"Quantum-like" Theory of Decision Making in Political Science


Alekseyeva T.A.,

Prof., Head of Political Theory Department, Moscow State Institute of International Relations (University), MFA of Russia. Moscow, Russia, ataleks@mail.ru

elibrary_id: 1361 |

Mineev A.P.,

Cand. Sci. (Phys.-Math.), Associate Professor, Political Theory Department, Moscow State Institute of International Relations (University), MFA of Russia, mineev@list.ru

elibrary_id: 655573 |

Loshkariov I.D.,

Lecturer, Political Theory Department, Moscow State Institute of International Relations (University), MFA of Russia, kixlo@rambler.ru

elibrary_id: 639886 |

DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2017.04.03

For citation:

Alekseyeva T.A., Mineev A.P., Loshkariov I.D. "Quantum-like" Theory of Decision Making in Political Science. – Polis. Political Studies. 2017. No 4. P. 22-32 (In Russ.) . DOI: https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2017.04.03



Abstract

In modern political science (not only in Russia, but abroad as well) scholars are more constantly facing the question of the scientific picture of the world. It is particularly relevant under conditions of the tireless attempts to introduce natural-science methods into social sciences, to transform knowledge about socio-political processes into “positive knowledge.” The article covers a new and promising direction in the decision-making theory (a sub-discipline of political science), the so-called “quantum” approach. The authors turn to this approach in order to demonstrate the heuristic potential of the “quantum-like” theory of decision-making and to push forward the discussion about the scientific picture of the world in political science as a whole. The article deals with two types of decision-making models, which are the “quantum brain” model and the “quantum consciousness” model. Categories and basic conceptual solutions of those models were proposed, in particular, by A.Yu. Khrennikov, V.I. Yukalov, J.R. Busemeyer. Despite the great opportunities that these models provide researchers with, there are a number of limitations that are also characteristic of other decision-making theories. Moreover, the authors conclude that it is necessary to depart from binary logic in the given models and to start a more frank discussion over the issues of political and socio-psychological ontology. This applies in part to the use of open quantum systems as one of the categories in the “quantum-like” theory of decision-making. The authors note that the “quantum-like” theory of decision making has great theoretical and heuristic potential, and is probably an important element in the emerging scientific picture of the world in political science.

Keywords
quantum approach; “quantum brain”; “quantum conscience”; scientific picture of the world; decision-making theory.


   Buy a digital version in Polismag
References

Aerts D. Quantum Interference and Superposition in Cognition: A Theory for the Disjunction of Concepts. 2007. 43 p. URL: https://arxiv.org/pdf/0705.0975.pdf (accessed 25.04.2017).

Aerts D., Broekaert J., Gabora L. A Case for Applying an Abstracted Quantum Formalism to Cognition. – New Ideas in Psychology. 2011. Vol. 29. No. 2. P. 136-146. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2010.06.002

Ashtiani M., Azgomi M.A. A Survey of Quantum-Like Approaches to Decision Making and Cognition. – Mathematical Social Science. 2015. No. 75. P. 49-80. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mathsocsci.2015.02.004

Bruza P.D., Wang Z., Busemeyer J.R. Quantum Cognition: A New Theoretical Approach to Psychology. – Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 2015. Vol. 19. No. 7. P. 383-393. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2015.05.001

Busemeyer J.R., Bruza P.D. Quantum Models of Cognition and Decision. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2012. 407 p.

Busemeyer J.R., Matthews M., Wang Z. A Quantum Information Processing Explanation of Disjunction Effects. Proceedings of the 29th Annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society and the 5th International Conference of Cognitive Science. Ed. by R. Sun, N. Myake. Erlbaum. 2006. P. 131-135.

Curtis S., Koivisto M. Towards a Second “Second Debate”? Rethinking the Relationship Between Science and History in International Theory. – International Relations. 2010. No. 24. Р. 433-455. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0047117810386071

De Barros J.A., Suppes P. Quantum Mechanics, Interference, and the Brain. – Journal of Mathematical Psychology. 2009. Vol. 53. No. 5. P. 306-313. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmp.2009.03.005

Fisher M.P. Quantum Cognition: The Possibility of Processing With Nuclear Spins in the Brain. – Annals of Physics. 2015. Vol. 362. November. P. 593-602. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aop.2015.08.020

Gallie W.B. Essentially Contested Concepts. – Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society. 1955. Vol. 56. No. 1. P. 167-198. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/aristotelian/56.1.167

Gunji Y.P., Sonoda K., Basios V. Quantum Cognition Based on an Ambiguous Representation Derived From a Rough Set Approximation. – Biosystems. 2016. Vol. 141. P. 55-66. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystems.2015.12.003

