Naturalistic Decision-Making in Intentional Communities: Insights from Youth, Disabled Persons, and Children on Achieving United Nations Sustainable Development Goals for Equality, Peace, and Justice

Abstract

The seventeen UN SDGs address critical global challenges. Among them, Goal 10—reducing inequality—and Goal 16—promoting peace, justice, and strong institutions—serve as foundational pillars in democracies, enabling the achievement of all other goals. Children, youth, and persons with disabilities are among those who stand to benefit most from these goals. Insights from the naturalistic decision-making practices of intentional communities, often framed as Contenders or Deviants in social construction theory, could be instrumental in advancing these objectives. This study examines the decision-making practices of three intentional communities representing youth, disabled persons, and children, each fostering a different version of equitable, peaceful, and justice-oriented governance to build strong institutions. The communities studied include a self-producing Korean popular music (K-pop) group representing youth Contenders, a mental health-supporting annual English conference for individuals on the autistic spectrum, and a Canadian alternative education, self-directed public senior elementary and secondary school—both considered Deviant societies in social construction theory, one focusing on disabled persons and the other on children. The historical method assesses the effectiveness of these communities’ preferred practices in achieving Goals 10 and 16. The results offer actionable insights for enhancing equality, peace, and justice while strengthening institutions to realize the full range of UN SDGs in democratic societies.

1. Introduction

The seventeen 2015 United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) focus on a better, more inclusive, and more sustainable future for all by addressing global challenges [1]. The goals can be grouped conceptually [2,3]. One productive division of these goals requires only four categories (see

Table 1. Numbered UN Sustainable Goals Conceptually Divided into Four Categories. A “⬜️” Represents the Category Under Which a UN Sustainable Goal is Assigned.

#	UN Sustainable Goals	Human Interaction	Standard of Living	Organizational Structures	Planetary Care
1	No poverty		⬜️
2	Zero hunger		⬜️
3	Good health and well-being		⬜️
4	Quality education		⬜️
5	Gender equality		⬜️
6	Clean water and sanitation			⬜️
7	Affordable and clean energy			⬜️
8	Decent work and economic growth			⬜️
9	Industry, innovation, and infrastructure			⬜️
10	Reduced inequalities	⬜️
11	Sustainable cities and communities			⬜️
12	Responsible consumption and production				⬜️
13	Climate action				⬜️
14	Life below water				⬜️
15	Life on land				⬜️
16	Peace, justice, and strong institutions	⬜️
17	Partnerships			⬜️

). Although perhaps all of the SDGs pertain to the four categories of human interaction, standard of living, organizational structure, and planetary care, the purpose of categorizing them is to identify the most salient feature of a particular SDG. Among the goals, Goal 10 and Goal 16 focus on social constructs by representing what defines culture. In this way, they are foundational to the others in democracies [4]. Yet, by numbering them as 10 and 16, the UN has placed them neither as the first two goals nor related to each other. This lack of a primary relationship between these two goals in the SDG listing neglects the significant synergy between them—identified as fundamental for maintaining democratic institutions [5]. Although they may appear less urgent [6] when considering the SDGs more broadly, without assigning priority to these two goals for maintaining a democratic society, achieving the other goals in democracies is unlikely [7,8]. Consequently, to support democratic institutions, the most urgent need to meet the SDGs is arguably finding solutions to Goals 10 [9] and 16 [10].

In democracies, people can attempt to manage their political, economic, environmental, and social affairs directly or indirectly [11]. In representational democracies, “decision events” are the focus of decision-making [12]. With decision events, decision-making is a problem-solving activity that produces a solution judged as satisfactory by participants but not necessarily optimal. Decision events result from choosing among alternatives [13]. In most democratic societies, the salient feature of the problem-solving activity producing the decision event is equal participation through voting for distinct options [14]. Competition generally characterizes voting in representational decision-making, with the decision event resulting from some form of majority rule [15]. Participants do not act cooperatively [16], minority perspectives are not represented by the decision event [17], and only those deemed competent adults have the right to participate in decision-making [18]. As, over a decade ago, losing in a representational vote was found to be the primary reason for a lack of satisfaction with democracy [19], the potential value of other decision-making practices that do not center on decision events for sustaining democracy requires consideration. Consideration can be given to other options because representational voting in democracies has these limitations but democracy itself does not. Assessing the value of cooperation and permitting all to participate in decision-making—including minorities and those considered incompetent—directs this investigation of the division of human interaction provided in Table 1 regarding SGDs 10 and 16.

