The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Is "Decision Making" based upon Data, Information or Knowledge?

Is "Decision Making" based upon Data, Information or Knowledge?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All
I always understood “Data” to be everything about anything that humans have collected, stored or is otherwise accessible by us.
“Information” is selective Data that has been distilled upwards that has context and relevance to a particular subject, i.e. a construct of Data.
“Knowledge” is applied Information that forms the basis for decisions, conclusions and actions.

The “sand box” analogy may work to determine where and how we reach conclusions and establish our belief systems?

Sand represents Data, the huge mass of fine grains depicting data in all its forms and from all sources.

The sand box represents Information, where constructs (sandcastles) are created from related sand (raw data). Everything from basic sand castles to the complex and elaborate.

Knowledge applies outside the sand box because it is a place where things “happen”.

Scientists collect raw data, research the validity of the data and go to the sand box to form a hypothesis, then take the “construct” to the “doing” world and subject it to proof and repeatability. Arts constructs are music, poetry Etc, etc. The proof is the pleasure created in other humans and the reciprocal pleasure obtained by the creator. Marketing has sandcastles designed to target desires and to influence our decisions in the doing world Proof is determined by sales.

Politics is a selling tool. These sandcastles are quite elaborate and directed at our social, economic, cultural and ecological values. If Theology can be viewed as sales tool it also exists in the sand box as perhaps one of the most ornate and complex constructs, with potential to influence actions in the doing world, mostly for the better. Media influences our own constructs and can “sell” us on adopting someone else’s; it can only exist in the sandbox.

I’m not sure about Philosophy, it exists in the sandbox and has significant influence however, I can’t see it as a construct in itself. Perhaps philosophy is a horizontal rather than vertical domain and thus is an “enabler” in its own right?

Spindoc
Posted by spindoc, Tuesday, 10 February 2009 2:36:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Spindoc,

Eek mental gymnastics …Well done you.
First aid kit…check
Will …check
Here goes… grunt …Ally oop!

As I read it your problem in logic stems from some of your definitions thus making your analogy seem incomplete.
With your indulgence I’ll start with the analogy and explain as I go.

I would suggest the sand box and contents represent the sum total of Human observation/experience.
The sand represents raw Data rightly inferred as useless without context (my favourite hobby horse on OLO)
Information is simple lumps of sand that has been defined (properties)
Knowledge is understanding of the information’s properties in context in a specific application.
Philosophy is the theoretical possibilities of that knowledge (TOE, GUT are the ultimate of that). The weaknesses of philosophy is that it is limited understanding in that it unable to describe everything that may influence a set circumstance (chaos theory tries but because it relates to abstracts i.e.’ means’ it in builds inaccuracies.)
Religion and politics are attempt to explain GUT and TOE but are inserted between Information and Knowledge.
Therefore decisions may be both good based on knowledge or oppinions based information and thus are questionable.
For dramatic purposes I would suggest a box full of snow flakes (they’re all different and they naturally bond (meld) together to form solids..

What do you think? Rip into it.
Posted by examinator, Wednesday, 11 February 2009 12:37:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The decision-making process involves a blend
of thinking, deciding, and acting.
'Information' is the key to this process.

Deliberation, evaluation, and thought must be
brought into play before a final decision is made.
In the generic sense, many decisions are mundane.
However, others are of unmeasured consequence and
could change an organisation's course of action.
Those decisions are probably made after a long
period of review, analysis, and discussion.

One of the characteristics of an effective decision
maker appears to be:

"The ability to distinguish between problems for which
existing procedures are appropriate, and those for which
new ground must be broken. It is ineffective and inefficient
to deal with an exceptional problem as though it were routine,
or a generic problem as though it were an exceptional one."
Posted by Foxy, Wednesday, 11 February 2009 2:48:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I can't put the cork back in the bottle on this one now examinator so i'll just have to try to work out what you just said. Firstly, what is TOE and GUT (Grand Unified Theory?)

You seem to roughly accept my original analogy, which does help me however, If GUT/TOE (whatever these are)are between Information and knowledge, does that mean both opinions based Information and Knowledge based decisions are questionable? If so why? is it because an adopted opinion has not been reached by "self" as a process, i.e. no ownership.

If I were to persue the sandbox analogy for just a little longer. To create sandcastles, all of which seem designed to influence others, the sand (raw data) needs some sort of "glue" to hold it together long enough to have that influence. In the physical dimension this is moisture, what could it be in the cognitive domain? Could it be Philosophy?

