READING 1.

Logic of appropriateness in three steps, recognition, identity, rules. Systematic reasoning, this
process establishes identities and matches rules to situations. Individuals learn to fulfil a range of
identities and rules. Each discipline sees decision making as organised by a logic of appropriateness
but in their own way usually disregard it to be no more than context. What is the action and change
that result from rules and identities especially in an organisation or social system? Decision makers
and characters are moulded by organisational rules and structures, executing them aptly. Like
language there is a formal and colloquial construct for these. Individuals act in a certain way; self
constructed and imposed. Accepting imposed rules and identity is learning to act in an observed way
and grasp a better understanding of the social environment. From the individual point of view
individualisation is self discovery and differentiation. Socialisation is a rigid construct that integrates
the individual with set scripts and responses. The first is self selection, the second is self subjugation.
According to most studies identity formation requires both. Individuals build themselves up based
on socially based distinctions and templates. These templates can be roughly classified into three
categories essential nature, pre-packaged contracts, and finally assertion of morality. Studies show
identity internalisation (internal motive construction) is more efficient when the interpretation of
the identity is rewarded instead of the behaviour of the individual. Individual incentives are enforced
by resistance to violate internalised identity. Most situations and reactions to social and
organisational structures will evoke multiple relevant identities, these external structures also elicit
preference for one over the other. There are no set formulae or rules governing the use of multiple
identities or overlapping self images. Overlapping is highly situational dependent. Mechanisms of
evoking include ‘experimental learning’, ‘categorization’, ‘recency’ and ‘context of others’. An
organisation uses motivational and cognitive; processes, rules, structures, contracts, norms, prompts
and cues to model, mould and play-out identities projected reflexively its own landscape.

When I was doing some part time work overseas as a translator in an interior design company I was
able to gain insight into the social landscape and climate of that particular country’s organisational
rules and procedures.

This company was a very successful company winning many top contracts in the metropolitan and
provincial areas. As I was sitting on a couch in the managing directors spacious art work of an office
waiting for him to hand me some documents for translating and employee came arrived at the front
of his broad desk, head down, sullen. The employee had made an error in the logistics of materials
for a very important job, the reputation and credibility was on the line. The boss was starting to look
like he was going to lose it but then he said calmly ‘xxxx, this is out of character for you to make this
kind of mistake’. This boss was very good with people and knew exactly what identity or
combination of them to use at the right time. In this situation he gracefully bestowed a
conscientious identity on an employee that had slipped up this time and previously.
READING 2.2

Choices are evaluated not in monetary terms but in subjective values. Individuals usually do not
think of risks in terms of net wealth but in terms of gains and losses. Modern decision theory and
psychology differ according to purported axioms including ‘transitivity’, ‘dominance’ and
‘invariance’. Framing of outcomes is experimentally proven to disprove ‘dominance’ and ‘invariance’.
Individuals are risk aversive against sure gains and risk seeking against sure losses. Good decision
making practice is to frame decisions in more than one way to test robustness. The pyschophysics of
chance exhibits a category boundary effect, where chances around the boundaries or probabilities or
improbabilities have a greater impact. Due to different framing of the same choices, pseudo-
certainty effect can result through individual perception of value or utility. Due to the category
boundary effect frames that eliminate risk are far more attractive than frames that only reduce risk.
Formulation effects: by changing the wording (framing) of a choice or situation which will result in a
marked shift in preferences. Formulation effects can be exploited to shift preference. Language is
encoded into abstract thoughts which does not distinguish active and passive. Hence words said,
implied, presupposed or implicated are one distinguished abstract thought.Analysis of framing is also
applicable in transaction or trade. ’minimal’ , ‘topical’ and ‘comprehensive’ frames exist. From a
mental accounting perspective individuals under spontaneity frame transactions and decisions
topically, gains and losses are evaluated relatively opposed to absolutely. This is unlike the theory of
consumer behaviour which does not acknowledge mental accounting. Disadvantage that is framed
as a loss is far more unattractive than one that is framed as a cost because there is utility associated
with cost but not with loss. Framing outcomes may not affect experience but will definitely affect
choice. Framing can be used to drive or exploit and outcome of choice to the desired point.

I really like to drink cognac, Hennessey cognac to be precise. I don’t make enough money to drink
Hennessey cognac all the time, only on special occasions. I find that I constantly frame propositions
that will produce a favourable outcome for myself but are also well balance and justified, (buying
expensive booze). It is much easier to buy something like this after you have bought something
larger like a car, oven, building materials etc. In this way it would not appear as a loss but more of as
an expense.

It sometimes can be much easier to buy Hennessey cognac for another person if in fact if I believe
that the person in question and some point in time can provide greater utility than the price of the
Hennessey cognac. A comfortable chair, $4000, to relax and drink cognac in. If I use it twice a day for
four years that is less than $2 each time, good deal.
READING 6.3

Deontology, attributed to the ethical writings of Immanuel Kant , prohibits making happiness
primary over moral choice. Utilitarianism hopes to maximise happiness to the greatest degree for
everyone. Something that is morally correct is what every member of society regards as morally
correct and acceptable for others and themselves and that everyone would vote on it and use it.
NORM (Neutral Omnipartial Rule-Making) in essence strives to produce the greatest amount of
moral consensus by introspective neutral omnipartial rule-making. NORM is able to cope with
complicated general situations far better than deontological and utilitarian methods. Even though
NORM seems a combination of them both in actual fact it is its own method. Omnipartial is a much
better word than disintersted, detached or impartial, it suggests that every stakeholders case is
being weighed up from their perspective and outcomes according to a general moral rule.1.Make
moral rules accessibly to all, 2. identify relevant stake holders, 3.Put yourself in their shoes,
4.identify affect upon prevalence of rules used, 5. Put yourself in their shoes to imagine effect., 6.
weigh both immediate effects and prolonged effects, 7. Is this moral rule feasible with everyone
including you were subjected to it? If so the rule is morally right., 8 . If the rule is morally wrong then
consider alternative actions or non-actions and then analyse in the same way. Even though people
can never be 100% neutral omnipartial NORM aims to employ the best features from both
utilitarianism and deontology. Moral rulings on the basis of NORM not take us to a mutual consensus
of moral decision but also add to the moral fabric. NORM has the ability to make informed moral
decisions from highly complex situations and disputes. Modelling decisions using NORM can help all
stakeholders in the decision process reach the best outcome according general moral rules which
are accepted by all.

Reasoning and resolving disputes using the NORM methodology lends itself to arriving at judgement
or outcome that mutually accepted by all, this is because it operates within the guidelines and
reason of general moral code. Even though I personally believe as with the author that people can
never be 100% NORMers I still believe that this approach of solving complex moral dilemmas is a far
better approximate tool than the other philosophies mentioned in the text.

From my experience working in the company mentioned previously the best way to get people deal
with disputes and conflicts is to use NORM methods, frame the reasoning to the stakeholders and to
yourself in a way in which everyone is happy. I frequently saw the boss mentioned previously handle
disputes with suppliers and clients using NORM methods. I figure that the most difficult and most
crucial steps in NORM are 5 & 6. Confucius said: Don’t worry about people not put themselves in
your shoes but worry about you not putting yourself in other peoples shoes.
READING 5.4

Ideas, pictures, problems, unknowns and concepts can all be divided and broken down into a
package of neater more organised or not so organised standard blocks that are familiar to parties
conveying the information. These smaller blocks or parts maybe become standardised through
common use and are then used to build or describe larger unfamiliar blocks. Using non-standard
blocks or standard blocks in a lengthy cumbersome way will lead to obscurity, confusion and
ambiguity when conveying the inner content and orientation of the larger block. As descriptions and
blocks small and large become more general and common there is a general consensus on the use
of which blocks for which circumstance. The least amount of energy or optimal energy is important
in transmitting descriptions. The general acceptance of these common and familiar standards can
evolve to dead ends in which uncertainties can only be modelled by hypothesises which are arrived
at by use of blocks from the standard set. With familiarity there is a great urge to label as more valid
than something that is not as common. This strong urge can reject progress and leave individuals
stuck in corners. The contrive of the evolved series of smaller elements that represent progress are
overlooked because they may have been substituted for similar ones that were widely propagated
or simply overlooked. In order to arrive at new solutions, understandings or representations the
concept of ‘play’ is very important, imagination has limits but chance is limitless. The general
concept or ‘play’ is important and widely accepted for new fantastic breakthroughs but very people
are able to take the time from busy general mundane and ‘play’.In practice, in face of difficulties all
methods inside the box are usually exhausted before new ones outside of the box are tried. All
stages in the formulation of these blocks is totally arbitrary , social and situational dependent. If it is
easy and useful it is accepted and built on. Solely relying on the previous blocks may prevent the
emergence of superior blocks or concepts that have the possibility to shed some light in previous
dark places.

Every organisation I have worked in has almost never allowed any sort of ‘play’. Cold hard
accounting of time formatted into strings, clusters and standards of blocks. I believe that not only
with concepts and abstract representations but also in the processes in which the most mundane
items are addressed, it is very hard for and organised group of people to agree and think outside of
the exhausted familiar methods and procedures, at least from my experience.

I can remember trying to introduce some new stock handling and accounting procedures into a
company I formally worked in, naturally it was very hard to disprove the status quo.

Usually ease and speed are the most valuable attributes in determining the what is used and what is
not, this is not ease and speed of the overall process but of the individuals that need to administer it.
It is common to hit walls and halt progress but difficult to re-trace the steps and navigate a new
representation and understanding from the beginning. Public key encryption solved the key
distribution problem, MOD and prime numbers 1,3,5,7,11,13.
READING 8.1

Multiple perspectives are used to study and understand sociotechnical systems T, O , P Technical,
Organisational and Personal. One cannot simply exist on its own, they synonymous to three
orthogonal dimensions that represent the overall perspective.

The technical perspective is one that is deeply rooted in quantifying and using the quantified data to
direct and control.

The organisational perspective is one that is totally centred around the operating and proliferating of
the organisation and its identities, it is usually for emphasis to be placed on short term problems
reclaiming priority from long term problems.

The personal perspective is the most difficult to difficult to measure. It is unique to each person and
makes us what we are. It encompasses all the fuzzy attributes of an individual that can’t be
quantified.

The roles of the P perspective can be expressed using four roles 1. Participating actors understand
the whole decision process the best. 2. Understanding the P perspective can help one understand
the O perspective better. 3.Individuals are important as they can dictate the mass 4. Communication
errors can be resolved by using the personal perspective.

Individuals can be dominant in one of the three perspectives mentioned above. In order to provide a
cross-functional interdisciplinary team into a sociotechnical system it is important to have the
correct blanace especially when making policies regarding the use of technologies.

Although T types of people are very good at building or exploring new technologies it is inevitably
the O and P types of individuals who are masters at socially implementing and creating large scale
acceptance.

Especially in an organisation private or government it is important for decision makers or persons of

power to gather information from various perspectives, often T, O & P perspectives will conflict. It is
the decision makers job to transform these descriptions in order attain maximum use of the
information received when making important decisions or policies regarding technologies. It is vitally
important not to corrupt or neutralize differing perspectives.