Regarding human interaction within democratic societies, certain groups of people require more substantial change to meet these goals: those considered by society to have poor mental health regarding expected cultural standards [20,21]. This result is because they are evaluated as incompetent to participate in or determine the decision event of representational voting. In this context, representational democracies define what is mentally healthy as the actions and beliefs of “normal” adults. These are those who competitively strive to meet and maintain cultural standards through their representational voting [22]. With a significant percentage of the population thus deemed mentally unhealthy, there is a tension between individual behavior change and social determinants that identify the type of focus on mental health in representational democracies. In this regard, mental health can relate to several dichotomies. These include mental health compared with mental well-being, individual contrasted with collective outcomes, or standardized versus contextualized mental health delivery. In considering all members of a democratic society, there has been an increasing focus on complexity to guide the design and implementation principles for mental health promotion [23] toward “complexity-informed health promotion” relevant to the SDGs [24]. Mental health in this study represents a complexity, as the aim is to learn from the decision-making of intentional communities governed by those excluded from democratic representational decision-making.

Groups that do not meet the socially accepted standards of mental health are those with a socially enforced inability to make decisions independently. They include children, youth [25], and those experiencing disabilities [26]—understanding that every disability is different and the experience of disability is according to culture, social class, gender, and ethnicity [27], where some judged disabled are more dependent on social support than others [28]. Given their low social status in a democratic society, any member-devised decision-making practices of children, youth, or those experiencing disabilities are unanticipated by society [29]. They are particularly unexpected if these devised practices promote the complexity of the mental health of their group members and do so in making these groups sustainable. These practices are relevant to consider because the demand for participation of these groups in democratic decision-making continues to grow [30,31]. Furthermore, when these accomplishments reduce inequality, encourage group peace, promote justice, and create strong institutions—Goals 10 and 16—they should be investigated, made public, and possibly emulated by the larger culture. Considering such successful decision-making practices of these groups may provide the foundation for meeting all the United Nations SDGs in democracies.

Given that SDGs 10 and 16 focus on human interaction as social constructs—recognizing the significance of democracy to sustainability [32]—it is relevant to consider children, youth, and those experiencing disability regarding Goals 10 and 16 from the perspective of a framework called social construction theory. Although this theory has a history stretching back to the 1960s [33], in 1993, Schneider and Ingram developed their version of social construction theory to improve political and policy decisions in democracies [34]. Their theory is considered sophisticated regarding the inter-relationships between governance modes and target group behavior [35] (p. 28). This type of sophistication provides the reason for selecting this version of social construction theory as most appropriate to interpret SDGs 10 and 16 in democracies. In assessing the decision-making practices of children, youth, and those with disabilities, this version of social construction theory was recently employed concerning children and youth [36,37] and those with disabilities [38,39].

Regarding social construction theory, children, youth, and those experiencing disabilities in various ways are socially dependent [40]. Related to their power to effect change in society, they are weak. At the same time, they are considered good, innocent, and deserving of help by society. Since they are unlikely to mobilize against society, they assume the position of Dependents [34,40]. As Dependents in social construction theory, children, youth, and individuals with disabilities have low participation in society, few rewards, and the over-represented burdens they face are accepted by them “for their own good”. They do not receive encouragement nor are they given support to devise solutions to problems. According to Schneider and Ingram, social policy in democracies is designed to keep them weak [40].

Dependents represent one of the four constructions of social construction theory. Another equates ‘the normal’ and ‘the common good’ with those who shape the foundation of democracies. This position is labeled the Advantaged [41], defining those who have significant democratic power, are viewed positively by society, and enforce the rules for the care of Dependents [34]. Society endorses that policies related to them concern the deserving. Unlike either Dependents or Advantaged, two other social constructions are viewed negatively in democracies [34]. One is Contenders. They are those seen to strive for more than society considers their fair share [37]. Their success depends on their accurate understanding of how society works—through money, connections, knowledge, or skills—taking advantage of any ambiguities or inadequacies in rules. When successful, they increase their power. If they achieve it, society considers it undeserved. Yet, because they know how to perform well in society, they still receive exceptional rewards for their accomplishments based on their skills [34]. Finally, there are the Deviants. They are those with less power and fewer resources than Dependents, but, unlike them, they are unwilling to accept their powerless position. Instead, they self-direct to gain control but do so in a manner unsupported by society. At best, Deviants are left free in society. Any attempts to change them are through authoritarian means rather than by reconsidering possible structural social inequities that require their remaining Deviants [34].

In considering the SDGs, there has been recent interest in the ability of intentional communities to provide models for how these goals can be met [42,43]. Intentional communities are groups of people that form for an agreed-upon purpose, choosing to live [44] (p. 181) or work [45] (p. 268) in close proximity to achieve their desired end. What makes them unique is that they choose close engagement beyond traditional or family ties. Intentional communities are unique in accepting and supporting members’ personally determined values in their attempt at democratic cooperation [45]. They are, for example, the foundation of ecovillages focused on sustainable development [46]. Although rare [47], a 2020 study found them increasingly developed in the USA and Europe to revive responsible interaction and binding commonality [48].