Foxy,I like your definition of effective decision making. However,
Does this mean that when decisions should be made "for which existing procedures are appropriate", we are not employing experience (knowledge), and conversely, in dealing with an "exceptional problem as though it were routine," does this mean that we apply a sort of "dogma", a one solution fits all?

I know i'm going to struggle with this one but I am really trying to understand what it is that influences such diversity (of decisions and opinions) and dare I say passion, on any and all subjects.

Let me put it another way, If attitudes affect behavior, and society has problems with certain behavior, should we not be able to understand how and where "attititudes" are formed in the first place?

Sounds like I am expecting some sort of compliance with acceptable norms but I don't mean it that way.

examinator, I can't find anything in the first aid kit that helps, I think i've just done a "battered slav" and put my free electrons out of kilter. Is there a better analogy you could suggest?
Posted by spindoc, Wednesday, 11 February 2009 7:16:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear spindoc,

During the process of making a decision we seek more or
less information depending on our knowledge of the
situation.

The more routine the problem, or the more
experience we have had in similiar situations,
the more we rely on existing knowledge.

In new or complex situations we tend to seek more information
in order to understand the problem and deal with it effectively.

Information usually increases our knowledge and may lead to
changes in beliefs, values and attitudes.

More information can reduce uncertainty, clarify the
situation, and make the correct choice more apparent.

Information can be evaluated in terms of its pertinence to
decision making.
Facts, numbers and data are processed to provide meaningful
information.

For example, miscellaneous accounting data provide information when
arrayed in balance sheets and income statements. Ratio analysis
and graphic displays of pertinent relationships provide even
more meaningful information. But if the problem is one of
evaluating the effectiveness of a new advertising campaign,
traditional accounting data, however elaborately processed,
may be meaningless.

Thus, what constitutes 'information' depends on the problem
at hand and the decision maker's frame of reference.
Posted by Foxy, Wednesday, 11 February 2009 9:03:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Spindoc,
TOE= Theory Of Everything
GUT= Grand Unified Theory
Both * theoretical* prognostications; Both try to explain ‘everything’ without enough specific knowledge (information in its correct context)
e.g. information about the sun allowed for its movements and the relation to the crops etc but in order create an explanation (TOE) they created Gods (religion) i.e. decisions made with out Knowledge to support it.
Only Information, Religion, opinions are questionable in that they require the correct context (that the sun is a star, gravity etc. not supernatural God) to become Knowledge.
As for the issue of needing *glue*, not really. If the right particles of sand are chosen properly and correctly laid they would stand on their own (correct context). To illustrate my point observe Inca masonry no cement (glue) required. Each block is specifically chosen and placed in its correct position and holds there. Therefore knowledge is self supporting in its correct context. (end of analogy).
Therefore conclusions (religion/opinions i.e. beliefs need glue and therefore questionable) based on information alone without the correct context prove nothing.
Could these be Philosophy the answer is yes for the reasons that I’ve never read one that is true in every condition without belief (glue) as they are never absolute.
Pick any philosophy you choose and ask is their logical or reason objections/doubt…? ergo my point.
Clear as mud right?

The first aid kit was incaseI strain my one remaining un corrupted synapse while reasoning this through.
Posted by examinator, Thursday, 12 February 2009 4:23:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I started life as an engineer, designing PNP Substrates ('dem pesky micro chips) so yes I'm process driven and somewhat "mechanical" in my thinking, wish I were an intuitor. So please indulge me a little longer.

Lets forget decisions for the moment and focus upon AVB's. I've noticed that often in a debate, some people have a position on a given topic and will constantly refer the opposition to information that supports only their AVB's. To me the more complex and convoluted the supporting "information" the less I relate to it.

Foxy, you suggest "Information usually increases our knowledge and may lead to changes in beliefs, values and attitudes." What has happenned when some people display what seems to some irrational support for something without considering contrary information? Thus eliminating the need to expose AVB's to change.

examinator, if as you suggest "conclusions (religion/opinions i.e. beliefs need glue and therefore questionable) based on information alone without the correct context prove nothing." Is that to say that without context AVB's themselves are questionable and therefore unsustainable in the real world?

I think I'll stick to engineering as i'm comfortable with models, processes and frameworks.
Posted by spindoc, Thursday, 12 February 2009 5:31:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fight|-O-|Flight

The above is a diagram of ‘decision making’ using the fight or flight response analogously.

