Philosophy of Sciene (21)

Since I was on a conference on group decision and negotiation in Delft (Netherlands), I came across interesting information about advanced decision support software, a so called decision explorer. It seems really interesting to me because it is comparable to our prototype that we proposed in Philosophy of Science. Like the objective of our decision map, the decision explorer helps you to organize your thinking by capturing ideas and the relationships between them, making the interdependencies explicit. Nevertheless our approach seems to be better, since we make a distinction between a qualitative and a quantitative way :-).

It makes really sense that people maximize pleasures and minimize pain which is a kind of a rational behavior. In the proposed prototype - decision map (qualitative) and decision support tool (quantitative) - the values of the decision maker are classified into the long-term “goal-oriented” and the short-term “pleasure-oriented”. This approach seems to be a helpful tool in order to visualize daily life decisions, as every man is the architect of his own fortune :-).

Philosophy of Sciene (20)

On Monday, 21 June 2010 we have our final KCT presentation under the motto “Creating new realities: designing and prototyping” in class. Unfortunately I can not attend personally, so I decide nevertheless to be part of our group work in form of a Skype conference. However, everything is kind of technology driven because the decision map is drawn in MS Visio and the presenting format is Prezi, which allows to zoom in on our decision map. The presentation can be seen by clicking on the link: https://prezi.com/secure/?lock=aa533c78ba03d7662c94dbbb6bab5e963d2c6856

Oksana, Jane and me prepared the decision map part of our presentation. Objective of the decision map is to visualize decisions in a qualitative way. The influencing conditions or external factors are identified, which have an impact on decisions. Last but not least we also like to distinguish between different types of decision makers. The method for presenting is in form of a role play between Oksana and me by asking me questions about an average student life.

The design of the presentation has the following structure:
(1) The audience should be prepared for the role play of an average student life
(2) Clearifying the importance reaching long term goals or short term pleasure
(3) Questions: Going to university/Breakfast/Conference/Sports/Cleaning/Disco
(4) Analysis of each question

Philosophy of Sciene (19)

Philosophy of Sciene (18)

First & Last Prototyp of Decision Map for Daily Life

Philosophy of Sciene (17)

As I conducted experiments for the Chair of Organization & Planning, I could not come to the today's coaching session with Martina Hartner. All the three subgroups - Decision Map, Storyboard and Experiment - presented their ideas. Oksana reported to me the following:

At first, Martina asked many questions, but at the end she suggested to incorporate somehow the experiment and the story board into our decision map. She was mostly concerned with the fact, that our prototype should bring something new to life. The objective is to show that our KCT came up with something we had not known before.

After the coaching session the KCT team members briefly discussed the project with each other. Okasana mentioned our idea of having a role play, which was supported by all of the others. She also wrote a short summary of the project idea and downloaded it on our homepage. The next steps are to make some new drafts of the decision map. Anway, I am still working on it in Visio :-).

Ich bin ein O_88-C_92-E_42-A_50-N_71 Big Five Persönlichkeitstyp!

Philosophy of Sciene (16)

I have heard rumours of other PhD students who participated the course semesters before that there is a special session in Philosophy of Science, which is supposed to be like walking in the woods close to Vienna. I heard it also through the grapevine that some professors at BWZ are not amused about that kind of teaching in a PhD course. Anyway, I said to myself it is better to get my own ideas about this Lobau session.

According to Wikipedia the most interesting facts about Lobau are that:
• It is a floodplain on the northern side of the Danube and most of it located in Lower Austria but has borders to the Vienna Danube Island
• It was the site of the Battle of Aspern-Essling in 1809, the first major defeat suffered by Napoleon
• There is an oil harbour, which was bombed in the year 1944 during the Oil Champaign of World War II
• It a part of the Danube-Auen National Park and a protected area since 1978
• It is used as a recreational area and is known as a site of nudism
• The area is used by the Austrian Army as training ground

By all means, it took me more than a half an hour for driving from Vienna to Großenzersdorf. I really expected a silent area but I made the experience that the airport Vienna-Schwechat is quite close to this territory by hearing several planes taking off or landing. However, a very nice camp is located within the woods, which is a starting point for walks. A children group was also there, camping in tents. In this camp the whole Philosophy of Science group met in an attractive seminar room with a nice view into the wild. In particular we focused presencing phase of Otto Scharmer's Theory U. The objective was letting-go and entering the field of emerging new knowledge. For that reason we got the task to go outside into the woods and expose yourselves to the silence by finding a place in the nature that fits your present situation. It seems very interesting letting things come. Professor Peschl explained that we should try to get into contact with our inner self and get into a mode of deep listening.



