kolaylaştırıcı kişi tartışmanın anlamını ifade eder,  başka yönler olup olmadığını sorar ve karara ilişkin bir ‘anlık not’ önerir.

The facilitator ("clerk" or "convenor" in the Quaker model) identifies areas of agreement and names disagreements to push discussion deeper. The facilitator articulates the sense of the discussion, asks if there are other concerns, and proposes a "minute" of the decision.

  ·         The Positives and Negatives of Decision by Committee

https://nevadasmallbusiness.com/the-positives-and-negatives-of-decision-by-committee/

 

 

Quaker Decision Rule- Unanimity or Nothing

 

Quaker Decision* Rule- Unanimity or Nothing

Edwin Hutchins, Cognition_in_the_Wild

 

 

Imagine a world in which each network can attend to only one aspect of the environment at a time, but all networks communicate with one another about the interpretations they form on the basis of

what they are attending to.

 

Suppose further that there is more information in the environment consistent with one İnterpretation (call it the best interpretation ) than with another. Then, any single individual acting alone will reach the best interpretation only when it happens to be attending to some aspect of the environment that is associated with that interpretation or when it happens to be predisposed to that interpretation.

 

If there are many networks and the aspect of the environment each attends to is chosen at random, then on average more of them will be attending to evidence supporting the best interpretation than to evidence supporting any other interpretation, since by definition the best interpretation is the one for which there is most support.

 

If the networks in such a group are in high -bandwidth communication with one another from the outset, they will behave as the Gala system did, rushing as a group to the interpretation that is closest to the center of gravity of their predispositions regardless of the evidence.

 

If, however, they are allowed to go their own ways for a while, attending to both the available evidence and their predispositions, and then to communicate with one another, they will first sample the information in the environment and then go (as a group ) to the interpretation that is best supported.

 

The simulations indicate two shortcomings of this mode of resolving  the diversity of interpretations. First, if some individuals arrive at very well -formed interpretations that are in conflict with

one another before communication begins, there may be no resolution at all. They may simply stay with the interpretations they have already formed.

 

Sometimes such " hard cases" can be dislodged by changing the disbibution of access to evidence in the community by giving stubborn networks direct access to evidence that contradicts their present interpretation. However, this may only drive the network to a state in which it has no coherent interpretation of the situation.

 

·         Key components of Quaker-based consensus include a belief in a common humanity and the ability to decide together. The goal is "unity, not unanimity." Ensuring that group members speak only once until others are heard encourages a diversity of thought.

·         How do Quakers make decisions?

·         The facilitator ("clerk" or "convenor" in the Quaker model) identifies areas of agreement and names disagreements to push discussion deeper. The facilitator articulates the sense of the discussion, asks if there are other concerns, and proposes a "minute" of the decision.

 

 

·         The Positives and Negatives of Decision by Committee

https://nevadasmallbusiness.com/the-positives-and-negatives-of-decision-by-committee/