Jump to content
Toggle search
Toggle menu
75
257
179
8.5K
Sense & Sensibility & Science
Toggle preferences menu
Toggle personal menu
Not logged in
Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits.

13.1 Denver Bullet Study: Difference between revisions

From Sense & Sensibility & Science
More actions
← Older edit
Emlen (talk | contribs)
Bureaucrats, editor, quiz
252 edits
// via Wikitext Extension for VSCode
 
(43 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Navbox}}
{{Cover|13.1 Denver Bullet Study}}


== Useful Links ==
The Denver Bullet Study offers one approach to integrating facts and values in a controversial real-world problem, drawing facts from a set of experts, gauging the values of different stakeholders, and bringing these together for a final decision.


* [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vjfMJ0dPmZFi2BcbIyDeUbBSKGCVHmeMV4t0SZsjL3U/edit?usp=sharing Three Column Overview of the Week]
== The Lesson in Context ==
* [https://app.playpos.it/player_v2?type=share&bulb_id=1226290&lms_launch=false PlayPosit Video]
* [https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1sFCaSHBmV8vpW0TJG8Jghg0Jjl-NyTQOgJ6X6ZZ1Egs/edit?usp=sharing Lesson Slides]
* [https://sensesensibilityscience.berkeley.edu/topic/24 Website Page]


== Learning Goals ==
<!-- Always begin section with a description of this lesson in relation to the course as a whole. -->
Near the end of the course, we introduce some techniques for group decision making that have seen some real-world success. Denver Bullet Study exemplifies the division of a contentious issue into facts and values in such a way that the community was able to come to a more generally satisfying decision than initially seemed possible.
 
<!-- Expandable section relating this lesson to other lessons. -->
{{Expand|Relation to Other Lessons|
'''Earlier Lessons'''
{{ContextLesson|1.1 Introduction and When Is Science Relevant}}
{{ContextRelation|Facts and values of an issue are distinguished in the Denver Bullet Study method. Facts are evaluated by experts, while values are decided by polling stakeholders.}}
{{ContextLesson|5.2 Scientific Optimism}}
{{ContextRelation|Even as the public seem to have reached an impasse on a contentious issue, there are still techniques that can be used to reach a consensus, or at least find a solution that addresses the priorities of a larger number of stakeholders.}}
{{Line}}
'''Later Lessons'''
{{ContextLesson|13.2 Deliberative Polling}}
{{ContextRelation|Another technique for group decision making in which experts and stakeholders are involved and facts and values are distinguished. Through group deliberation punctuated by Q&A with an expert panel, it aims to predict the change in public opinion if the public were to be more factually informed on a contentious issue, but it does not aim to reach a consensus or directly decide on a policy.}}
}}
== Takeaways ==
 
<tabber>
 
|-|Learning Goals=


After this lesson, students should
After this lesson, students should
<!-- Learning goals are written as a numbered list. -->
# Be optimistic that a community can come together to make a decision, even when people begin with heterogeneous values and beliefs.
# Be optimistic that a community can come together to make a decision, even when people begin with heterogeneous values and beliefs.
# Be able to identify the stakeholders and experts and distinguish between the values and facts of an issue.
# Be able to identify the stakeholders and experts and distinguish between the values and facts of an issue.


=== Definitions ===
|-|Definitions=


* '''Stakeholders'''
<!-- Definitions must be written with the Definition and Subdefinition templates. The first Definition should have the "first=yes" flag at the end. -->
*: The set of people who have a stake in the outcome of a decision. This can include people who will implement the decision and all the people affected by it.
{{Definition|Stakeholders|The set of people who have a stake in the outcome of a decision. This can include people who will implement the decision and all the people affected by it.|first=yes}}
* '''Experts'''
{{Definition|Experts|The set of people who have the most knowledge/information/expertise about the facts relevant to the decision, generally by virtue of having spent the most time and effort learning about the topic.}}
*: The set of people who have the most knowledge/information/expertise about the facts relevant to the decision, generally by virtue of having spent the most time and effort learning about the topic.
{{Definition|Denver Bullet Study|An experiment in group deliberation in which a community came together to share values and knowledge to make a decision about what kind of bullet the Denver Police should use, which had enough stopping power to keep cops safe but was not so harmful as to cause unnecessary damage to citizens (as did classic hollow bullets).}}
* '''Denver Bullet Study'''
<br />
*: An experiment in group deliberation in which a community came together to share values and knowledge to make a decision about what kind of bullet the Denver Police should use, which had enough stopping power to keep cops safe but was not so harmful as to cause unnecessary damage to citizens (as did classic hollow bullets).