At first I walked with a group of some people but with the time more and more people disappeared and turned off on the road. I stopped at a bench which is situated along the path. It seems that I am risk-averse and that I did not want to get lost in the woods. After calming myself down and coming to a situation which is comparable to meditation, I also thought about the thematic field of our KCT. The guiding questions were what is the fascinating point that really absorbs me in the “homo oeconomicus” model and what is my personal relationship to this field. For me the most interesting point was finding out how people really make decisions and what really drives them to take a respective decision.

After coming back of this letting-go phase the KCT group shared its experiences. Every group-member came back with different impressions and ideas. In order to continue on our common knowledge and experience we agreed to use the common understanding of our thematic field. More or less we are interested not only in stretching the surface but also in looking on details of decision-making. The next steps were to go a step further, into the prototyping phase. We agreed to emphasize the topic how people make decisions. The core idea is to stress the question what drives people in decision-making. The intention is to categorize daily decisions like such which are done automatically, emotionally or need negotiations. We came to the conclusion to use a decision map as guideline for structuring decisions, a role play to present different decision-making scenarios and an experiment of an ethical paradoxon in order to manipulate our class mates' decisions.

Philosophy of Sciene (15)

The goal of our focus interview was to get a new perspective on the homo oeconomicus. Therefore we invited businesspeople from different industries in order to obtain a holistic picture from different view points. The heterogeneous group was formed by two female and five male participants. Moreover the interview was conducted by a female and male moderator. Our interview partners are working in financial services, media, advertisement companies, pharmaceutical industry, lobbying organizations, and university. We presented our understanding of homo oeconomicus with the following statement of Adam Smith “It is not the goodness and benevolence of the butcher, the brewer or the backer that we our food, but their own selfish interest.”

In order to get into the topic we decided to follow the strategy to ask first some personal questions and then after a warm-up phase to come into more general questions. Thus, we confronted the interview partners with their current job situation. They were asked to describe some motivation factors why they like their respective jobs or not. One the one hand, it was mentioned that own responsibility (e.g. to take own decisions) is a driver for personal motivation in job, but on the other hand several interview partners came to the conclusion that their activities should shape future and contribute to the progress of society. Nobody indicated that money is an important motivation factor. There was a common sense that money is a foundation of stability (e.g. for paying invoices), but they did not think that money makes people happy. One interview partner used the picture of the diminishing marginal utility of money and happiness.

Concerning decision-making we faced the discussion group with the question whether they take decisions in business rationally or emotionally. While someone in a recruiting position trust his/her gut feeling, other ones (e.g. in media planning) trust more numbers. However, it was stressed that rationality can only be a basis for decision-making, but more or less everybody is always driven by emotions. It seems that emotions are always involved. We presented in that context one result of our online-questionnaire. Almost one half of the respondents partly agreed that a person act rationally in order to be successful. Some interview partners said that people are biased regarding the combination rationality and success. For being a successful manager the group agreed that both parts – rationality and emotions – are essential. It was argued that Bernard Madoff, who ran the biggest ponzi scheme ever known, acted also both rationally and emotionally. The irrationality of people could be seen as a cause of the financial crisis. People seem to follow their emotions and consumed financial products, because others did it as well. It can be attributed to a herd-instinct.

A central question was whether people think that the homo oeconomicus still exists, since according to some scholars capitalism is no longer the ideal economic model. Some discussion participants explained that economists need something to assume because simplification is an elementary part of every model. People gave answers like that homo oeconomicus is a framework but an adaption or extension would be necessary. In an alternative model it seems to be important to incorporate more social responsibility. A majority of the interview partners stressed the missing social aspect in the homo oeconomicus model. More or less a social concept would fit the current situation of globalization.

Summing up, the main points of the focus interview from my point of view are the following: It was mentioned that visions and long-term perspective thinking are crucial, since we asked what kind of message or what advice would you formulate to our government. In regard of homo oeconomicus it seems that the dimension of emotions and the social contribution to society are missing links. For me it was interesting that people took part in this interview and really used the opportunity here to exchange their opinions. I would not expect it that people are highly motivated more by intrinsic than extrinsic factors in their jobs. The discussion group argued for contribution to society, which seems to reinvent them.

Philosophy of Sciene (14)

We kindly ask you to fill out our short online questionnaire. It takes you only 2 minutes and if you like it, please forward it to your friends: http://equestionnaire.de/?q=7233

The results are presented to you in Philosophy of Science on 10/05/2010. Thank you very much for your help!

Philosophy of Sciene (13)

Let's start an online brainstorming!

Referring to our today's coaching session in Philosophy of Science in order to discover something new, interesting and funny about the “homo oeconomicus”. Professor Peschel said we are free to explore and a leading questions could be: what is the core meaning of "homo oeconomicus" and what are the differences and implications of the model and real-word phenomena? The aim is that we should get differrent, diverse impressions by looking beyond the border.