Regarding the decision-making to settle interpersonal conflict, the defining demo-cratic feature of any intentional community is a rejection of the idea that one person can represent others. As such, all members must be involved directly in decision-making [49]. Consequently, intentional communities support Goal 10 of reduced inequality by their very nature. The reason is that decisions cannot result until those affected by a decision participate, considering everyone’s needs in some manner [50]. In doing so, they create strong community ties, promoting peace and justice—Goal 16. How the Advantaged in society respond to these intentional communities determines if they are considered Contenders or Deviants. If judged unique, deserving of exceptional rewards, but not trusted as part of the Advantaged, they are Contenders. On the other hand, if they continue with society’s permission because they remain non-threatening to the Advantaged, they are recognized as Deviants.

Intentional communities use a form of decision-making to solve their problems called naturalistic decision-making. As advocated in 1996 [51], the 1993 work of Orasanu and Connolly defined the boundaries of naturalistic decision-making occurring in real-world situations [12]. From their research, naturalistic decision-making is advisable regarding the following problems: those that are ill-structured, uncertain, occurring in dynamic environments, shifting, have ill-defined or competing goals, multiple event–feedback loops, time constraints, high stakes, several players, or organizational norms and goals balanced against participant’s personal choice. These various instances when naturalistic decision-making is effective are those that circumscribe it by determining those concerns likely to direct decision-making strategies and in what manner [51]. What is most fundamental to naturalistic decision-making is the experience of the community in making such decisions [52]. In this regard, rather than balancing one option against another, as in democratic decision-making focused on a decision event, there is a situation assessment of the problem through a single option. An evaluation of the possible outcome requires the mental construction of a timeline. The option is acceptable if, following it to culmination, the community considers the result satisfactory [53]. As such, naturalistic decision-making depends on a decision process [12].

These traits of naturalistic decision-making will guide the historical analysis undertaken by this study. An understanding of the decision-making practices of the three intentional communities will come from following the course of action taken by members of three intentional communities over time.

Investigating and comparing the decision-making practices adhered to by three unique intentional communities representing those considered to lack mental health by the Advantaged—one a Contender, and two others, Deviants in social construction theory—regarding Goals 10 and 16 is the purpose of this study. The selection of these intentional communities was for the following reasons:

(1)

They represent the types of Dependents in social construction theory considered to need more substantial change to meet these goals by the Advantaged;

(2)

Are ongoing;

(3)

Address each of the three limitations of representational decision-making in a democratic society;

(4)

Make decisions in three different ways;

(5)

Have relevant historical records that are public or personally available to the author.

The Contender is a working community of youth dedicated to music creation and performance that has become world-recognized and awarded (to a certain degree). Of the two Deviant societies, one of them organizes decision-making for socializing in a mental-health-challenged minority group (considered as such from both an individual and social perspective, requiring complexity-informed health promotion relevant to the SDGs [24]), and the other is for children learning through self-direction who consider themselves outsiders to standardized education [54]. The Contender has chosen to depend on luck, while the two Deviants have developed different practices. For one, the practice leaves all participants better off, but the outcome is not necessarily ideal. For the other, all must be satisfied with the result. The consideration of each intentional community’s decision-making practice is from the perspective of maintaining the group and the individual mental health of members. The intentional communities are a self-producing Korean popular, or K-pop, music group—Stray Kids, an annual English conference for those self-identifying as on the autistic spectrum—Autscape, and a Canadian self-directed public senior elementary and secondary school—Alpha II Alternative School.

This study represents the first examining three intentional communities for their decision-making practices of groups the Advantaged considers to need the most change in their mental health to meet SDGs 10 and 16. It is also unique in considering SDGs 10 and 16 from the framework of social construction theory regarding the naturalistic decision-making practices of intentional communities. Furthermore, no studies consider this matter from a historical research method. As such, there are no comparable studies to the work undertaken here. The value of this work is that the results provide insights for other communities within democratic societies to adopt similar decision-making practices to improve individual mental health by promoting equality, peace, and justice through strong institutions.

The research questions are as follows:

Q1 What are the common decision-making factors of these three intentional communities in reducing inequality and promoting peace and justice while supporting a strong institution?

Q2 How do the different forms of decision-making of the three intentional communities affect the mental health of the individual members?

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Historical Method

The materials for this study are gathered through the historical method from primary sources, representing first-hand information and relevant supplementary information from publications (often popular sources). The historical method is a system by which a study of present-day events regards past events. The purpose is to explain current questions with an intensive study of the past [55] (p. 78). The historical method differs from psychological research in that there is no research design to produce data. Instead, relevant data are occurrences in the real world [56]. The focus is the creation of a timeline for a process [57]. This method of timeline construction has been found particularly relevant and effective regarding marginalized groups [58]. It applies the scientific method to historical problems based on historical records while recognizing that historical facts are not reproducible, in contrast to laboratory observations [55]. The historical method is an umbrella term for a group of qualitative methods that explore the what, when, why, and how of a past event, depending as much as possible on primary (original) sources as information. Primary sources provide evidence that the event or phenomenon occurred [59]. For the purposes here, these sources include personal files (e.g., emails and blogs), organizational documents, and audio–visual materials (e.g., videos or media coverage) [60]. Supplementary documents provide details regarding the historical event that are unavailable from the primary sources [61].

