Achieving A Shared Context for problem-solving: Case Example
In this Case Example, the anamcara is sharing her experience (mental representation) with the decision maker, the Anam Cara is developing a shared context aiming to enrich decision maker’ experience for fixing their problems. At implementation level, this sharing may lead the decision maker to modify: (a) an instantiation of a shared contextual element, (b) addition of a new contextual element from the Anam Cara’s mental representation, but new for the decision maker, and (c) addition of a new step of the reasoning for representing the contextual element in the decision-making process.
A decision results from a proceduralized context (production of the decision-making process that extracts a mental model from the mental representation) that is the sequence of instantiated contextual elements in the mental model. Thus, for solving the decision paralysis (at conceptual level) due to the conflict between two decisions D1 and D2 (operational level), the decision-maker may compare (at implementation level) their associated proceduralized contexts PC1 and PC2, that corresponds to solving the « problem to be fixed », i.e., taking a "learning by doing" approach.
Suppose that D1 is « choose best option to prepare for exam ». The Decision maker, who was familiar with "Rational choice" theory and practice, first needed to set his decision horizon (Toda, 1977). He set it as "one day from now" because that corresponds to the date (tomorrow) when he has to actually take the exam.
The Decision Maker then employed Simon's (1977) four phase "rational choice" process model as follows:
• In the Intelligence phase. He “searched for the conditions that call for decision”; (i.e. “I have to choose my best "exam topic revision option") and the time frame for executing that option (i.e., "one day from now »). This involves working at the conceptual level in order to « collect the contextual elements that seems the more relevant »
• In the Design phase, the decision maker worked at the operational level by assembling and structuring the retained contextual elements. He focused on “inventing, developing and analysing possible "courses of action” (i.e. options), within his decision-making model. The decision maker considered that he had enough time within the frame to revise only one topic that might relate to the actual question that would be present on the exam paper. So, he chose the following four potential options (courses of action) to consider and compare in his decision -making: 1. Revise Topic A; 2. Revise Topic B; 3. Revise Topic C; 4. Revise topic D.
• In the Choice phase, the decision maker worked at the environment level on the instantiation of the contextual elements. He decided to construct a multi-attribute (MAU) evaluation frame. Within that frame, was the attribute scaled as Good= "the actual question on the exam paper relates to this topic" to Bad= "the actual question on the Exam Paper does not relate to this topic'" In the MAUT analysis process, this attribute received a much higher importance weight, compared with the other attributes in the frame. Also, all four options that were under consideration, scored near the "does not In sharing her experience (mental representation) with the decision maker, the Anam Cara is developing a shared context aiming to enrich decision maker’ experience for fixing their problems. At implementation level, this sharing may lead the decision maker to modify: (a) an instantiation of a shared contextual element, (b) addition of a new contextual element from the Anam Cara’s mental representation, but new for the decision maker, and (c) addition of a new step of the reasoning for representing the contextual element in the decision-making process.
• In the Review Phase, the decision maker noticed that, while option 2 received the highest MAUT evaluation score, all four options received a relatively low overall MAUT evaluation score, so it was not advisable to choose any of these options. He then experienced being "left adrift in a sea of uncertainty and anxiety (Berkeley, D., et al., 1990) as he was trapped in his own overthinking (Bedi, 2024). In order to try to escape from this "overthinking" state, the decision-maker now considered the previously unmodelled event: "I will postpone taking this examination until the next time that it is schedule (one year from now)". This required changing Hypothesis H1 to: « For me, taking the exam is now postponed to a later date », but this did not relieve him from being trapped in overthinking and anxiety.
So, the Agent contacted his Aman Cara and asked her "what do you think I should do? She told him: "Abandon Rational Choice theory: instead change the context for your decision problem in accord with March sand Olsen's Logic of Appropriateness (i.e., try to answer three elementary questions: (1) What kind of a situation is this?; (2) Who am I?; and (3) How appropriate are different actions for me in this situation?
The result was that the agent now changed his decision focus for "evaluation of options within D1" from « prepare exams » to "Find new hypothesis H2 about "the problem to be fixed by employing the Logic of Appropriateness." So the agent started an new Context by Goal (CxG) conversation with his Cara so they could together can find interesting instantiations of the contextual elements like « what kind of situation? » with instantiations « private », « social », « community » and thus imagine him to be able to identify this situation, which would enable him to break freely his present state of overthinking and anxiety through understanding what were the barriers that had blocked him in there. As a result, he decided to set H2 to "Invite friends to a party" (the contextual element « set up a friends party » was not considered in his previous 'rational choice' decision-making). This required formulating a new D2 that the agent now considered would point to an attractive option for him to implement in practice.
The conflict between D2 and D1 is a « problem to be fixed ». The decision-maker can solve this problem at the implementation level by considering, not the decisions D1 and D2 directly, but the proceduralised contexts PC1 and PC2 that were built during the decision-making process, prior to obtaining decisions D1 and D2. Knowing that a proceduralized context is a sequence of instantiated contextual elements, comparison, step by step, of the contextual elements will lead the decision-maker (alone or with the anam cara support) to identify easily the step at which there is a discrepancy in the two proceduralised contexts PC1 and PC2, and to analyse the contextual element that differs in the two proceduralised contexts. The difference may be different instantiations. For, instance, the instantiation of « event date? » is « exam date » in PC1 and « friends-party date » in PC2. Then, going back to the operational level, the decision-maker can distinguish between the two mental models concerned and choose the right one.
In summary: since the « problem to be fixed » now corresponds to a mental model that did not previously exist in actor’s mental representation (i.e. in the decision maker's experience). On the basis of this model, the Agent can now choose to implement an option which is very attractive to him. The role of the Anam Cara was to help the agent to identify a new mental model and find the contextual element in the proceduralised context that is responsible for "the « problem to be fixed » in actor’s mental representation. The task of the Anam Cara is on the decision-making process, not on the decision that belongs to the decision-making. As a natural consequence, the Decision maker's experience is enriched and may be re-used later without needing a further call to his Anam Cara.
Our recommendations for the process to be adopted by the Anam Cara in playing the provider role to achieve the "problem fixing" as indicated in section 2.1.3 are as follows:
• Present the traps you are conscious of (see Bedi 2024 for an account of how to become aware of and handle traps in overthinking »);
• Make the context of the problem explicit with additional contextual elements (even if not totally relevant) from your sources of context;
• Develop with your anam cara a shared context as a mutual space of understanding by: considering co-building of a shared mental model by synergy between you and your Anam Cara;
• Be the anam Cara of your anam cara or be a unique anam ara providing missing contextual elements demanded by Anam Cara as it was for yourself, replacing previous traps by a definite understanding of the "pathway for fixing the problem;
• Build with the Anam Cara the shared mental model(s) corresponding to the shared context at hand;
•. Reiterate from the revised problem to be fixed until to reach the shared solution of the problem to be fixed.
[1] Wikipedia explains: The core intuition of the logic of appropriateness is that humans maintain a repertoire of roles and identities, which provide rules of appropriate
in situations for which they are relevant. Following these rules is a relatively complex cognitive process involving thoughtful, reasoning behavior. Such a process of reasoning is not connected to the anticipation of costs and benefits, as rational choice theory would suggest. Rather, the assumption is that actors will generally try to answer three elementary questions: (1) What kind of a situation is this? (2) Who am I?; and (3) How appropriate are different actions for me in this situation? Then they will often do what they regard as most appropriate