I'd like to know what drives people or in other words what is their motivation? Some people have besides extrinsic motivation also a lot of instrinisc motivation. Some people like to compete while others prefer to cooperate. Therefore we could observe (a) young people - teenagers / (b) business people (with focus group interviews) / and (c) old people and find out what drives them.

Have a short look: http://arm.in/e0d (please klick transalte after opening the website).

Philosophy of Sciene (12)

In our today's meeting we sharpened our thematic field "homo oeconomicus" and prepared some questions for the focus group interview with business people that we will probably conduct on Monday 3/5/2010. Here are some questions that we prepared so far:

1. What are the factors which are responsible that you like your job?
2. What does money mean in general to you (does it make you happy)?
3. Do you prefer a leadership strategy which is more task or more group orientated?
4. In case of a recession how do you handle the hiring and firing of people?
5. Do you promote people who are more considered to have an efficient working style or people who are considered to be friendly persons?
6. How do you make decisions concerning luxury things?
7. ....

Feel free to adapt the listed discussion points above or come up with other ones!

Philosophy of Sciene (11)

I read some background information about group interviews that we want to conduct as observation strategy for our thematic field "homo oeconomicus". "A focus group interview is an interview with a small group of people on a specific topic. Groups are typically six to eight people who participate in the interview for one-half to two hours (Patton 2002, p.385)." Patton sees the focus interview as a highly efficient qualitative data collection technique. It is not a problem-solving session or decision-making group. The main adavantages are that focus groups interviews are low cost and rich in data, that they stimulate the responders and support them in remembering events, and they can lead beyond the answers of the single interviewee (Flick 2009, p.196).

What can be a "discussion stimulus"?
On the one hand, in the beginning of 2009 a group of Harvard students created a new management oath "to make a real impact on the meaning of the MBA degree and the role people expect business to play in society". http://mbaoath.org/about/the-mba-oath/
On the other hand, we can find almost daily in reality the absolute opposite. There are several scandals or affairs like the one of Bernard Madoff (72) who ran the biggest ponzi scheme ever known and who was sentenced to 150 years prison by an US-judge. Because of Madoff private, corporate and public investors lost approximately 65 billion US-Dollar and even two investors committed suicide after they realized the amount of their financial losses. http://money.cnn.com/2009/06/29/news/economy/madoff_prison_sentence/index.htm?postversion=2009062909
Do managers need an oath like physicians?

Philosophy of Sciene (10)

"Theory U: Leading from future as it emerges" is a book by Otto Scharmer (MIT). This book addresses the blind spot of our time ("open mind - open heart - open will") and leads us as basis through the whole process of Philosophy of science. It is a problem-solving process. Scharmer proposes this process to optimize both collaboration and innovation, and as a guide in order to enable collaborative and innovative capacity in individuals and teams working on problems. The problem of our group is the homo oeconomicus. Does he really exist? In my opinion he does not fit anymore.

In general the five movements of the Theory U are:

1. The co-initiating step includes self-organizing the team, studying patterns and paying attention being aware. Its principal outcome is an engaged and informed team.
2. The co-sensing step entails making sense of what you are now aware of. Its principal output is understanding.
3. The presencing step is the most challenging us to accept. It is what Scharmer calls letting go and letting come, a being open to possibility, using imagination and critical and creative thinking. Its principal products are emerging approaches.
4. The co-creating step is one of iteratively exploring and experimenting with these possible approaches. Its principal outcomes are working models.
5. The co-evolving step is the continuous and improvisational study, improvement and innovation of these models, collaboratively in peer production with the community of users of these. Its principal output is sustained innovation, relationships and resilience.

We are as group now at stage one (I would mean). Today we discussed to perform focus groups interviews as a observation strategy with a heterogenous group of managers. The topic of the focus interviews would be how managers behave in their daily lifes. What is their motivation? Are they driven by self-interest or more by cooperation? We are also found a common logo. It should be something with ants that is actually the only thing I can say without breaking a secret.

Philosophy of Sciene (9)

The thematic field of our group is the "Homo oeconomicus".

I would say that the model of the rational, self-interested decision maker who maximizes his/her utility does not fit the reality. In general people are both rational and emotional. Therefore "homo oeconomicus" does not explain all existing perspectives. In our thematic field we should not adore or worship this out-dated model. It should be more a criticism on it. Research found out that people tend to share with others for social welfare. There is a tendency to distribute and allocate payoff in a group. People share with others but also trust other people. Hence, a new leitmotif in economics is needed, since not all people are selfish orientated.

My suggestion for a logo for our group would be either Dagobert Duck on a sign with a cross or the honourable merchant as presented next to this text.

