Talk:Decision-making/Archives/2012

Executive Function
The executive system needs to be represented in this article. Executive functions is the neurocognitive construct that encompasses self-regulatory and task-oriented cognition and behaviour. Decision making is hugely influenced (if not entirely controlled) by executive functioning, particularly in the inhibition of habitual responses and the ability to retrieve goals from memory and hold them (in working memory) for the execution of behaviour.

Also note that "executive functions" is not an area of the Baddeley & Hitch working memory model, nor is their "central executive" a key component of executive functioning. Rather, they are closely related concepts that share a term and are often used in conjunction with one another. The Baddeley & Hitch model of a central executive is etiologically questionable (albeit historically useful), but the realm of executive functions (although it is quite broad) remains very much theoretically intact. -Fractaluniverse187 (talk) 02:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC) 22:35, 03 April 2009.

Intention
Two comments apply to the following:

"It is a construction that imputes commitment to action. That is, based on observable actions, we assume that people have made a commitment to effect the action."

First, " ... commitment to action" may be problematic because it may be too strong. How about 'It is a construction that imputes an intention to act or believe.' I am thinking of the case where I decide that a color is mauve and another case where I decide that I do feel hurt that I wasn't invited to my friend's birthday celebration. In either of those cases, I do not think we're prepared to say that a commitment to action can be imputed to me.

Second, rather than _assuming_ that a person has made a commitment to effect an action or has settled on a belief, don't we actually _conclude_ that .... ? It seems more flexible to allow that our conclusion was erroneously reached than that our assumption was false, when we say 'John decided to lose money by betting against Secretariat.'  We don't _assume_ that John intended to lose money based on the fact that he bet against Secretariat, do we? We _conclude_ that that must have been his intention after the fact, in conjunction with some general principle such as 'All people who bet are trying to gain money' and a specific statement such as 'Secretariat is very likely to win."

who wrote this? thats a question that needs to be answered.

-

Decision making software
What about adding Decision making tools list? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jusperstb (talk • contribs) 10:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

This article is a jumble
At the very least the following distinct areas are being covered:
 * Social/Organizational decision making
 * Formal decision-making algorithms
 * Decision-making heuristics
 * Individual decision making

It doesn't make a lot of sense to include all of these. I would welcome points of view about which of these points are best covered in some other article to which we ought to direct users. I also don't think that any of these are comprehensively covered. DCDuring 14:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm disappointed that the article is more prescriptive than dsescriptive, especially the middle section. i.e. it is more weighted towards saying what you should be doing rather than telling it as it actually is.
 * Also, I came to the article looking for something on management decision-making, as practised in firms and government. It's an important topic, as everyone experiences the effects of it, so hasn't any research been done on this?
 * Isn't there a value in studying how companies and government actually make decisions, rather than seeing how their efforts match up to an ideal process? After all, research into riots doesn't involve examining what makes a good riot. Chrisemms (talk) 12:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

"Adding an article to Wikipedia"
I think the flowchart is a needless self-reference. Could someone make/find a replacement? Jobarts-Talk 16:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I actually like the flowchart. When writing an article, I'm always thinking about what examples will be well-known to my readers. Certainly if someone is reading a Wikipedia article, they are familiar with the context of the flowchart. DrJill-from-NH (talk) 16:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

What if any does Fortunate chance/Good Luck play in Decsion making?
Many times a bad or what is thought toi be bad .Decsion is made only to have it come out better then the planned decsion! Is this just chnace or "Good Luck" Or both? Maybe article could give play to a "bad" decsion truning out to be a "good" decsion by whatever chance or Good Fortune? Thanks(dated by me for file PMSunsetThurs.Aug20,20092stcent.Dr.EdsonAndre'JohnsonD.D.ULC Lost100"X")SoCalKid (talk) 02:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Academic societies
Hi, Ronz and other readers,

You keep reverting my attempts to add links to two major academic societies that focus on decision making (SJDM at www.sjdm.org / SMDM at www.smdm.org). However, academic societies are linked in other wikipedia articles (cf Psychology, which links the American Psychological Association and Society).

My rationale for inclusion is point 3 of WP:ELYES: Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons. These sites contain such material.

Your rationale for exclusion is "off topic", "promotional", and ELNO 1, 4, 13. ELNO 1 is: Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. ELNO 4 is essentially promotional. ELNO 13 is: Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article...

I don't see how any of these apply in this case - have you visited these sites? Per wikipedia policy, I'll leave off the links while we discuss this, but I'd like to hear in more detail your concerns. I'd also be happy to hear from other readers of this page about this issue.

Alansz (talk) 21:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for starting this discussion.
 * In general, links to related societies, organizations, etc. fail WP:EL.
 * Could the societies meet our notability criteria? If so, the solution would be to start articles on the societies, then link them within this article.
 * Otherwise, I suggest finding references from the societies' publications, and incorporate them into the article to verify current information, or expand upon what we have. --Ronz (talk) 21:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)