The Paradox of Compromise Style and Decision-Making

This case study primarily focuses on the Instinct Component and process development beyond Decision-Making Mechanisms within the Subconscious Component and how Protocols in Genetic Codes behind different types of Instances can impact a compromising style for finding a solution.

Synthetic profiles explore comparing Sequential map-matching Genetic Codes beyond the different classes of Instances. The exploration analysis initiates with a compromising style for attempting to detect a point of a solution. Two case study scenarios can be selected for testing among many options. It involves multiple instances of Genetic Codes beyond Instincts within the Conscious Component.  

Analytical Options can involve two people encountering a chaotic situation in Social Contexts, and they need to decide by compromising strategy to prevent chaos in a crisis. This paper can reduce various compromise styles because of time constraints. 

1- The first case study: 

Men and Women with similar genetic factors, environmental Influences, and a typical Superego Adjuster can decide possible events. 

Men and Women can encounter stressful or dangerous situations. Survival Instincts call designated Instincts for available resolutions. They need to compromise and make a typical decision to avoid chaos. Genetic Instinct and Gender Instinct may modify Survival Instincts through Secondary Instinct. 

The output of the Instinct Component in Decision-Making Pattern is a combination of Genetic, Gender, and General Instinct Codes. The First Map (Figure1)

Similar Genetic Instinct Codes and homogeneous Environmental factors can generate analogical attributes in the Decision-Making Process. Dissimilar Gender Instincts in Subconscious Component may function and show Heterogeneous Attributes in Decision Outputs. (Figure 1)

                                                                          

 

 

The First Map would probably encapsulate Analogical Attributes for Genetic and General Instinct. But Non-analogical Attributes encapsulate Gender Instinct. (Figure 2)

The Algorithmic Structure within The First Map interacts with instance parameters of the Superego and Ego environment. 

Homogeneous Environmental factors imply a typical Superego Adjuster, which indicates a Homogeneous Superego. It refers to common principles and values, similar Genetic Instincts, and Heterogeneous Gender Instincts within the Second Map. Therefore, the Second Map contains A Friendly Compromise Negotiation Style. (Figure 2)

                                                                                        

                                                    

2- The second case study:

Two Men can select with Genetic Diversity from a similar Competitive Environment, which perpetuates Heterogeneous Superego Adjuster. They can decide by compromising strategy through the following scenario analysis and possible events: 

An unsafe environment in a dangerous situation can occur in Competitive Social Contexts. Consequently, the Survival Instinct is called the Network of Competitive Instinct in the Conscious Component. 

The output of the Genetic Instinct can produce and perpetuate Heterogeneous Genetic traits. Gender and General Instinct generate Homogeneous Instinct Codes. (Figure 3)

Two Men can hardly compromise because of the low Superego Adjuster and Heterogeneous Genetic Instincts. Therefore, there is a low chance of having common principles and similar algorithms within the Superego Framework. The lack of a Superego Adjuster within the Social Context can fortify and strengthen the Ego functioning. The Superego would have wicked cognitive functioning. Harmonic Balance and regular mediation between Superego and Ego can deteriorate Ego functioning and environmental factors. Finally, a Compromise Style may attenuate in a possible encounter scenario, Although Homogeneous Gender Instinct Codes can provide common Principles and Norms. (Figure 3)

Two Men with different principles and values can compromise because of their interests or advantages (Political Strategies). Decision-Making Patterns and Logical Inferences can describe how these two men are on the path of a Bad Compromise style.

                                                                               

                                                                              

 

The good and bad Compromise Styles can be identified and compared through encapsulated attributes within the Conscious Component. Analogical Instincts can accommodate collaboration mapping and instantiate the Network of Cooperative Instincts for supporting Compromise Style. (Figure 4) 

The first case study shows the minimum requirements for Optimal Compromise Mapping. The second case study barely shows any need to fulfill the Optimal Compromise Style. Politicians used to engage with this type of Compromise Mapping. Therefore, they need more confidence in their unreliable Compromises. Common Competitive Instincts between two compromisers can generate Super-sized Hypocrisy in their Subconscious Components. Hypocrisy Instinct and Instance Instincts can obstruct Superego strength, empower the Ego Framework, and attenuate the Harmonic Balance between Superego and Ego Framework.

                                                                             

Observation:

Gender Instincts for men in specific Culture is significant circumstances to an agreement. It can ensure the reliability of the Compromising Style, regardless of the number of Homogeneous Instinct Codes between two partners.

Observation:

Systems Owners can sometimes explore the Hypocrisy Instinct for reducing costs, a competitive advantage, and maximizing Harmonic Balance in Social Contexts. However, they would hardly target possible side-effects of Invisible Hypocrisy Mode.

Observation:

According to an observational study, one of the main reasons the human race can create on the earth is to develop and improve the harmonious balance between Superego and Ego in the Conscious Component of the evolutionary path of life. 

 

Observation:

Harmonic Balance between Ego and Superego determines Harmonic Balance in Decision Making and Social Behavior. 

Specific Genetic Instincts and instance parameters in Social Contexts can modify the property of the Ego/Superego. Humans hardly have control over Genetic Instincts and instance parameters in Social Contexts. Therefore, they can only change the Harmonic Balance in Ego /Superego with interference from External Entities. 

 

Observation:

Common-sense beliefs can modify the characteristics of Human Nature and Social Life. Because Humans can hardly predict and evaluate possible side-effects of common sense in Social Contexts.

 

Observation:

The mechanism of Instincts is preprogrammed genetically. Therefore, Making Decisions and Social Cognition Processes can function according to algorithmic codes beyond Instincts. Systems Owners and Modern Humans can modify algorithmic parameters because of Global Competition, Economic Performances, and many other Complex Strategies.