My 2011

Shahab Sabahi

Energy and Environment for Development – Policy Analysis Research Group

December-2011 turned into its second half. This is the time for reflecting the year which we will pass into history just in the next few days time and building upon new hopes for 2012.

Like every years, the first year of the second decade of the 21st century, accommodated bitter and sweet events. It may be hard to draw a bold line to contrast sweet and bitter events, as they could be differently interpreted by people. There were, however, some events that there is a general consensus which overwhelmingly affected the function of the global system or moved human’s heart.

Nevertheless, in reality, bitter and sweet forces are interacting and applied to dynamic systems. The natural and social systems must be capable to balance them through an adaptable path if they wish to survive.  

In individual level, everyone experienced the impacts of these events. Some even forced further and got radical structural changes to transform the entire system with altering their lifestyle and resetting their mindsets.

My life was influenced by Japan’s tsunami, Fukushima nuclear disaster and Thailand’s floods. The former strained my emotions to its limit. My friends and family were directly exposed to the disasters. The latter tested both my physical and emotional capacity. Struggling for securing foods and drinking water, living in fear of flood reaches your place plus watching people’s lost, pushed me to limit.

The events, along with other personal experiences, force me to undertake an adaptation process which brought me a great life and mindset transformation. I got know myself and now feel free.

If you’re reviewing your 2011 to create hopes for 2012, I wonder, it would be useful to bring up some great words in this thinking process. They contributed in bringing off my life transformation. They may find your interest.       

}        Knowing is better than wondering (B. Franklin)

}        Never leave that till tomorrow (B. Franklin)

}        It is not the strongest of species that survive, nor the most intelligent, BUT the ones most responsive to changes (Ch. Darwin)

}        Changing paradigms is not easy. Too many have invested too much in the wrong models (J. Stiglitz)

}        If we are to survive, we must have ideas, visions, and courage. (A. Schlesinger)

}        Everything that matters in our intellectual and moral life begins with an individual confronting his own mind and conscience in a room by himself  (A. Schlesinger)

}        Do not watch, but see and listen. They open your mind and heart (the tale of Genji)

Have a wonderful year

Subjective priority setting process

Shahab Sabahi

Energy and Environment for Development – Policy Analysis Research Group

One may describe, the policy analysis procedure involves a series of objectives and logical steps such as goal setting; based on world-view and cultural values, cost-benefit outcome (logic, abeit to some degree depends on analyst's perspective), compliance with the governed law both cultural bases and natural law and etc.

There is one element so-called "PRIORITY setting" that comes so often to fore that is influenced by SUBJECTIVITY. It may radically shift and influence the policy design and its implementation.
From different perspectives, priorities may be in different colours.

General notion says that dotmocracy is an effective technique to underplay the influence of SUBJECTIVITY. In its simplest form, one provides participants with one to three dots (usually stickers) and invite them to place a dot beside their top one to three options. It is a voting technique. Dotmocracy works well with large groups in situations when a quick ‘read’ of the group feelings are required and when participants are not very interested or able to engage in very rigorous, analytical ranking processes.

Like all existing techniques, dotmocracy has its limitations. It still accomodates, to some degree subjective priority setting processes. It is effectively implemented in situations when the personal or professional judgment opinions of participants are an acceptable decision-making standards.

Giving all a/m points, is there any way to get ride of this "SUBJECTIVITY"?

A brief on Confucianism and Critical Thinking

Shahab Sabahi

Energy and Environment for Development – Policy Analysis Research Group

Confucianism posits moral eductaion for nobles who will take office, is the critical point that determines the success of a government and progress of a state. It beilives that nobles who are educated, under this system, will feel a sense of responsibility to their society (Journal of Democracy 11, 2000)

This system believes the art of government and nobles are to correct people and it is fundamental in societies who influenced by Confucinism, "the optimum is what nobles say". The system believes the moral accountability notion maintains NOBLES from any wrong doing (Fukuyama)

Without any value judgment on Confuciosim, it could be said that this system keeps away people from participating in debates. Would it eventually cause to halt the growth as the notion of Critical Thinking would fade away (which is the main value of Freedom and progress)? Does this notion kill curiosity and would lead to the decay of a society?
One may say China, with adopting such a notion, could improve its society and got changes. Will it be sustainable?