=== Common Misconceptions ===
|-|Common Misconceptions=


* ''The town should vote on whether they think these windmills kill seabirds or cause loud noise.''
<!-- Misconceptions must be written with the Misconception template. The first Misconception should have the "first=yes" flag at the end. -->
*: These are factual factors that most stakeholders (townspeople) would not have informed opinions on. Instead, they should be evaluated by relevant experts. Stakeholders can then vote (or put numerical weights) on how much they value the lives of seabirds or quietness.
{{Misconception|The town should vote on whether they think these windmills kill seabirds or cause loud noise.|These are factual factors that most stakeholders (townspeople) would not have informed opinions on. Instead, they should be evaluated by relevant experts. Stakeholders can then vote (or put numerical weights) on how much they value the lives of seabirds or quietness.|first=yes}}
* ''We should just let the experts make all the decisions.''
{{Misconception|We should just let the experts make all the decisions.|It is important to involve the public (or relevant stakeholders) in making group decisions, as factual evaluation must be combined with a group's values judgment (of what they deem important). Experts can give their evaluation of factual matters, but they may not represent the values of the stakeholders.}}
*: It is important to involve the public (or relevant stakeholders) in making group decisions, as factual evaluation must be combined with a group's values judgment (of what they deem important). Experts can give their evaluation of factual matters, but they may not represent the values of the stakeholders.


== Context ==
|-|Expanded Learning Goals=


Near the end of the course, we introduce some techniques for group decision making that have seen some real-world success. Denver Bullet Study exemplifies the division of a contentious issue into facts and values.
After this lesson, students should
 
# Attitudes
=== Before ===
## Be optimistic that a community can come together to make a decision, even when people begin with heterogeneous values and beliefs.
 
# Concept Acquisition
: '''[[1.1 Introduction and When Is Science Relevant]]'''
## '''Stakeholders:''' The set of people who have a stake in the outcome of a decision. This can include people who will implement the decision and all the people affected by it.
:: Facts and values of an issue are distinguished in the Denver Bullet Study method. Facts are evaluated by experts, while values are decided by polling stakeholders.
## '''Experts:''' The set of people who have the most knowledge/information/expertise about the facts relevant to the decision.
: '''[[5.2 Scientific Optimism]]'''
## '''Denver Bullet Study:''' An experiment in group deliberation in which a community came together to share values and knowledge to make a decision about what kind of bullet the Denver Police should use, which had enough stopping power to keep cops safe but was not so harmful as to cause unnecessary damage to citizens (as did classic hollow bullets).
:: Even as the public seem to have reached an impasse on a contentious issue, there are still techniques that can be used to reach a consensus.
# Concept Application
 
## Identify relevant stakeholders.
=== After ===
## Identify relevant questions of fact for which experts can be consulted.
 
## Identify problems for which the Denver Bullet Study approach would be helpful.
: '''[[13.2 Deliberative Polling]]'''
## Describe a Denver Bullet Study approach to solving a novel problem.
:: Another technique for group decision making in which experts and stakeholders are involved and facts and values are distinguished. Through group deliberation punctuated by Q&A with an expert panel, it aims to predict the change in public opinion if the public were to be more factually informed on a contentious issue, but it does not aim to reach a consensus or directly decide on a policy.
 
== Recommended Outline ==
 
=== Before Class ===
 
* [Any essential logistical things that need to be done for this class]
* Prepare a seating chart.
* Review PlayPosit and discussion questions and ask faculty, Gabriel, or Emlen any questions you have.
* (Optional) Prepare a presentation.
 
=== During Class ===
 
* (5 min) Come up with some fun way to assign the roles of spokesperson and notetaker (e.g. earliest birthday in the year, lives furthest from campus). Remind them of the responsibilities of these roles.
* (10 min) Go through the [[#Review Questions|review questions]].
* (20 min) Have the students work through [[#Part 1: Diagraming the Study|part 1]] of the Glorin-Fuilder study.
* (20 min) Have the students work through [[#Part 2: Finishing the Study|part 2]] of the Glorin-Fuilder study.
* (20 min) Lead the students through the [[#Campus Development|campus development]] discussion.
* (5 min) Have the students answer the [[#Final Question|final question]].
 
=== After Class ===
 
* Collect answers from notetakers for the forum / plenary.
 
== Lesson Content ==
 
=== Review Questions ===
 
# Should we just let experts make all the decisions in society? Why or why not?
# What is the role of values in the Denver Bullet Study?
# What is the role of facts in the Denver Bullet Study?
# How does the Denver Bullet Study synthesize facts and values in arriving at a group decision?{{Caution|This is a common quiz question!}}
# Suppose all policy decisions were made in a process like the Denver Bullet Study. Would such a country be a democracy or an epistocracy?
 
