Dilemma

About: Dilemma is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 16202 publications have been published within this topic receiving 250251 citations. The topic is also known as: Dilemna.

On perceiving morality and potency: Social values and the effects of person perception in a give‐some dilemma

Abstract: The present study examines a two‐person give‐some dilemma characterized by the conflict between the pursuit of own benefits (not giving) and collective benefits (giving). The major purpose was two‐...

The Multi-Center Dilemma Project: an investigation on the role of cognitive conflicts in health.

Abstract: The Multi-Center Dilemma Project is a collaborative research endeavour aimed at determining the role of dilemmas —a kind of cognitive conflict, detected by using an adaptation of Kelly’s Repertory Grid Technique— in a variety of clinical conditions. Implicative dilemmas appear in one third of the non-clinical group ( n = 321) and in about half of the clinical group ( n = 286), the latter having a proportion of dilemmas that doubles that of the non-clinical sample. Within the clinical group, we studied 87 subjects, after completing a psychotherapy process, and found that therapy helps to dissolve those dilemmas. We also studied, independently, a group of subjects diagnosed with social phobia (n = 13) and a group diagnosed with irritable bowel syndrome ( n = 13) in comparison to non-clinical groups. In both health related problems, dilemmas seem to be quite relevant. Altogether, these studies, though preliminary (and with a small group size in some cases), yield a promising perspective to the unexplored area of the role of cognitive conflicts as an issue to consider when trying to understand some clinical conditions, as well as a focus to be dealt with in psychotherapy when dilemmas are identified.

The Rule of Rules: Morality, Rules, and the Dilemmas of Law

Abstract: Rules perform a moral function by restating moral principles in concrete terms, so as to reduce the uncertainty, error, and controversy that result when individuals follow their own unconstrained moral judgment. Although reason dictates that we must follow rules to avoid destructive error and controversy, rules—and hence laws—are imperfect, and reason also dictates that we ought not follow them when we believe they produce the wrong result in a particular case. In The Rule of Rules Larry Alexander and Emily Sherwin examine this dilemma. Once the importance of this moral and practical conflict is acknowledged, the authors argue, authoritative rules become the central problems of jurisprudence. The inevitable gap between rules and background morality cannot be bridged, they claim, although many contemporary jurisprudential schools of thought are misguided attempts to do so. Alexander and Sherwin work through this dilemma, which lies at the heart of such ongoing jurisprudential controversies as how judges should reason in deciding cases, what effect should be given to legal precedent, and what status, if any, should be accorded to “legal principles.” In the end, their rigorous discussion sheds light on such topics as the nature of interpretation, the ancient dispute among legal theorists over natural law versus positivism, the obligation to obey law, constitutionalism, and the relation between law and coercion. Those interested in jurisprudence, legal theory, and political philosophy will benefit from the edifying discussion in The Rule of Rules.

The Time Dilemma in School Restructuring.

Abstract: What have schools involved in restructing done to address the problem of time? And which of these strategic apply to other schools in similar circumstances? Mr. Watts and Ms. Castle provide some answers to these questions. TIME, OR more properly lack of it, is one of the most difficult problems faced by schools and districts engaged in restructuring. Our experience with more than a hundred experimental restructuring efforts has demonstrated to us that the frustration associated with lack of time is a matter of fundamental importance if restructuring efforts are to succeed. Problems with time are certainly not restricted to the schools. Indeed, they are an increasingly common aspect of American culture. We have too many choices; 13,000 new products appeared in supermarkets in 1991. Time-saving devices do not actually save us time; blow dryers, for example, simply enable us to wash our hair more often. Modern technology has eliminated the pauses in life that gave us chances to catch our breath. Once, when we cooked chicken in a conventional oven, we had an hour's wait; now we cook it in a microwave oven for six minutes. Schools, with their individual cultures and structures, face a unique set of dilemmas with regard to time. The traditional view of a teacher's work is governed by the idea that time with students is of singular value. This view rests on the premise that teachers are deliverers of content and that curricular and pedagogical planning and decision making take place at higher levels of authority. Professional development is somehow not seen as related directly to instruction. Not surprisingly, teachers often experience guilt when they are out of the classroom. Teachers in restructuring schools have taken substitute days so that they can meet in committee. And despite the value of such meetings, many teachers still feel guilty about leaving their classes so often. "I think most teachers have mixed feelings," said a teacher in one restructuring school. "They want input into things that matter concerning teaching, but they want to be with the students during the school day."[1] The role of the teacher is being redefined to include the teacher as a professional decision maker who is knowledgeable and reflective. However, if the teacher's role is to change, our thinking about how a teacher's time is organized must change as well. Schedules must be made more flexible. A teacher who was visiting our office for a meeting said, "The schedule is God. You can implement any innovation you want in your classroom as long as you don't mess with the schedule." Traditional, inflexible scheduling is based on administrative and institutional needs. New, more flexible scheduling patterns are based on pedagogical practices, the educational needs of students, and the professional needs of teachers. There is a traditional assumption that teachers have to be managed. Teachers have not been trusted to use their noninstructional time wisely and so have had virtually no control over their time or its use. However, studies have shown that the managerial model is antithetical to the job of teaching.[2] The increasingly recognized need for teachers to be involved in all parts of the process of school change has put greater pressures on teachers' time. It calls for a shift from administrators to teachers of control over the structuring of time.[3] In working with its Mastery in Learning Project and other school improvement efforts for the past eight years, the National Education Association's National Center for Innovation has had extensive opportunities to study the practicalities of transforming schools. One clear finding that has emerged from these efforts is that faculty development is necessary to student empowerment. And faculty development takes time; time to collaborate, communicate, ponder, and reflect with others is essential. "The most important resource for improvement," write Tom Bird and Judith Warren Little, "is time with colleagues: time for [faculties] to examine, debate, and improve their norms of civility, instruction, and improvement. …

Evolutionary dynamics of strategic behavior in a collective-risk dilemma.

Abstract: A collective-risk social dilemma arises when a group must cooperate to reach a common target in order to avoid the risk of collective loss while each individual is tempted to free-ride on the contributions of others. In contrast to the prisoners' dilemma or public goods games, the collective-risk dilemma encompasses the risk that all individuals lose everything. These characteristics have potential relevance for dangerous climate change and other risky social dilemmas. Cooperation is costly to the individual and it only benefits all individuals if the common target is reached. An individual thus invests without guarantee that the investment is worthwhile for anyone. If there are several subsequent stages of investment, it is not clear when individuals should contribute. For example, they could invest early, thereby signaling their willingness to cooperate in the future, constantly invest their fair share, or wait and compensate missing contributions. To investigate the strategic behavior in such situations, we have simulated the evolutionary dynamics of such collective-risk dilemmas in a finite population. Contributions depend individually on the stage of the game and on the sum of contributions made so far. Every individual takes part in many games and successful behaviors spread in the population. It turns out that constant contributors, such as constant fair sharers, quickly lose out against those who initially do not contribute, but compensate this in later stages of the game. In particular for high risks, such late contributors are favored.