tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-294168038851154517.post5219627768330709258..comments2023-08-06T03:37:52.108-05:00Comments on AM in practice: More from Ken WilliamsAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16749417303643546408noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-294168038851154517.post-42643608033127180872012-01-19T15:59:16.227-06:002012-01-19T15:59:16.227-06:00I think people's values are not, in general, s...I think people's values are not, in general, supported by a model. However, I do think that people's support for, or trust in, a model will be affected by the extent to which that model indicates that their values need not be sacrificed in a decision. There isn't usually a one to one mapping between models and objectives, either. <br /><br />The temporal shift in who comes in is an interesting idea - but again - the values that newcomers bring won't necessarily be affected by what the current dominant perspective is. Also, that would only matter in a governance system where individuals are "averaged over". It is quite common to structure environmental decision making in conflict situations on a consensus basis. This effectively hands every participant a veto - no averaging. <br /><br />I think uncertainty about objectives does impede decision making - but I'm not sure its amenable to reduction via AM. Uncertainty in the objectives contributes to Social Indeterminism - and reducing that is a job for institutional design - social science stuff.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16749417303643546408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-294168038851154517.post-20416445216679656422012-01-18T11:30:55.190-06:002012-01-18T11:30:55.190-06:00I had a bit of trouble with that same assumption. ...I had a bit of trouble with that same assumption. I convinced my self that the really hard core individuals would never give up an objective no matter how much the weight piled up against an associated model...but maybe the average person would stop adhering to a specific objective as the model supporting that objectives is proven false. I don't know. People in our society have such a hard time abandoning belief in the face of facts it seems to me it would take a lot of weight to overcome preconceived beliefs and objectives. <br /><br />Another way this phenomenon might play out is something like a temporal shift in objectives not an individual shift; individuals don't abandon their beliefs but new individuals come on to the scene and establish their beliefs and objectives based on the current state of knowledge. So again the average objective changes but not the individuals'. <br /><br />Another thought I had about this was regarding expected value of information about objectives. Can we (or should we) devise a way to figure out how objectives uncertainty impedes decision making and whether it is important to reduce uncertainty about objectives within an AM framework?Dr. The Bird Manhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12478272189117640011noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-294168038851154517.post-23020400205222115372012-01-18T10:44:10.818-06:002012-01-18T10:44:10.818-06:00Fun. I remember a hallway conversation with Ken a...Fun. I remember a hallway conversation with Ken and Mike Conroy at the TWS conference in 2008 when Ken was ruminating about the need for inclusion of dynamic objectives in the AM process. Nice to see some results of the thoughts.Larkin Powellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09644534228908164735noreply@blogger.com