2.2. Communities Studied

The materials to be the focus of the study are regarding each of the identified intentional communities: Stray Kids, Autscape, and Alpha II Alternative School. Their descriptions follow.

2.2.1. Stray Kids

The members of Stray Kids, a self-producing male K-pop music group of eight youths living together in Seoul, South Korea, represent Contenders in social construction theory. Although the group has achieved fame, the members are still rebels and outsiders to the Advantaged [62,63], and this is what categorizes them as Contenders. JYP Entertainment formed the group in 2017 through a reality TV show [64] from participants personally selected by the then-20-year-old leader of the group [65]. Debuting with their first album in 2018, Stray Kids has had its five most recent albums enter at No. 1 on the Billboard 200 album chart [66], ranking the most popular albums of the week [67]. Known for their humility, earnestness, and empowerment [68], Stray Kids group members depend on their close bonds with each other and with their fans to maintain a continuing sense of “family” [69] in approaching their music and lifestyle from their unique perspective [70]. An example of their lack of acceptance by the Advantaged is that, although Stray Kids is internationally in demand at this time [66], they did not receive a nomination at the 2024 Grammy Awards [71], ignoring that their total US album sales for 2023 were second only to Taylor Swift [72]. That they consider themselves outsiders concerning accepted social norms is something they expressed in a recently recorded interview regarding their new song about the group [73] (29:25–38:33). In striving to accomplish based on their distinctive exacting standards in their music and lifestyle, Stray Kids members remain as Contenders rather than members of the Advantaged [70].

This group is an intentional community based on the values of the group leader to create a community of artists using the JYP K-pop training system—a system that has publicly announced its support of all the SDGs, as identified on the JYP website [74] and, thus Goals 10 and 16. As an intentional community, the primary concern of Stray Kids is making decisions respectful of each member’s interests and abilities in writing, producing, performing, and promoting their music and group. For day-to-day communal living decisions, Stray Kids have adopted luck, usually by playing the necessary number of rounds of Rock Paper Scissors, to find the winner (or loser). Since group cohesion is paramount to Stray Kids, members quickly accept the result, regardless of the outcome. The importance of this game for their decision-making strategy is evident in the first episode of their “2 Kids Show” [75] (15:33) and a 2024 conference they held to assess their strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats [76] (10:34). As well, two self-composed songs (one penned and recorded by an individual group member [77], and the other created by the self-producing team of the group [69] and recorded by the group as a whole) reference the game [78].

2.2.2. Autscape

Autscape is a Deviant group according to social construction theory. It is an organization based in England designed to support and encourage interaction among Europeans self-identifying as on the autistic spectrum. Autscape began planning in 2004 [79] and held its first event in 2005 [80]. Its primary activity has been a yearly three-day conference [80] to help socialize participants, supporting their neurodivergence. This conference has been cited for its significance in increasing the well-being and belonging of autistic individuals [81] through a colored badge system. The purpose is to indicate what permission participants give for their interaction. Autscape provides a structure for those on the autistic spectrum to be treated equally and justly in socialization through a method of peaceful communication. Those who come to Autscape are intentionally searching for this type of access to socialization generally denied to them in society. This unique socialization aim identifies the conference as an intentional community. Although Autscape does not mention the SDGs directly on its website, its decision-making practices promote equality, peace, and justice, aiming to maintain a strong institution, which is the reason for including their decision-making practices as material for this study.

At Autscape, those who do not want to interact with others select to wear a red badge. Those who want to interact, but only if they give their permission, wear a yellow badge. If the participant wants to interact with others but has trouble initiating conversations, the green badge worn indicates permission to begin an interaction with them. Finally, if the person has a white badge or does not wear one, this identifies that they can regulate their interactions. As decorations, if the badge has an orange star, these people may be asked for a hug, a black dot means that these people do not agree to photographs or videos, and a green leaf means that the wearer consents to research that may be undertaken at the conference [82]. It is imperative to the event that everyone respects and acts according to the color of the interaction badges [83]. Socializing decisions result from participants identifying and acting on the color of each person’s badge. In this way, decisions to socialize are made silently through color identification once the meaning of the color is understood. What is unacceptable in this intentional community is not following the intention of the badge’s color when determining how to interact with another participant [79].