The above diagram is decision making in fullest form once data, information, and knowledge are taken into account.

The Decision Making diagram consists of three phases using data, information & knowledge to make a decision. Fight and flight are polar to each other on a horizontal axis from mid point O.

1. O
2. -O-
3. Fight|-O-|Flight

Defining the decision making diagram as a process:

1. O - Mid point is neutral and equal to data. Data in this diagram is conception – defined as the universe to all conscience beings. Without O there is nothing.
2. Information is comprehension of data (or the universe and all it is as we know it i.e being). It is the basis of all knowledge.
3. Knowledge (represented by fight and flight) is action or inaction on information (parameters of being) afforded by data (the universe)
Posted by Matt Keyter, Friday, 13 February 2009 11:02:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To the central question "Is “Decision Making” based upon Data, Information or Knowledge?", overall, the answer is obviously a complex combination of these three elements along with preconceived ideology.

As nature abhors a vacuum, ideology is always the sweeper, as even if people are wrong, they can feel like they know what they're talking about. It makes them feel better. Sometimes ideology serves you well in the situation you're in and sometimes it doesn't.

After that, wrong ideology gets replaced with a more focussed appreciation of the situation based on knowledge (which comes from people's raw experiences (data) and solutions to problems they've faced (information)). Provided the paradigm stays the same, the knowledge built up in that paradigm will be superior to the ideology as it has evolved to get around the problems encountered.

These different layers of understanding are superimposed on top of one another in a kind of hierarchy. The higher up the hierarchy you are the better will be your decisions.
Posted by RobP, Friday, 13 February 2009 12:00:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear spindoc,

You ask,"What has happened when some people display
what seems to some irrational support for something
without considering contrary information?"

Individuals perceive or gather information differently.
Some people want facts, trust facts, and remember facts.
Such a person believes in experience and relies on the
past to learn how to approach current problems. They tend
to dislike new problems unless there are standard ways to
solve them. They enjoy using skills acquired more than
learning new ones. They are impatient when details get
complicated. These people emphasise action, urgency, and
bottom-line results. Through an assertive, quick-paced, and
"Let's do it now" approach to life and work, they learn by
doing, not imagining or thinking. Therefore being "sure"
may lead to a course of action that is dead wrong.

These people may inadvertently limit or distort information in
order to simplify their mental picture of the situation.

Continuing "reality checks" are needed to maintain as much
fidelity as possible in the information used for decision
making. This also means designing information-decision systems
that are relevant to their jobs.
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 13 February 2009 6:22:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Spindoc
Foxy and I are looking at the issue from very different perspectives.
I was addressing in a more diagrammatic process perspective in accordance with your analogy.

From one perspective the sand box analogy describe a vertical hierarchy it shows only the relative relationships to each other. It shows the over all progression as a process but it’s failing is that it doesn’t describe the various decision ‘subroutines’ between 1&2, 2&3 and most importantly 3&4. Caps show only outcomes.

1 (sand box) = UNIVERSAL SOURCE
2 (sand) = DATA (limited ) Undefined shapes properties etc
3 Sand defined = INFORMATION (facts without context).
3.1 constructs requiring glue belief/assumptions = unproven(able) contexts
3.11 OPINIONS,
3.12 RELIGION,
3.13 PHILOSOPHY
4 Information + correct context as proven by the scientific tests measurability, predictability, repeatability and meeting all known criteria = KNOWLEDGE

Analogies only really work in showing relationships not describing abstract processes.
Like you I often suffer the same frustration in discussion as I take what people say then run it through the filter of the scientific test if it fails. To me then the arguments are effectively 3.11-3.13 and are non absolute or authorative. Throwing more subjective facts is basically more of the same rather than proving the point.

Take the 9/11 conspiracy theorists none are able to satify the above scientific tests. Ultimately as Foxy is round about saying is when it comes to an impass subjectivity then tips the scales. Not that I'm happy about it.
Posted by examinator, Friday, 13 February 2009 7:06:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Not sure if i've gained knowledge from this feedback or just developed a better understanding, either way it's been a positive thread and thanks for the excellent comments.

Foxy, you are dead right about reality checks and the need to design information-decision sytems. In industrial/commercial/financial processes we employ "Qants" to build algorithms to model outcomes. Maybe we each need to develop these at a personal level?

Hopefuly I might now avoid sitting in my sandbox and yelling "bring me more sand".
Posted by spindoc, Monday, 16 February 2009 5:57:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy