Uncertainty.
This section lists problem-factors and thinking-traps that this process can address. In general, addressing the issue requires the issue to be filtered through the processes of self-awareness qv and open-mindedness qv.
probability qv incl risk management: how bad is it? r = E(q) = p.q
risk-factor-misjudgement qv
Statistical significance: do observations indicate a real problem or random variation? cf. significance qv.
what is the root cause? Are we looking at the right issue, or just a side-effect? unclear-causality qv.
cf. sensitivity-analysis qv, unclear-causality qv. Will bad things always happen, or only in limited circumstances? (Maybe downplay or skip this; too early to tell.)
Can it wait (allowing us to do something else first)? cf. project-management qv, time-scope qv, not-urgent qv.
Decide on rings-of-responsibility Action Agent.
Don't scope problem too narrowly, but don't make it so wide that it's overwhelming.
priorities qv
emotion qv etc?
problem description; agents.
Relationship with Other Components.
Further reading.
Is this a generalised thinking framework for working out what we should do at any instant, or is it for dealing with a specific selected problem? What would the difference be? Since my hidden agenda is GW, it's probably for specific problems. The diff might be that the specific problem to be addressed at the current time should drop out of consideration of one's current state of needs (priorities) and option-generation (which limits actions available in current circumstances, hence which problems could be affected); eg, if our life is secure and we have the opportunity, we should fix GW. (If so, problem-assessment may need to come after priorities qv and option-generation qv.)
Should this include problem selection? Eg, given priorities, emotion, current circumstances, etc, how to decide what problem to solve now? Relate to motivation. Maybe this is 'problem-selection' (including assessment and clarification). Or maybe this is an aspect of priorities qv.
problem-assessment will limit option-generation qv and priorities qv to only what's relevant to the problem.
Involves scoping problem to Ring of Responsibility I/we/they.
Consider context: limit option-generation qv to only what's valid in current context.
Links to optimisation qv objective function. It might also be appropriate to think about objective function constraints, which may derive from priorities qv (eg, don't kill, don't torture).
Link to emotion qv.
[was 'problem-clarification']
| # | Ring | Responsibility | option-generation | Emotion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | Control | Complete | What could I do? | Relevant indication of personal effort to control. |
| 1 | Influence | Limited | What could they do, then what could I do to influence them to do it? | Relevant indication of personal effort to influence; acceptance of limited ability to influence. |
| 2 | Awareness | None | None (or, for academic interest, what they could do noting that I can’t influence them). | Acceptance (shrug); can be disappointed if future looks bad but don't beat yourself up because there's nothing you can do about it. |
| 3 | Unknowable | None | None. | Acceptance (shrug). |
Technical note: this is actually a Euler diagram: control is a subset (extreme special case) of influence, influence is only possible for problems of which we have awareness, and we can only be aware of problems that exist.
Agent identification ('system' agent and 'action' agent):
Ideally sytem agent and action agent are the same, so ring 0 would apply. If action agent is different to system agent, ring 1 (hence insignificance qv) may apply. In that case, consider the extent of the action agent's control over the system agent: control/influence/none.
link to insignificance qv: how I should feel ('emotion' in RofR table above) is limited by level of control hence responsibility. '...accept the things I cannot change'.
Why do some people use alcohol, drugs, binge eating, distraction, etc, to mask negative emotions caused by dissatisfaction?[BW] It indicates a decision to make the emotion go away by chemical means rather than by solving the problem to the extent possible, which shows the influence of emotion on priorities. Maybe the priority, or objective function, is to make the unpleasant emotion go away rather than to solve the problem that causes the emotion. It may also relate to a ring-of-responsibility (problem-assessment qv) issue: feeling bad about something that the individual can't change to the extent desired. Looking at the issue backwards: if the decision is alcohol, then the problem being tackled is that of feeling bad (ie, emotion).
"...instead of trying to make our responses just right for the climate of the future we should seek out resilient and flexible solutions, remedies that will be robust in a wide range of possible climate outcomes."