Chris Bragg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > While I think there is a real value to the observation that many > development projects stray on the wrong side of the 80/20 rule in an > effort to ensure maximum value from the project, I cannot agree that the > factors effecting decision making are in any way different from one > community to the next, when viewed at the point where the decision is > finally made. Whether a committee, election processes or referenda, or a > single autocratic individual makes the choice the important fact is that > the decision is made on the basis of existing knowledge and a necessity > to reach a decision, for one or other reason. It may be that multiple > people make the decision and then cast a vote, or it may be one person > makes the decision, but the principle is the same in each case.
In an ideal world, all decisions would be rational and evidence based. In the real world, amost none are. > The experience, perception and understanding (i.e. knowledge) of those > who perceive a need to make a decision and the quality and quantity of > existing knowledge of those who make the decision, will impact on the > decision whoever makes it. Whatever form and shape that knowledge > takes, whether induced by a formal university degree, or a specific > research study, or traditional folklore, or social awareness and > political understanding of what is desirable or not, surely we can > safely accept that in the general sense 'better knowledge' will lead to > 'better decisions'. Better knowledge has the potential to lead to better decisions if you mean rational and evidence based decisions. But for many (most?) people rationality and evidence can be tossed aside at the drop of a hat. I have a health economist friend who does very good work for a number of agencies including WHO. Her work is very rational, accessible and based on good data. It shows what optimal level of investment in primary prevention could yield in long term chronic care savings and quality of life. Pretty basic stuff that some detailed costing data and a spreadsheet can generate. It also amounts to many millions saved that could be invested in education, welfare etc. Not to mention thousands of lives in which chronic care is prevented. Selling this message to the health fraternity is very difficult because innoculation, health screening, regular checkups etc. aren't empires. Running a hospital is an empire. Millions spent in imaging and other equipment is an empire. Nurses with a clip board do not make an empire. Apart from that, being rational doesn't leave much flexibility for political ploys. Cutting out breast imaging for women under a certain age may be rational because it yields no real benefits, but try selling that rational decision to a voting public in a marginal electorate. I think it is a common mistake for the rationally trained to believe that others appreciate rationality, logic and evidence. It is a mistake I made after 15 years as an academic. When I asked people to write up their arguments, evidence, methodologies and logic as a consultant I was simply regarded as an argumentative jerk. I was willng to accept the best argument from any source, but most of the people I worked with knew what I didn't- that rationality had very little to do with anything. Indeed, the vast majority of people have very little understanding of anything logical. I think I mentioned in an earlier post that one of the barriers to aircraft over 1000 passengers is not technology- it is simply the fallout that a crash of a single plane would have on passenger risk perception. Again, the risks would not have shifted but people will not be amenable to a logical contradiction. If you really look, there are many structures, processes and policies in any society that are plainly irrational and which persist because it suits the status quo or because change is simply unacceptable to the populace as a whole or to influential groups. Self interest is an amazingly rational thing for the individual and a disaster for the whole. (shades of tragedy of the commons). > If people don't have time to gather better knowledge we have to find > ways to enable them to have time - and this means a better standard of > living usually, basic needs like fresh water and food closer to hand and > electricity/light to extend daylight hours, and as so rightly pointed > out, the opportunity to apply better knowledge for immediate and long > term benefit. Yes, when people (usually individuals) have the power to implement their decisions, then better information does indeed yield better decisions. But as pointed out above, once an implementation decision needs to be filtered through some approval process, then the politics of the group and the divergent interests of the individuals that comprise it come to the fore. Perry Morrison http://www.alteich.com/links/morrison.htm http://www.geocities.com/perrymorrison/oz_aboriginal_comms.html ------------ ***GKD is solely supported by EDC, an NGO that is a GKP member*** To post a message, send it to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. In the 1st line of the message type: subscribe gkd OR type: unsubscribe gkd Archives of previous GKD messages can be found at: <http://www.edc.org/GLG/gkd/>