2.2.3. Alpha II Alternative School

Alpha II Alternative School, the second Deviant organization according to social construction theory, is a Canadian grade 7–12 Toronto District School Board alternative education school. Alpha II meets the definition of an intentional community because school members uphold the two pillars of the school: self-directed learning in a community based on consensus decision-making, where each person’s point of view is necessary for making school-wide decisions. In contrast to standardized schools, there are no grades, marks, or report cards [84]. The student portfolio supports applications for post-secondary education [85]. Learners evaluate when and how they meet their goals as part of their self-directed learning. Educators act as mentors rather than instructors, providing learner-requested resources [86] (p. 261). Alpha II Alternative School developed its decision-making practices in 2006 with its founding [87]. They have remained the same since then; therefore, they cannot have developed from the 2015 United Nations SDGs. Nevertheless, the practices devised regard advancing equality, peace, and justice while sustaining Alpha II as a strong institution. Consequently, these decision-making practices correspond with Goal 10 and Goal 16 of the SDGs.

Students at Alpha II initiate the conflict resolution process by involving the entire community [88]. The community members present that day sit in a circle and one-by-one state their opinions regarding the conflict. Those who do not have an opinion can opt to pass [89]. As an example, if the decision concerns how to use specific funds for the school, and some people would like to use them for purchasing computer software and others want to buy sewing materials or acquire musical instruments, the discussion will continue until all believe they can agree with the decision—this may include dividing up the funds, finding additional funds from another line item of the budget, or not purchasing anything until all the necessary funds are available to pay for what each person values. The main point is that everyone believes there is no compromise in what they value in making the decision. Those not present on the day of the decision may opt to have the decision reconsidered if they believe there was neglect of their point of view. The process thus begins again until all are satisfied.

2.3. Sources of Materials

The materials from Stray Kids are the results of their playing of Rock Paper Scissors from a 19 July 2024 search on YouTube of “Stray Kids Rock Paper Scissors [year]”. In this game, players simultaneously produce a hand signal indicating their choice of Rock, Paper, or Scissors. The rules are Rock beats Scissors, Paper beats Rock, and Scissors beats Paper. Although generally played by children, this game settles disputes in various official capacities [90]. Reviewing each video regarding whether it featured the group playing Rock Paper Scissors relevant to advancing either Goal 10 or Goal 16 of the SDGs determined its inclusion. Exclusion resulted when the video did not depict the group playing Rock Paper Scissors or if the outcome appeared unrelated to promoting equality, peace, justice, or group stability. The videos examined ranged from the group’s debut in 2018 to the present—representing eleven videos of Stray Kids playing Rock Paper Scissors.

Details of these videos are in

Table 2. Dates, Video Titles [Citation Numbers], and Times of Stray Kids Playing the Rock Paper Scissors Game in Videos Recorded from 2018–2024 and Posted on YouTube.

Date	Video [Citation Number]	Time of Game
28 April 2018	Stray Kids Funny Moment [91]	0:05, 0:42, and 0:43
4 June 2019	Stray Kids Inkigayo Check-in LIVE (episode 1) [94]	7:45
4 June 2019	Stray Kids Inkigayo Check-in LIVE (episode 2) [93]	5:49, 5:59, 6:00, 6:08, 6:09, 6:10, 6:18, 6:35, 6:43, 6:45, 6:48, 6:52, 6:53, 6:54, 7:05, 7:19, 7:23, 7:40, 7:56, 8:26, 8:28, 8:29, 9:10,
16 March 2020	Stray Kids Playing Rock Paper Scissors [95]	0:03–1:59
12 December 2020	Hebohnya Stray Kids Main Hammer Game! [92]	2:57, 3:18, 3:27, 3:31, 3:37, 3:46, 4:40, 4:51, 5:03, 6:13, 6:22, 6:33, 7:30, 7:45, and 7:58
27 October 2021	가위바위보 게임과 스트레이 키즈|Rock Paper Scissors game and Stray Kids [96]	00:07, 00:10
4 May 2023	SKZ Code (episode 35) [97]	17:39, 17:41, 17:42
8 February 2024	2024 SKZ (conference) #1 [76]	10:34, 10:38, 10:40, and 10:45
25 April 2024	SKZ Code (episode 49) [98]	17:30
27 June 2024	SKZ CODE (episode 57) [99]	2:59, 3:08, 3:09, 3:10, 3:17, 3:35, 3:36, and 3:37
17 July 2024	Stray Kids “Language Challenge” on Spotify Indonesia [100]	1:35, and 1:39

