Decision tables are procedures of retaining ideas, orienting them towards a logical
direction, and comparing situations. All versions will eventually be assessed in the light
of the same values, by rational symmetry (e.g. prestigious and well paid work).
Decisions trees help classify explanations into categories (e.g. self, family, work, leisure,
health, etc.).
Decomposition or breaking down is a technique of managing complex problems
consisting in the separate analysis of sub-problems, solving them, and reuniting
intermediary solutions to tackle the initial problem. Decomposition implies the existence
of a permissive logical framework, several simultaneous ideas on the floor, and reaching
an overall result.
Value lists are drawn up in terms of positive and negative autobiographical experiences,
personalities carriers of values referred to, or by attaching to each value a quantifiable
description (using comparable units of measurement).
“Plus and minus” tables express the relevance of values by certain criteria. The values
can be marked with the symbols +, -, 0 and then quantified in order to define the
beneficial, harmful, or neutral role of the alternatives imagined in order to make the
decision.
Optimistic and pessimistic scenarios lead to projecting and comparing the extreme
versions of the given situation, such as “at best” and “at worst”.
“Point zero ” is a technique to evaluate alternatives (taken over from the addiction
therapy) by referring to a neutral item in the current experience of the client. This point of
reference is chosen from an inferior register, so that its visit gives pleasure, and once
made aware it becomes a new element of neutrality and failure avoidance.
Sometimes we make choices on the spur of the moment (making use of an opportunity,
getting away from a threat) and only then we seek arguments to support the respective
choices in order to avoid self-denial and undermining of one’s own authority
(professional or human). The same explanatory mechanism works if we are attached (if
we feel or owe attachment) to a person. It is a case when we do not abandon someone we
are loyal or statutory obliged to, even if we realize unfortunate decisions are at play. We
thus become defenders of a decision we do not agree to, but which we take on and confer
a new vigour by our own arguments. The free will must decide the margins of loyalty and
the risks of personal sacrifice.
In critical situations, when actions are not consistent with ideas, decision makers have the
tendency to reshape / align their ideas to actions and offer justification to the initial
decision.