Cybernetics as the science of decision making

Self Cite

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to show how individual acts of goal-setting of two persons or systems A and B determine, which modes of coexistence become possible in an interaction of the two. Design/methodology/approach – Some person or system A can approach another person or system B with an inclination to realize one of four goal-setting processes: first, A sets goals for B; second, A sets no own goals; third, A pursues own goals alone; and fourth, A and B develop mutual goals. And an interaction of A and B can lead to just four modes of coexistence: first, conflict – A and B fight; second, hierarchy – A submits to B; third, independence in niches – A and B do not interact; and fourth, cooperation – A and B work together. Findings – Placing the inclinations of A and B to realize one of the four goal-setting processes in a 4×4 matrix leads to the interaction matrix. It shows that individual goal-setting processes predetermine and limit the available modes of coexistence, i.e. cause certain patterns of interactions. Practical implications – The interaction matrix can be applied to all interactions between persons, groups and social units generally. Originality/value – The paper introduces a theoretical framework covering all options of goal-orientated behavior. It explains the interrelation between individual goal-setting of persons and systems and the resulting behavioral options in interactions. It is applicable to all behavioral sciences.

“…In the example above the persons A and B make elementary decisions as used by all feedback systems. Elementary decisions follow the formula (Nechansky, 2007(Nechansky, , 2011:…”

Section: The Necessity Of Goal-values For Decisionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The interaction matrix: from individual goal-setting to the four modes of coexistence

Nechansky¹

2016

Self Cite

“…a climate control system checking for room temperature and humidity, a policeman checking for speed and if a car comes with the headlights on, etc.). But control systems cannot make decisions simpler than the elementary form named above; and that elementary form can be used as a first approximation of complex decisions (Nechansky, 2008a(Nechansky, , 2011, treating them as if they would just check for one goal-value at a time.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The four modes of coexistence in psychology and group dynamics

Nechansky¹

2016

Self Cite

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to show how behavioral descriptions in psychology and group dynamics can be related to four goal-setting processes and to four mode of existence. Design/methodology/approach – Some person A can approach a person B with an inclination to realize one of four goal-setting processes: (1) A sets goals for B; (2) A sets no own goals; (3) A pursues own goals alone; (4) A and B develop mutual goals. Depending on their choice of inclinations an interaction of A and B can lead to four modes of coexistence: (1) Conflict – A and B fight; (2) Hierarchy – A submits to B; (3) Independence in niches – A and B do not interact; (4) Cooperation – A and B work together. The paper investigates how these theoretical options – four inclinations for different goal-set processes and four modes of coexistence – show in behavioral descriptions in psychology and group dynamics. Findings – Psychic states studied in psychology (e.g. by Freud, Berne, Horney) can be related to one of the four inclinations. Interaction patterns studied in group dynamics (e.g. by Steiner, Schindler, Bion) describe aspects of the four modes of coexistence. Practical implications – Behavioral descriptions of various schools of psychology and group dynamics can be classified according to theoretically derivable basic options of goal-orientated behavior. Originality/value – The paper shows the application of a theoretical framework covering all options of goal-orientated behavior available in the behavioral sciences.

“…1. Note, that the formulation Equations ( 3) and ( 4) can also be seen as a variant of representation of uniformed cybernetic functional element of decision-making on Nechansky (2011Nechansky ( , 2012.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interpretation problems: general mechanism and fundamental limitations of classical methods

Volchenkov

2015

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investige the general computing mechanisms of solving the system information problems of interpretation and its fundamental limitations, due to physical basis Turing machine. Design/methodology/approach – For creation of theoretical base of methodology, the authors make an attempt to demonstrate the possibility of a constructive building of Turing machine as meta-ontological basis of computing. In the course of this building the role of the operator of atomic implicative transition if-then as generic operator of recognition/decision-making is shown. In order to substantiate the thesis about the determinative role of implicative transition in the interpretation mechanisms, the authors will carry out the comparative analysis methods of interpretation in systems of pattern recognition and expert systems interpretation type. Findings – The carried-out analysis allows to formulate a common mechanism underlying the classical methods of solving problems of interpretation and to concretize the fundamental limitations of these methods, caused computational basis of their actualization. The cybernetic interpretation of this mechanism is offered. Originality/value – The fundamental limitations of classical methods of solving problems of interpretation sets the boundaries of the cybernetic approach and allows to outline a way out beyond it. In this context, the authors put forward knowledge-based mechanism of perceptual modeling of dynamics of system visual environment – autonomous agent.