=== Part 1: Diagraming the Study ===
 
==== Background ====
 
Suppose you are the advisor to Prince Kumperdinck of Glorin, who is trying to develop an agreement with the neighboring nation, Fuilder.
 
The bakers of Glorin, who live close to the Glorin-Fuilder border, have been repeatedly disrupted by Fuilder’s tendency to launch loud, bright fireworks late at night (this makes it difficult for the bakers to get up early to prepare the day’s bread). The bakers of Glorin believe that the residents of Fuilder should only be allowed to use small, silent sparklers, such as the “Warm Greetings''.
 
The residents of Fuilder consider this solution inconceivable, because launching true fireworks each night is part of their cultural tradition and helps maintain the happiness of the nation. They have been using the “Fire Tornado” for over 100 years since its invention and they don’t want to relinquish such flamboyance that represents their culture.
 
There is rising tension between the citizens of Glorin and Fuilder, as neither side is willing to back down. Thinking back to your favorite class in advisor school, you recall a decision-making technique that involved integration of facts and values to come to a compromise in a similar scenario (the Denver Bullet Study). Prince Kumperdinck puts you in charge of implementing this technique. Your hope is that you can select a kind of firework that will make both parties optimally satisfied.
 
==== Questions ====
 
# Suppose you are a citizen of one of the two towns. What are some of the factors of these fireworks that you might be concerned about?
# The actual citizens of Glorin and Fuilder have been polled on this question. It turns out that the two dominant factors they care about are loudness and brightness. Create a diagram based on the one used for the Denver Bullet Study. Fill the diagram with different
 
Stakeholders make a list of factors they care about. These are the brown squares in column two. The stakeholders assign weights based on how much they care about each of these factors. Then experts make a list of measurable quantities that contribute to the factors the stakeholders are concerned with. These are column one. The experts are blinded as to how much the stakeholders care about each of the items in column two. Then ''you'' determine the best final outcome.
 
=== Part 2: Finishing the Study ===
 
{{Caution|Students are often surprised by the need to do arithmetic in this lesson. Make sure to remind them of the meaning of the numbers on the handout and be on the lookout for anyone that seems lost.}}
 
==== Discuss Relevant Stakeholders ====
 
Discuss who the relevant stakeholders and experts are in this situation and describe their roles in the decision-making process. (Note: you are not inventing a decision-making process. You are implementing the process discussed in class for integrating facts and values, exemplified by the Denver Bullet Study.)
 
Now that you have the different criteria for the fireworks, you decided to conduct a survey among the citizens to get their preferences of each criteria. You ask them on a scale of -10 to 10, how much they like loud or bright fireworks. 10 is the highest preference while -10 is the lowest preference. A negative number would indicate that they hate loud/bright fireworks. The results of the survey are tabulated below.
 
{| class="wikitable"
|+Citizen's preference based on a survey you conducted:
|-
|
|Goodness of Loudness
|Goodness of Brightness
|-
|Average Fuilder
|1
|10
|-
|Average Glorin
|&minus;10*
|1
|}
 
{{Caution|*Negative because people in Fuilder people really hate loud fireworks. They would prefer the opposite of loudness.}}
 
At the same time, your colleague spent time with the firework experts and got some physical measurements of the available fireworks. The numbers are normalized so that 10 means the most loud/bright and 1 means the least loud/bright. The results are tabulated below.
 
{| class="wikitable"
|+Available fireworks measured by experts:
|-
|
|Loudness Measured
|Brightness Measured
|-
|Fire Tornado
|8
|10
|-
|Warm Greetings
|2
|3
|-
|Happy Flower
|5
|6
|-
|Dancing Butterfly
|4
|9
|}
 
==== Complete the Table ====
 
 
{| class="wikitable floatright"
|+Fill the following table:
|-
|
|Total Goodness for Fuilder
|Total Goodness for Glorin
|Total Goodness for All
|-
|Fire Tornado
|
|
|
|-
|Warm Greetings
|
|
|
|-
|Happy Flower
|
|
|
|-
|Dancing Butterfly
|
|
|
|}
# Use the preferences given (see the two tables above) to fill out the table on the right.
# Which firework would you choose if you are a person from Fuilder? Which would you choose if you are from Glorin?
# Which firework would you choose as an advisor for the prince?
# Explain how this technique produces/outputs an optimal type of firework.
 
=== Campus Development ===
 
{{Caution|In its smallest form this is a small group activity. But, it could potentially be expanded to a large course-wide activity in a future iteration.}}
 
There are talks of developing the Oxford Field Track (a large plot of land owned by UC Berkeley in Northside near downtown). It currently holds farms, greenhouses, and other research facilities for the College of Natural Resources. Suppose you are a campus administrator tasked with using a method like that of the Denver Bullet Study to determine which of the following development proposals to adopt.
# Leave the land as is for CNR.
# Build high density student housing on it.
# Turn the land into a public park.
# Build academic buildings to hold classrooms and offices.
 
