One of the challenges I struggle with involves figuring out how to make decisions. You know, you encounter an difficult decision and it’s hard to take all the factors into account. Worse, you have an opinion or emotion that arises when trying to make a decision. Again, I’m back to wishing I hadn’t “dropped” my freshman Philosophy Logic course. I still remember walking out of that first class, fleeing into the sunlight from useless arcane knowledge. How wrong I was.

A Fair, Impartial, and Kind (FIK) Approach

Over the years, I’ve made quite a few decisions. When considering other people, I try to maintain a balanced perspective that is “fair and kind.” That may not be how a decision is perceived, but as a school district administrator, you get a sense of order and over time, are able to intuit the right decision. That’s all well and good, but if you depend on that too much, you may be unable to logically defend or argue a perspective. The water gets muddy when it’s emotion-laden, and you have to parse through your own (and other’s) biases in the situation. Often, “impartial, fair, and kind” leads to the right resolution.

That approach might look like this one (yes, I simply copied the paragraph above and asked Perplexity to make a model of it…kinda cool actually):

Is this the best approach? Probably not. A critique of the model reveals: Based on the search results and the FIK (Fair and Kind Intuition) model presented in the latest diagram, here are some potential concerns in bullet list form:

  • Lack of empirical validation: The FIK model appears to be a theoretical construct and may not have been empirically tested or validated in educational settings.
  • Oversimplification of complex processes: The model presents decision-making as a linear process, which may not capture the complexity and interconnectedness of real-world educational decision-making.
  • Potential conflict between intuition and analysis: The model includes both intuitive judgment and logical analysis, but doesn’t address how to resolve potential conflicts between these approaches.
  • Time constraints: The circular nature of the model suggests a thorough process, which may not be feasible in time-sensitive educational situations[1].
  • Lack of consideration for organizational context: The model doesn’t explicitly account for the organizational and political realities of educational institutions, which can significantly influence decision-making.
  • Potential bias in intuitive judgments: Research suggests that intuitive thinking doesn’t necessarily lead to more moral or fair decisions, which could be a concern for a model emphasizing intuition.
  • Absence of stakeholder involvement: The model doesn’t explicitly include steps for involving various stakeholders in the decision-making process, which is often crucial in educational settings.
  • Potential for decision paralysis: With so many steps and considerations, there’s a risk that decision-makers might become overwhelmed or overly cautious[1].
  • Lack of differentiation between types of decisions: The model appears to apply the same process to all decisions, without accounting for the varying complexity and impact of different educational decisions.
  • Potential conflict with existing decision-making cultures: The model’s emphasis on empathy and kindness may conflict with more traditional, rational decision-making approaches often favored in organizational settings.

For me, the big issues I’ve encountered in trying to apply this approach to situations I care deeply about are:

  • Potential for decision paralysis
  • Lack of differentiation between types of decisions
  • Lack of consideration for organizational context
  • *Oversimplification of complex processes

So, what might work better?

Logical Decision-Making

How do you move beyond a FIK style to a more logical approach? Having taken a close look at websites and resources on logic, my guess is that it would take me a long time to be able to make any decisions using a “logical” approach.

Of course, it occurs to me, what would happen if I relied on AI to do assist me? Exploring that avenue has been a lot of fun. Decision-making can be grim and have a lot of other “emotional baggage” with it depending on a situation.

After experimenting with some approaches, I’m going to try a few real life situations using these two prompts.

The Two Approaches

The first approach is decision analysis using logical statements and a decision tree. I have found the decision trees AI chatbots generate to be quite helpful. My first attempt involved using a decision tree to help my wife decide whether to attend an event or not. Normally, that would boil down to, “Hey, do you want to go or not?” All that goes out the window when she asks, “Should I feel guilty about not wanting to go?” The type of event also factors in (e.g. birthday party for an old student, a funeral for the spouse of a colleague but not a close friend).

It’s easy to get lose in the weeds, and pretty soon, I don’t know which way is up or down. What do I do? By using a decision tree, the decision is out of my hands in some way, and I am simply figuring out the best approach to solve it, not whether this is morally the right way.

Prompt 1: Decision Analysis Using Logical Statements and Decision Tree

“I need to analyze a decision-making situation. Please help me break it down using the following approach:

  1. Create a Mermaid syntax decision tree that visually represents the key decision points and outcomes.

  2. Define the main propositions involved in the decision using simple, clear statements.

  3. Develop simplified logical statements using propositional logic. Use symbols like V (for the main goal), O (for potential obstacles), P (for the primary action), D (for discussions if needed), and C (for compromise if applicable).

  4. Explain the logical statements in plain language, showing how they relate to the decision-making process.

  5. Highlight any potential contradictions or conflicts in the logic and suggest ways to resolve them.

  6. Provide a brief conclusion that summarizes the logical structure and offers a clear decision-making path, including any steps for conflict resolution.

The situation I need to analyze is as follows: [Describe your specific decision-making scenario here]

That’s cool, right? Some of the benefits this approach has over FIK Model?

This approach offers a more structured and logically rigorous method for decision-making compared to the FIK model. It may be particularly useful for complex decisions that benefit from visual representation and logical analysis. However, it may be less suitable for decisions with significant emotional or ethical components, or in situations where time is limited.

Prompt 2: RAPID Model Analysis for Decision-Making

Here’s the next prompt, which relies on the RAPID model. I had never heard of this model before, so I’m curious to see it in action.

“I need to analyze a decision-making situation using the RAPID model. Please help me break down the scenario using the following structure:

  1. Briefly explain the RAPID model (Recommend, Agree, Perform, Input, Decide).
  1. For each component of RAPID, identify the relevant stakeholders or actions in my scenario:
  • Recommend: Who is making the recommendation?
  • Agree: Who needs to agree with the recommendation?
  • Perform: Who will carry out the decision?
  • Input: Who should provide input to the decision?
  • Decide: Who has the final decision-making authority?
  1. Analyze the key factors to consider in this decision, such as:
  • Organizational goals
  • Potential conflicts or oppositions
  • Professional development opportunities
  • Team or company reputation
  • Long-term consequences

  1. Create a simple decision matrix weighing the pros and cons of the main options.

  2. Provide a logical conclusion based on the RAPID analysis, highlighting the recommended course of action and any potential challenges in the decision-making process.

  3. Suggest next steps for implementing the decision or resolving any conflicts identified in the analysis.

The situation I need to analyze using the RAPID model is as follows: [Describe your specific decision-making scenario here]

The assessment of the RAPID model appears below:

the RAPID model offers a structured, role-based approach to organizational decision-making. It excels in clarifying responsibilities and promoting collaboration but may be less suitable for decisions requiring quick action or heavy reliance on intuition. Compared to FIK, RAPID is more focused on organizational dynamics and less on the individual decision-maker’s thought process.

Showdown

But what happens when all models are compared? Could there be a resulting model that takes the best of all, leaving the worst components behind?

Perplexity suggests ETHICAL (totally made up approach). Let’s take a look at it. Ah, let’s do that in a subsequent blog entry.