. Usually, two people play this game. Therefore, how Stray Kids plays this game with multiple players is instructive. In the first video recording of their playing of Rock Paper Scissors, three participate. Two show Paper and one member shows Rock. The loser is the one who produced Rock [91]. Two remain in the gameplay, and so the method is similar to when two people play, as in five videos [76,91,92,93,94]. In one video [95], the entire episode demonstrates the playing of Rock Paper Scissors among three people, with the right hand of one member playing against the left hand of another—hands losing the first round no longer compete. Ultimately, the game returns to two-on-two in deciding the winner. In the next video, to determine who will pay for food, the game is played by four members [96]. The first round produces no winner. In the second round, three members show Scissors and one Paper—the loser who pays for the food. The next video is of three members playing three times. The first produces no winner; the second, where two show Scissors and one Rock, makes Rock the winner. The two left then play against each other to determine who does the chore no one wants [97]. In a game played by four, three produce Rock and one Paper—the winner [98]. Four play in the following video as well; however, the camera positioning is poor to see the different plays. Only when the play progresses to a game of two for the last three throws are the plays visible [99]. In the final video, all eight members participate [100]. The problem with understanding the gameplay is that the camera angle shows the upper portions of the member’s bodies, revealing only some of their hands, and so there is incomplete information about gameplay with eight. Although the Stray Kids videos do not provide sufficient information on how they play Rock Paper Scissors with multiple players, the World Rock Paper Scissors Association provides instructions on several methods for multi-player games [101]; in their videos, Stray Kids appear to use each method at some time.

For Autscape, the materials are from a recently published study on Autscape, including interviews with participants at Autscape’s yearly event [82]. This article represents a secondary source. Its data are included here for the insights provided by its author regarding Autscape participants. The primary sources are an article by a founder of Autscape [79] and the relevant pages of the Autscape website [80,83,102,103,104,105,106,107].

As one of the co-founders of Alpha II Alternative School, this author has regularly attended school decision-making meetings to settle differences since founding the school in 2007. Furthermore, the author has the minutes of these meetings and access to the founding documents [87]. Some of these materials are private to the school. However, the author has published on Alpha II, and these publications will inform this historical method [85,86,89,108], along with the public website of Alpha II, for this analysis [84,88,109].

2.4. Decision Factors

The investigation concerns developing a timeline of the decision-making practices used by the three intentional communities unique to them. Factors during the process recorded on the timeline represent the constants for all three intentional communities. Included among these constants in the decision-making process is one aspect of Goal 16—strong institutions. The other constant factors are the time it takes to make the decision, the satisfaction of group members with the decision outcome, the outcome support of the personal values of the group members, whether the group prioritizes issues, and whether reconsideration of the result is possible. Each of the three intentional communities must consider these constants during their decision-making process and no others. The development of these constants regards the environmental boundaries specified by Orasanu and Connolly in 1993 [12].

In contrast, the variables relate to Goal 10 (reduced inequalities) and the other aspects of Goal 16 (peace and justice). Reference will be made to equality, peace, and justice for the “UN Goal” to follow in the Section 3.

Identifying the process of decision-making undertaken by each intentional community concerning one option represents the naturalistic decision-making process. It leads to a satisfactory result for the group members based on their experience. Using only one decision-making option is relevant to naturalistic decision-making in democratic societies [52].

3. Results

For the results of this historical method for each of the three intentional communities (see

Table 3. Decision Factors of Three Intentional Communities, SDG # (Number), the Relevant United Nations Sustainable Development Goal, and the Results for the Three Intentional Communities.

Decision Factor	SDG #	UN Goal	Stray Kids	Autscape	Alpha II
Issues Prioritized	10	Equality	Yes	Mostly	No
Values Supported	16	Justice	Random	Yes	Yes
Strong Institution	16	Peace	Yes	Yes	Yes
Decision Time	16	Peace	Very short	Short	Long
Decision Satisfaction	16	Justice	Acceptable	Mostly	Yes
Reconsideration Possible	10	Equality	No	Yes	Yes

), the fundamental aim is to determine what defines the timeline of the decision-making process [110]. The timeline results by reading the table from top to bottom regarding the decision factor. The process is deciding if a conflict exists to resolve, the decision-making itself, and the resulting evaluation of making the decision. The author categorizes the salient features representing the conceptual aspects of the process [111]. In this regard, the author first considers how the decision-making process begins and what might prevent that process from beginning. Once the issue is determined relevant to the group, whether the decision is of the type to support the personal values of the individual members is the next to be considered. The process can continue if the group agrees that maintaining the institution’s strength is paramount; otherwise, there is a breakdown in the decision-making. This breakdown occurs if participants concentrate on their self-interest rather than the group. In continuing the timeline of the decision-making process, the decision occurs over a specific period when participants assess their satisfaction with the results. Finally, in cases where conflict continues after the end of the process, whether a reconsideration of the decision is possible is relevant. The arrangement of the results in Table 3 is in this order of when the factor becomes relevant in following the decision-making process as interpreted by the author. This order represents the timeline for the process.

Although this process also equates to a six-step model, it differs from the six-step process assigned to representational democracies based on voting [112]. The six steps of this model regarding voting are as follows: (1) define the problem, (2) establish the criteria, (3) consider all the alternatives, (4) identify the best alternative, (5) develop and implement a plan of action, and (6) evaluate and monitor the solution and provide feedback when necessary.