Haven E., Khrennikov A. Statistical and Subjective Interpretations of Probability in Quantum-Like Models of Cognition and Decision Making. – Journal of Mathematical Psychology. 2016. Vol. 74. October. P. 82-91. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmp.2016.02.005

Khrennikov A. Interference of Probabilities in the Classical Probabilistic Framework. – Fuzzy Sets and Systems. 2005. Vol. 155. No. 1. Р. 4-17. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fss.2005.05.019

Park J.J. Decision-Making & Quantum Mechanical Models of Cognitive Processing. – Journal of Cognitive Science. 2016. Vol. 17. No. 2. P. 199-228. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17791/jcs.2016.17.2.199

Ricci D.M. The Tragedy of Political Science: Politics, Scholarship, and Democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press. 1984. 335 p.

Wagner P. A History and Theory of Social Sciences. London: SAGE. 2001. 208 р.

Wendt A. Quantum Mind and Social Science: Unifying Physical and Social Ontology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2015. 366 p.

White L.C., Pothos E.M., Busemeyer J.R. Insights From Quantum Cognitive Models for Organizational Decision Making. – Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition. 2015. Vol. 4. No. 3. P. 229-238.

Yearsley J.M., Busemeyer J.R. Quantum Cognition and Decision Theories: A Tutorial. – Journal of Mathematical Psychology. 2016. Vol. 74. P. 99-116. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmp.2015.11.005

Yukalov V.I., Sornette D. Quantum Decision Theory as Quantum Theory of Measurement. – Physics Letters A. 2008. Vol. 372. No. 46. Р. 6867-6871. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physleta.2008.09.053 

Content No 4, 2017

В современной политической науке (не только в России, но и за рубежом) все более четко формулируется вопрос о научной картине мира, о том, какие общетеоретические принципы заложены в исследованиях политического. Особенную актуальность этому процессу придают неустанные попытки внедрить естественнонаучные методы в социальные науки, превратить знание об общественно-политических процессах в “позитивное знание”. Статья посвящена новому и перспективному направлению в теории принятия решений, субдисциплине политической науки – так наз. квантовому подходу. Авторы обращаются к данному подходу с целью продемонстрировать эвристический потенциал “квантовых” теорий принятия решений и подтолкнуть дискуссию о научной картине мира в политической науке в целом. В статье разбирается два типа моделей принятия решения – модели “квантового мозга” и модели “квантового сознания”. Рассматриваются категориальный аппарат и основные концептуальные решения, предложенные, в частности, А.Ю. Хренниковым, В.И. Юкаловым, Дж. Бьюсмейером. Несмотря на большие возможности, которые предоставляют исследователям эти модели, существует и ряд ограничений, характерные и для других теорий принятия решений. Более того, авторы приходят к выводу, что необходим отход от бинарной логики в применяемых моделях и более откровенное обсуждение вопросов политической и социально-психологической онтологии. Это отчасти касается и использования открытых квантовых систем в качестве одной из категорий “квантовой” теории принятия решений. Авторы отмечают, что “квантовая” теория принятия решений имеет большой теоретический и эвристический потенциал, а также, вероятно, является важным элементом в формирующейся “неклассической” картине мира в политической науке. 

&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=22&rft.epage=32&rft.tpage=22-32&rft.number=&rft.year=2017&rft.issn=0321-2017&rft.shorttitle=&rft.subject=“квантовый” подход; “квантовый мозг”; “квантовое сознание”; научная картина мир; теория принятия решений&rft.pub=&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fwww.politstudies.ru%3A&rft.date=2017&rft.au=Alekseyeva T.A.&rft.au=Mineev A.P.&rft.au=Loshkariov I.D.">

See also:


Degtyarev Andrey Alekseevich,
Theory of Political Decision Making in the Structure of Social and Policy Disciplines. – Polis. Political Studies. 2002. No2

Osinsky I.I.,
Centaur-problematics of Zhan Toshchenko. – Polis. Political Studies. 2012. No2

Degtyarev Andrey Alekseevich,
Process of Decision-Making-and-Realizing in Public Policy: Dynamic Cycle and Its Main Phases. – Polis. Political Studies. 2004. No4

Solovyov A.I.,
The Swing-of-the-Pendulum Mechanism of State Decision Making: to the Substantiation of a Cognitive Model (I). – Polis. Political Studies. 2005. No5

Degtyarev Andrey Alekseevich,
Methodological Approaches and Conceptual Models Involved in the Interpretation of Political Decisions (III). – Polis. Political Studies. 2003. No3

 
 

Archive

   2019      2018      2017      2016   
   2015      2014      2013      2012      2011   
   2010      2009      2008      2007      2006   
   2005      2004      2003      2002      2001   
   2000      1999      1998      1997      1996   
   1995      1994      1993      1992      1991