Two things I don’t quite get about your proposal: How does the committee determine if the reasoning was motivated? Why not just have the committee make the decision in the first place?
How does the committee determine if the reasoning was motivated?
This is a good question. My proposal is entirely theoretical and still in the rough draft stage at this point, and getting any feedback would be of great benefit. I haven’t fully worked out how the members of the committee would go about determining if motivated reasoning influenced the decision-making process.
Why not just have the committee make the decision in the first place?
The committee is acting as a check against the decision-making institution, and the ledger system used by the committee acts as an incentive for the decision-making institution to avoid motivated reasoning.
At a guess—there may be a difference in skill/s required to make the really good decisions versus telling if decisions aren’t the best, or are “motivated”.
Two things I don’t quite get about your proposal: How does the committee determine if the reasoning was motivated? Why not just have the committee make the decision in the first place?
How does the committee determine if the reasoning was motivated?
This is a good question. My proposal is entirely theoretical and still in the rough draft stage at this point, and getting any feedback would be of great benefit. I haven’t fully worked out how the members of the committee would go about determining if motivated reasoning influenced the decision-making process.
Why not just have the committee make the decision in the first place?
The committee is acting as a check against the decision-making institution, and the ledger system used by the committee acts as an incentive for the decision-making institution to avoid motivated reasoning.
At a guess—there may be a difference in skill/s required to make the really good decisions versus telling if decisions aren’t the best, or are “motivated”.