**8. The contributions of the paradigm of dynamic systems on the evolution of psychology**

### **8.1 Paradigm of dynamic systems**

The psychological decision-making processes do not only provide substantive indications (i.e., specific to each case). By adopting a transverse and, therefore, chronological perspective, the evolution of psychology can be characterized using internal factors that are responsible for its mutations or progress. A first observation shows that evolution is not linear. It is not based on continuous capitalization of knowledge but improves, as pointed out by Kuhn, in successive steps, from one paradigm to the next that has a higher explanatory potential. A second comment concerns the homogeneity versus heterogeneity factor. Homogeneity is a paradigm *infra* quality since each decision conduct, irrespective of its specificities will be built using the concepts and methods present in the paradigm, which, thus proves to be an operational reserve. Heterogeneity is a paradigm *supra* quality. It indicates paradigm changes.

### **8.2 The decisionmaker's cognitive activities**

The succession of decision-making paradigms is indicative of a double concern experienced by researchers. Firstly, avoid any form of extreme reductionism or simplification of the problems. Secondly, the need to build a satisfactory and efficient mental representation of the dynamics of phenomena capable of extending beyond the perceived complexity. The decision-maker selects the information according to the properties of the paradigms.

The OEP does not avoid the first obstacle but provides, due to its simplicity, a topographic cognitive map, which, although incomplete, is easy to use. The paradigm of the dynamic systems does not avoid the second obstacle when it attempts to *Perspective Chapter: A Perspective on Cognitive Decision-Making in Dynamic Systems… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.108981*

evaluate functional quantities, in other words momentary landmarks of the operation and not of the structure.

The decision maker's cognitive status and the type of operations to be performed will be different as soon as the initial choice of paradigm has been made. Each researcher initially opts for a school of thought whose opinions or ideas he shares. The choice of processing methods primarily depends on the decision-maker's personal options.

### **8.3 Overall lessons learned**

How can we summarize the quasi-temporal succession of the paradigms described in this chapter?


#### **8.4 Does negative become positive?**

In many respects, the paradigm of complex systems results in making radical changes to the status of some characteristics of the information. A Copernic revolution occurs what was previously considered negatively and, in this respect, controlled and eliminated from OEP-type processing, becomes, in the perspective of dynamic systems, a source of information.

As we have seen, the laboratory used to isolate the situation studied from the outside world becomes a distorting mirror. Similarly, the decision-maker is assumed to be in a position of relative cognitive neutrality. His opinion is not finalized, leading him to examine numerous partial assumptions. In contrast, in situations of recognized complexity, the decision-maker uses a cognitive block from the outset. This knowledge tool consists of the information present in the situation and analysis registers controlled by the decision-maker. The individual and the situation must therefore be considered as a whole, without splitting them.

This type of recommendation involves major epistemological extensions since the specificity of each cognitive block takes priority over its general nature. Based on this observation, we see that, for numerous situations displaying differences initially considered as minor, it is unrealistic or even deceitful to apply exactly the same processing method on the mere grounds of a previous success. Each situation/ decision-maker block has its own specificities and we know that, in complex systems, minor differences at the start of the processing may generate fundamental differences in the conclusions. As a result, the decision-making activity in the systems must also look for, in addition to the general aspects, the specificities and variabilities, since they are sources of information.