My observation idea would be to conduct focus interviews with managers at all levels and across all functions about their understanding and criticism on the "homo oecominicus". The aim should be to gain an insight in the manager’s current situation, their organizational strengths and what they see as the opportunities for improvement.

Philosophy of Science (8)

Questions/Topics that matter:

(1)
What is the leitmotif in economic life: fighting or cooperation?

I think that the "homo oecomicus" does not exist in reality and is just an economic model driven by theory. The core of human motivation is interpersonal acceptance, to give devotion and to care about somebody. From neurobiological perspective we are designed for social resonance and cooperation. Research in cooperation which is based on game theory results in that trust creates trust, whereas distrust and rejection promote aggression.

(2)
What exactly is happiness?

I like to read articles about happiness that I find by chance in newspapers or journals. On the one hand, happiness is a goal of all human striving and on the other hand it is just chance or fate. It is obviously an ambiguous term, but certainly a concept that at first can be classified into the field of philosophy. Epicure, the Greek philosopher, introduced hedonism. He mentioned that the pleasure is itself the content of happiness. From the biological perspective happiness arises in our mind by the release of hormones and neurotransmitters. Moreover there exist already a science of happiness and even an economy of happiness.

Philosophy of Science (7)

Philosophy of Science (6)

Today was presentation day of the foundations of philosophy of science. Our own presentation worked well. Thanks to all fantastic group members. We did quiz "How wants to become a scientist" as warming up ;-) ... Also the other presentations "Scientific knowledge and reality: From reality theory and back" as well as "Science as process - dynamics of scientific knowledge and its social embedding" were ok.

Professor Peschl asked: What kind of world view do you have? Hopefully I can claim to have a out-of-the box world view. Moreover he mentioned that we do not see the things themselves and do not have access to the border beyond. So we use experiments in order to get some explanations how something works ...

Philosophy of Sciene (5)

Although it is Rector’s day our group came together in order to ensure that our presentation for Monday obtains some fine-tuning. For the red-line through the slides of “What science is”, “Scientific explanation”, and “Explanation in science” we prepared a common introduction as well as a common conclusion. We fixed the settings and fixed who should take over which task. For example, we adapted the quiz with a real selection round and decided who should be the candidates and what jokers should be used. Moreover we also talked through the other experiments and role plays. I was a little bit confused because I was asked to play a man who tells a little girl that he cannot be pregnant due to the fact of taking anti-baby-pills everyday. Finally I agreed to do it because the short role play should explain the irrelevance of Hempel’s covering law model of explanation. At the end all groups members promised to do some further preparation work and fine-tuning for a great performance in the classroom. Hopefully I have nevertheless a nice weekend!

Philosophy of Sciene (4)

This time we met to discuss our presentation outline more in detail. So the meeting last longer than the week before. The three subgroups presented their prepared preliminary slides and got feedback of the other group members. My idea was accepted to perform a quiz with the name “Who wants to be a scientist”. The other groups also brought beside the content some suggestions how to make a working atmosphere less tense. We had some discussions concerning how to implement small experiments but more or less I did not observe any major disputes. Afterwards we had also a meeting with one part of our lecturer where we presented our outline. To sum up, it was proposed that we should refer in the presentation to our discipline, to look for interaction with the audience and to find a red line through our presentation. Ok. Let’s do it!

Philosophy of Sciene (3)

Today’s group meeting was quite efficient. Main goal was to discuss what and how we should design our presentation. The most important points out of the literature I summarized in some Power Point slides which were used as handout. Marion suggested to build up three subgroups of two and to prepare three distinct parts for the content as well as the creative part. Katrin agreed to be the team leader or the chairwoman of our group who is responsible for consolidation and communication. Bernhard and I choosed the chapter “What is science?” for preparation until next Monday. We discussed shortly to implement in our part a quiz in the form of “Who wants to be a millionaire”. I am satisfied to do some creative staff. It seems to to brighten up my day!

Philosophy of Sciene (2)

By reading the relevant literature of the foundations of philosophy of science I also found a practical answer to the question why the palm tree in my living room does not look anymore very nice. Actually the answer is a general law of nature. The plant is not exposed at the moment to direct sunlight. Since plants need sun for photosynthesis, it should not me wonder why the originally green leaves are getting brown. Now I moved my palm tree to a sunnier place with the hope that it can thrive and prosper in a better way. This would mean that I make now an inductive prediction.

Philosophy of Sciene (1)

Today the first session of Philosphy of Science took place. Professor Peschl’s introduction was promising. For me this day focused mainly on organization. Groups were formed for a presentation in two weeks; literature was delivered by a group member; registration on the lecturer’s homepage was completed. Our group arranged a meeting for designing the presentation on Thursday 04.03.2010. Until then I have to read the respective material. The two guys of the observation group announced that they will also come. We will see how things go on!

After two years ... I'm back!