In examining the decision-making practices of the three intentional communities in this manner, it is notable that the timeline of the decision-making process begins and ends with equality. Justice factors surround equality at the beginning and end of the process. Keeping the peace is found to be primary in the midst of the decision-making process. Concerning Goal 10 and Goal 16 of the SDGs, meeting Goal 10 begins and ends the intentional community’s democratic decision-making process. Goal 16 defines what is fundamental to the process followed. This result is respecting the UN goals of justice and peace within the decision-making timeline and the conjunction of strong institutions as a decision factor to peace [113].

3.1. Common Decision-Making Factors of the Three Intentional Communities

Regarding the first research question, Q1, six decision-making factors have been identified as relevant in considering the UN goals of equality, peace, and justice regarding SDGs 10 and 16. These factors, following the decision-making process, are as follows: (1) issue prioritization occurs before the decision-making begins, (2) whether the issue supports the personal values of the individual members is considered, (3) the process of decision-making is ensured to support what defines the institution as strong, (4) the time taken in decision-making is acceptable to the group members, (5) group members are personally satisfied with the decision, and (6) a reconsideration of the decision is possible to take into consideration the views of all group members.

The results of the three intentional communities regarding these six SDG decision-making factors follow.

3.1.1. Stray Kids

All issues are initially prioritized regarding whether they are valuable to the group members individually (and thus concern self-interest) or the entire group. As these are not decisions concerning the group, they do not involve the SDGs. Prioritizing decisions determines if a decision regards the whole group or not. Individual issues generally regard how each member spends time in their dorm room. One member, for example, would rather stay in bed and watch videos on days off than keep his room tidy or go outside; although the other members find this unusual, it is a personal choice, rather than a matter regarding group decision-making [114].

When group decisions have the potential to harm group cohesiveness, the group members agree to use luck to determine the outcome, most often with the use of Rock Paper Scissors. A recent example is when none of the members wanted to jump into the cold water of a swimming pool while waiting to engage in filming an episode of their weekly show, SKZ Code. They agreed to settle who would jump in the pool in what order using Rock Paper Scissors [99] (see Table 2 for the timestamps). This example represents when a disagreement might have harmed their group’s cohesiveness. In recognizing a possible dispute, the members immediately chose to use Rock Paper Scissors to decide the matter and abide by the results. In this way, they are willing to accept decisions favoring the group that they may not personally value, as group cohesion is a more significant personal value for each than self-interest in day-to-day decisions. Therefore, using luck is an appropriately just method of resolving conflict and promoting ethical behavior in this working intentional community [115].

The priority for Stray Kids as an intentional community is group cohesiveness as a strong institution, which was most evident during their first concert after COVID-19 when the members expressed their wish to their fans to stay together forever [116]. On 18 July 2024, this wish to remain together for as long as possible was realized by all the group members renewing their contract with JYP Entertainment a year before the end of their contract [117]. That all eight members decided to renew their contract is not the norm for K-pop groups; most groups opt for individual contracts, and many change companies after the required seven years of their initial contract. In 2021, out of 350 K-pop groups that had then existed in history, only five renewed their company contracts with the original members [118,119]. That all the members of Stray Kids chose to renew their contracts with JYP Entertainment as a group reflects their will to maintain their connection to each other. Notably, using luck to make decisions has been studied very little in any discipline [120], yet it was identified as necessary to keep the group membership intact in this K-pop group by their continuing use of Rock Paper Scissors to make group-wide decisions. Beyond luck, one of the features of group stability is the constant improvement of the group regarding their expectations, as noted recently in the naming of the group to the 2024 “30 Under 30” List for Forbes Korea [121]. Research has indicated that consistent meteoric improvement is relevant for group stability as a strong institution [122].

In using Rock Paper Scissors as the form of decision-making, keeping the peace among the members is maintained by the speed of the decision and all deciding to abide by the results. Once the winner is determined, the result is accepted unless a throw is misread [93,99]. Although the ability to make decisions expeditiously can sometimes hamper outcomes, it is a relevant variable for business success [123]; thus, it represents a feature in improving the peace of Stray Kids.

Individual satisfaction is irrelevant for group decisions that result from playing Rock Paper Scissors for Stray Kids. The only group member personally satisfied with the result is the winner, unless the “winner” has to do an activity no one wants to do, such as carrying heavy coats up a long flight of stairs [91], toting a weighty bag of groceries [93], paying for food [96], or being the first to jump into a cold swimming pool while waiting for the filming of the activity to begin [99]. In this case, the winner is the least satisfied personally. Luck determines the results, and so members accept that there will be times when they win and others when they lose. Therefore, the level of justice concerning this decision-making is acceptable to everyone involved. Although the result is not ideal, being accepted by all involved is a significant factor regarding justice in work-related decision-making for intentional communities [124].

