Decision (2019)

We make decisions every day, but what factors influence our choices ? Are they really made in complete freedom?

During this series of conferences, we will look at how major (or minor) decisions are made, both as individuals and within organisations, from the perspective of specialists from different disciplines. How is the decision-making process formalised, represented and communicated? Is it possible to model it mathematically? Is artificial intelligence likely to replace or contribute to a human decision?

This series of conferences will bring together specialists from disciplines such as law, medicine, the humanities, physics and the social sciences to discuss this issue.

A series of public lectures organised as part of the teaching'"La recherche dans tous ses états"

• Wednesdays from 16 October to 20 November 2019 from 5:15pm to 6:45pm
• Amphimax building, room 414

Organisation: Delphine Preissmann (FBM, Sciences au Carré, delphine.preissmann@unil.ch)

Koorosh Massoudi and Jonas Masdonati, Counselling and Guidance Psychology Research Centre, Institute of Psychology, SSP

I've made up my mind: tomorrow I'll decide! Indecision and decision-making in a professional context.

How do people make decisions about their career paths? For that matter, do they actually decide ? From its infancy at the beginning of the twentieth century, the psychology of counselling and guidance has focused on the first career choice, which is the first step in a person's life;The first career choice, provided it was a rational one, would lead to a harmonious and linear career. It was therefore necessary to make an optimal choice, based on matching one's own abilities and aspirations with the opportunities and requirements of the job market, in order to secure one's professional future in a relatively stable socio-economic context.

Over the past two decades at least, decisions relating to the professional sphere have become increasingly complex: the context in which individuals project themselves is becoming more fluid and unstable, and as a result the choices they make within it are becoming more complex, the paths they take less clear and the transitions more numerous. And more transitions mean more decisions to be made, willingly or unwillingly.

Pierre-Yves Brandt, Institute for the Social Sciences of Religion, Observatory of Religions in Switzerland, FTSR

Converting or being converted: who takes the initiative?

Religious conversion is a form of identity transformation negotiated by the convert with his or her social environment. It presupposes an exclusive understanding of religious belonging  one converts because a dual religious identity is not permitted by the environment or not bearable for the convert. Thus, the initiative may come from the environment, which puts pressure on the convert, or from the convert, who begins a process of re-evaluating his or her personal identity. In the first case, decision making is reactive: the individual decides to respond positively to the pressure of his or her environment. In the second case, decision making is proactive: it sets in motion a transactional process. In all cases, decision making is motivated by the desire to reduce the gap between the identity that the subject ascribes to him or herself from his or her own point of view and the identity that the subject ascribes to him or herself from his or her own point of view;attributed to him from his own point of view (his subjective identity) and the identity attributed to him by the social environment (his objective identity). The result is a sense of unease, even discomfort, which is remedied, at least in appearance, by the decision to make a joint effort on the part of the convert and his environment to account for the transformation in his identity.

Can the Tukhêesse decide for me ? Chance and decision in ancient Greece. 

In decision-making, both at institutional and individual level, the ancient Greeks willingly left some room for chance. In the various types of vote held in classical Athens, only certain ballots were removed from the ballot box by drawing lots. The act of deciding is, of course, the responsibility of the decision-making body (institution or person), but it also depends on it. Nothing is decided unless it is over-decided by another body. For a Greek, any decision is relative or uncertain. Moreover, the Greeks didn’t like to say that they «decide». 

Let us once again take the example of Œdipe, the tragic hero emblematic of psychoanalysis, an essential paradigm for thinking about man in the face of à his condition and à his destiny. Let us reread, during the proposed lecture, the Œdipe Roi. As Foucault saw it, Œdipe is, in the tragedy, a man of power, too sure of controlling everything. But soon, he reveals his filiation: he who killed his father, slept with his mother, is nothing but the son of Tukhê («du Hasard»). 

Benjamin Boutrel, Research Unit on the Neurobiology of Addictive and Eating Disorders, Centre for Psychiatric Neurosciences, FBM

Neurobiology of decision-making

Decision making is a cognitive process aimed at selecting one type of action from a number of alternatives by estimating the possible consequences in the more or less long term. This process of choice, which is rather rational, contrasts with emotional actions, which are considered to be more instinctive and immediate. This ability to use past experiences, while integrating present interoceptive and exteroceptive information, to predict the probable future is a remarkable tool, the result of subtle coordination of different brain circuits. This skill is acquired during development, particularly in adolescence, but can be permanently affected by stress. This conference will focus on the neurobiological foundations of the decision-making process, and will discuss the extent to which individuals are fully aware of, if not responsible for, their choices and actions.

Ioannis Papadopoulos, Laboratory for the analysis of governance and public action in Europe, SSP

Who decides in our democracies?

We are used to thinking that in a democracy we elect the authorities who govern us (in Switzerland, moreover, we can formally challenge their decisions and impose others on them). Elections allow us to authorise our elected representatives to make decisions which they can then impose on us. It is this mechanism that makes the exercise of power legitimate, because those who govern appear to represent the governed, and the latter can punish them if they are dissatisfied.In reality, however, this image corresponds only in part to the reality of power in modern democracies. A range of actors who are not elected by citizens (members of the administration, interest groups, experts, private actors and beyond national borders) can acquire decisive influence in collective decision-making processes. This paper will present the reasons for this phenomenon, give examples illustrating its main dimensions, and attempt to assess its effects on the functioning of democratic systems.

Alexandre Alahi, Laboratoire d’intelligence visuelle pour les transports, EPFL