Facilitate decision-making through analyzing the probabilities of a ‘Better Future.’ Consider this:
To Buy a House for family Reunion or not to Buy
Results (shortened):
Thesis T: Buy the house
T+1: Family & Unity
T+2: Space for Kids
T+3: Smart & Reliable Investment
Antithesis A: Don’t buy
A+1: Clear ownership
A+2: Flexible & Transparent terms
A+3: Save & Renovate
Probabilities of a ‘Better Future’:
T and T+1 (P1): 0.9 – Buying the house for family unity is very complementary.
T and T+2 (P2): 0.8 – Buying the house to provide space for kids also aligns well.
T and T+3 (P3): 0.7 – If the investment is smart and reliable, it complements the decision to buy.
T and A (P4): 0.2 – These are fundamentally opposed ideas.
T and A+1 (P5): 0.3 – Buying a house while desiring clear ownership isn’t fully aligned, as the land is leased.
T and A+2 (P6): 0.4 – Wanting flexibility and transparent terms could somewhat complement buying, but not strongly.
T and A+3 (P7): 0.1 – Wanting to save money directly opposes the investment in buying.
T+1 and T+2 (P8): 0.7 – Family unity and space for kids are complementary.
T+1 and T+3 (P9): 0.6 – Family unity and a smart investment can go hand in hand but may not always.
T+1 and A (P10): 0.1 – Family unity opposes the idea of not buying.
T+1 and A+1 (P11): 0.3 – Clear ownership doesn’t necessarily mean family unity.
T+1 and A+2 (P12): 0.4 – Family unity could be facilitated with flexible & transparent terms.
T+1 and A+3 (P13): 0.2 – Family unity isn’t strongly related to saving money.
T+2 and T+3 (P14): 0.7 – Space for kids and a smart investment can be complementary.
T+2 and A (P15): 0.2 – Providing space for kids opposes not buying the house.
T+2 and A+1 (P16): 0.3 – Clear ownership doesn’t necessarily ensure space for kids.
T+2 and A+2 (P17): 0.4 – Flexible terms could potentially benefit the kids.
T+2 and A+3 (P18): 0.2 – Space for kids isn’t strongly related to saving money.
T+3 and A (P19): 0.1 – A smart investment opposes the idea of not buying.
T+3 and A+1 (P20): 0.4 – A smart investment could potentially be compatible with clear ownership.
T+3 and A+2 (P21): 0.5 – Transparent terms could complement a smart investment.
T+3 and A+3 (P22): 0.3 – Saving money doesn’t align well with making a big investment.
A and A+1 (P23): 0.9 – Not buying and having clear ownership are complementary.
A and A+2 (P24): 0.8 – Not buying aligns with having flexibility and transparent terms.
A and A+3 (P25): 0.9 – Not buying and saving money are highly complementary.
A+1 and A+2 (P26): 0.7 – Clear ownership and transparent terms can go hand in hand.
A+1 and A+3 (P27): 0.6 – Clear ownership and saving money may or may not be complementary.
A+2 and A+3 (P28): 0.7 – Flexible & transparent terms and saving money can be complementary.
Cumulative Probabilities of Synthesis (CP) in decreasing order:
T: Buy the house (0.8, 0.3)*, CP = 54.9
A: Don’t buy (0.1, 0.9), CP = 54.0
A+2: Transparent terms (0.4, 0.7), CP = 53.2
A+1: Clear ownership (0.3, 0.7), CP = 51.4
T+3: Smart Investment (0.65, 0.4), CP = 50.5
A+3: Save & Renovate (0.2, 0.7), CP = 47.5
T+2: Space for Kids (0.7, 0.3), CP = 47.4
T+1: Family & Unity (0.65, 0.3), CP = 45.9
* In parentheses: (P(T+), P(A+)) – average probabilities of synthesis with T+ and A+, respectively
CP = 100 * (1 – SQRT (((1 – P(T+))^2 + (1 – P(A+))^2)/2)).
All points fall within the Gray Area (refer to the plots above), making it challenging to arrive at clear-cut decisions. Nevertheless, the given order highlights the relatively greater significance of A+2 (Transparent terms) and A+1 (Clear ownership) when compared to the other statements.