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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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".