Following the Denver Bullet Study method, answer the following questions in small groups.
# Who are the stakeholders?
# Who might the experts be?
# List some consequences of the above plans that the stakeholders might value.
# How might the experts determine the consequences of each proposal?
 
=== Final Question ===


What is a potential policy decision that you ''could not'' decide with a Denver Bullet Study method?
</tabber>


{{#restricted:{{Private:13.1 Denver Bullet Study}}}}
{{NavCard|chapter=Lesson plans|text=All lesson plans|prev=12.2 Grill the Guest|next=13.2 Deliberative Polling}}
[[Category:Lesson plans]]
[[Category:Lesson plans]]

Latest revision as of 23:53, 11 June 2026

The Denver Bullet Study offers one approach to integrating facts and values in a controversial real-world problem, drawing facts from a set of experts, gauging the values of different stakeholders, and bringing these together for a final decision.

The Lesson in Context

Near the end of the course, we introduce some techniques for group decision making that have seen some real-world success. Denver Bullet Study exemplifies the division of a contentious issue into facts and values in such a way that the community was able to come to a more generally satisfying decision than initially seemed possible.

Earlier Lessons

1.1 Introduction and When Is Science Relevant
  • Facts and values of an issue are distinguished in the Denver Bullet Study method. Facts are evaluated by experts, while values are decided by polling stakeholders.
5.2 Scientific Optimism
  • Even as the public seem to have reached an impasse on a contentious issue, there are still techniques that can be used to reach a consensus, or at least find a solution that addresses the priorities of a larger number of stakeholders.

Later Lessons

13.2 Deliberative Polling
  • Another technique for group decision making in which experts and stakeholders are involved and facts and values are distinguished. Through group deliberation punctuated by Q&A with an expert panel, it aims to predict the change in public opinion if the public were to be more factually informed on a contentious issue, but it does not aim to reach a consensus or directly decide on a policy.

Takeaways

After this lesson, students should

  1. Be optimistic that a community can come together to make a decision, even when people begin with heterogeneous values and beliefs.
  2. Be able to identify the stakeholders and experts and distinguish between the values and facts of an issue.

Stakeholders

The set of people who have a stake in the outcome of a decision. This can include people who will implement the decision and all the people affected by it.

Experts

The set of people who have the most knowledge/information/expertise about the facts relevant to the decision, generally by virtue of having spent the most time and effort learning about the topic.

Denver Bullet Study

An experiment in group deliberation in which a community came together to share values and knowledge to make a decision about what kind of bullet the Denver Police should use, which had enough stopping power to keep cops safe but was not so harmful as to cause unnecessary damage to citizens (as did classic hollow bullets).


The town should vote on whether they think these windmills kill seabirds or cause loud noise.

These are factual factors that most stakeholders (townspeople) would not have informed opinions on. Instead, they should be evaluated by relevant experts. Stakeholders can then vote (or put numerical weights) on how much they value the lives of seabirds or quietness.

We should just let the experts make all the decisions.

It is important to involve the public (or relevant stakeholders) in making group decisions, as factual evaluation must be combined with a group's values judgment (of what they deem important). Experts can give their evaluation of factual matters, but they may not represent the values of the stakeholders.

After this lesson, students should

  1. Attitudes
    1. Be optimistic that a community can come together to make a decision, even when people begin with heterogeneous values and beliefs.
  2. Concept Acquisition
    1. Stakeholders: The set of people who have a stake in the outcome of a decision. This can include people who will implement the decision and all the people affected by it.
    2. Experts: The set of people who have the most knowledge/information/expertise about the facts relevant to the decision.
    3. Denver Bullet Study: An experiment in group deliberation in which a community came together to share values and knowledge to make a decision about what kind of bullet the Denver Police should use, which had enough stopping power to keep cops safe but was not so harmful as to cause unnecessary damage to citizens (as did classic hollow bullets).
  3. Concept Application
    1. Identify relevant stakeholders.
    2. Identify relevant questions of fact for which experts can be consulted.
    3. Identify problems for which the Denver Bullet Study approach would be helpful.
    4. Describe a Denver Bullet Study approach to solving a novel problem.

Additional Content

You must be logged in to see this content.

⟨

All lesson plans

⟨

Previous

12.2 Grill the Guest

⟩

Next

13.2 Deliberative Polling

Retrieved from "https://sensibility.gpe.fyi/index.php?title=13.1_Denver_Bullet_Study&oldid=8622"