Agreeing While Disagreeing
ACM News Service: New Software Takes Guesswork Out of Tough Decisions. In discussing processes for arriving at group solutions, it is usually considered esssential to find areas of agreement and alignment on a view of the world before proceeding. It may be that differences in ideology don't matter. This blurb reports on work by Steven Popper on modeling systems that determine outcomes that work under a variety of initial assumptions, thereby allowing people to align on a model that accomodates their separate views. I take this to mean that agreement can be found among parties with different agendas simply because the likely outcome is agreeable anyhow. Thus emerges an occasion for violent agreement, perhaps.
My understanding of the import of this approach (without assuming that it really removes guesswork and especially taking courage to risk a choice) is illustrated by the current dispute over the 2004 Washington State gubernatorial election. I can support the remarkable work of Stefen Sharkansky in identifying irregularities in the election without supporting Stefen's expressed agenda and definitely without ideological alignment with those who provide either supportive or detracting comments on his blog. I am not aligned with either declaring a different winner or with there being a special run-off not provided for in current law nor the state constitution. I am satisfied with the judge voiding the election because the process is so flawed that the outcome is not determined (the race being so close and the noise in the process being greater than any assumed margin of victory for any candidate). I am also satisfied with anything else the court is likely to determine. And I am wholeheartedly in support of the work that a few diligent citizens have invested in exposing just how careless we have become in the handling of elections here. It is not hardly a space-shuttle disaster, but the parternalism and carelessness with the franchise is startling. I trust the judge more than the officials of King County, where the outcomes of these close statewide elections are essentially determined and where the absence of diligence is a lesson in sloppiness. I use this as an example of agreeing on a course of action without attaching the same significance to the prospective outcomes.
I don't think the Popper CARs program will help us in my example, since the time of voting or election is too late. I would expect Popper's approach to be helpful in the formulation of proposed legislature as well as in non-elective bargaining and problem solving.
The 2005-03-02 Kimberly Palmer GovExec.com article provides the original account. I did some searching and found more useful materials than I can digest here, here, here, and here. And then here.
posted by orcmid
at 3/12/2005 12:30:00 AM
