Читаем Knowledge And Decisions полностью

The discussion thus far has emphasized premeditatedly-formed and hierarchically-structured decision-making units. These are not the only, nor necessarily the best, decision-making units, nor even the most pervasive kind of decision-making units at a given time and place. Some alternative decision-making units and processes include (1) trial by combat, which is seldom sanctioned today for individual decision making, but is still the ultimate decision-making mechanism between sovereign nations, (2) various arrangements spontaneously evolved by the participants, such as competitive bidding in economic markets or mutual benevolence in groups bound together by religious, artistic, tribal, or other affinities, and (3) premeditated arrangements in which those subordinated to the power of others in one sense are, in another sense, the ultimate arbiters of the fate of their hierarchical superiors — as with democratically elected governments, or with governments operating in the shadows of their own military forces which are both willing and able to depose them. None of these decision-making processes are mutually exclusive. A typical American, for example, lives in a family unit whose internal decisions are based on personal feelings, works in a hierarchically-structured organization whose use of inputs and volume of output are determined in a spontaneously evolved market, is subject to laws established by a government whose members are chosen and removable by the electorate and which conducts its relations with other governments in an atmosphere dominated by their respective capacities for armed combat or mutual annihilation.

The interaction of various decision-making processes makes it all the more necessary to understand the respective principles of the different individual processes. The continual evolution of decision-making units and decision-making processes likewise makes it all the more necessary to understand the effects of different kinds of processes, so as to know where we are headed if current trends continue.

Just as decision-making units and processes vary enormously, so too do the various kinds of decisions. For example, some decisions are binary decisions — yes or no, war or peace, guilty or innocent — while other decisions are continuously variable incremental decisions: using more or less gasoline, paying higher or lower wages, living a more relaxed or more hectic life. Some decisions are once-and-for-all decisions — suicide, loss of virginity, burning a Rembrandt painting — while others are readily reversible decisions: turning off a television program that is not interesting, cancelling a subscription, ceasing to purchase a given brand of consumer goods or ceasing to use certain clichés, etc. Decisions may also be made individually or as “package deals.” One can buy onions, bread, and canned goods in the same store or in different stores, but in choosing between political candidates, one must choose one candidates whole package — his fiscal policy, environmental position, foreign policy, civil liberties views, etc. — as against the whole package of his opponent’s positions on the same subjects.

The kind of decision is not tied to the particular subject matter (i.e., shoes, food, or education) so much as to the particular decision-making process: economic processes, legal processes, political processes, etc. What this means is that as certain kinds of decisions are moved from one kind of decision-making unit to another, it is not merely a case of a different group of people or processes making the decision; the nature of the decision itself can change. That is, what was once a continuously variable decision may become a binary decision. Prior to public schooling and compulsory attendance laws, for example, the decision a family made was how much schooling to purchase for their children; afterwards, the only decision was whether or not to obey the compulsory attendance laws. Before it became a federal crime to carry a letter in competition with the post office, the individual letter-writer could choose among various possible carriers, but afterwards the only decision was whether to communicate in the form of a letter or in some other form.