A reconsideration of the result of Rock Paper Scissors is infrequent for this K-pop group. It might happen if a hand sign was misread by others [93,99]. A lack of reconsideration results even when a particular group member too frequently has had to do something that no one prefers to do, such as carry the heavy winter coats of all members up a long flight of stairs [91]. It would seem on the surface that this poses a problem of inequality in the decision-making of Stray Kids; however, there is an agreement to accept the result of the outcome regardless of participant preferences. Research has shown that by making such agreements, participants are more likely to consider the results as supporting equality [125].

3.1.2. Autscape

As members of this intentional community may select a badge signifying what they value related to deciding how and with whom they want to socialize, these members can prioritize what is important to them in their badge selection [83]. There is no requirement to socialize or disapproval of those who choose not to interact [79]. Their choice of badge is significant, and so participants concentrate on making their badges unique. For many participants, the name tag and initiation badge are “aesthetic objects, decorated with stickers, drawings, and other ornaments” [82]. Since their choice is meaningful, if they are unclear on their priorities in selecting their badge, their intention may not be the result, especially as there is no priority to the value of any particular badge color [83]. The importance of self-awareness when prioritizing decisions in creating equality is relevant generally to professional tourism and hospitality management [126], of which the yearly Autscape conference represents a small part.

Those self-identifying as autistic join Autscape because they want to be part of an intentional community that values their neurodivergence regarding socialization during the annual conference [79,105] and provides for each of their various needs [104]. Some of the quotes from participants at Autscape, as recorded by one researcher studying the Autscape community, are as follows: “It is the only time in the year when I’m not nervous or anxious”, “It is home”, “It is the only place where I can finally take off my NT [i.e., ‘neurotypical’, namely, non-autistic] mask and simply be myself”, and Autscape is a place to “unlearn everything your parents said was wrong with you” [82]. As these differences are often paramount in defining the individual as autistic [127], the decision-making process focuses on what the participants personally value. The importance of having their values taken seriously in social interactions is a relevant component in finding a sense of justice in decision-making for those identifying as autistic [128].

Keeping Autscape as a strong institution that exists to create a positive and accepting environment [103] is valuable to its participants. Yet, the significance of any one individual is not especially relevant to the participants during the yearly conference [79]. Although this may appear a contradiction to the importance of each person having their values taken seriously, it is not. No individual is necessary to the conference, but those in attendance want serious consideration. This manner of interpreting the community by those attending is merely an aspect of identifying their autism [129]. According to Laura, one of the organizers of the annual event, as recorded by a researcher of the Autscape community, “People, and even me I suppose, seem to care more about their autistic space than the communal one” [82]. For those self-identifying as autistic, a stable, well-defined structure in social relationships is of greater importance than ensuring group membership remains unchanged [130]. In this regard, peace relates to reducing the anxiety of those self-identifying as autistic in wanting to keep Autscape as a strong institution. Anxiety symptoms and disorders are the most prevalent mental health challenges experienced by autistic people across their lifespan [131].

The time to decision-making is the time it takes to understand the color coding of the badges available and then identify the badge color for each person. Identification may be problematic for those attending the meeting who have poor comprehension skills or are colorblind [79]. Participants can change the color of their badge as the event proceeds, and so they must check to ensure that the color of the badge remains the same at each interaction [79]. Using this method, all participants recognize the decision-making rules, and having such well-defined rules is significant for peace in the autistic community [132]. The badge system also permits those participants who want to socialize to find each other quickly: “The very existence of the green badge marks a sharing of responsibility for successful communication, built into the very system of social interaction at Autscape”, according to the researcher attending the Autscape conference [82]. Anxiety related to whether each participant is keeping their badge up-to-date and if the participant is truthful about their preferences may decrease the peace of individual participants [133].

Satisfaction with the results will depend on individuals interpreting the color of the badge correctly. One example of what may happen when the color of a badge is not taken into consideration appropriately comes from the experience of a neurotypical researcher conducting a study at Autscape, “…on the second day I directed a question at a person wearing a yellow badge, without having garnered her permission to do so… My approaching her was received with a reprimanding raising of the yellow badge, and her walking away” [82]. It is also limited by how well participants know their desire regarding socializing—something they may not know until they begin socializing. Unless an equivocating participant can correct this problem as the event continues, they may not be satisfied with their socializing [82]. Perceived fairness in decision-making for those on the autistic spectrum is salient, as, especially when young or inexperienced, these individuals are more likely to suffer injustice as a result of decision-making [134].

The badge system is paramount at Autscape [79,83]. The information that participants receive upon entering the conference makes this clear: “You are not required to use the badges, but you must respect those of others” [83]. If a member of this intentional community believes that what they value in socialization is not being appropriately realized, they can choose another badge as often as they prefer or spend time in a “no interaction” room [102]. The organizing committee can investigate the results of an unacceptable interaction if a member believes another participant does not respect their badge color [79]. As society becomes more willing to accept the idea of neurodiversity related to mental health, supporting the reconsideration of their decisions has become increasingly relevant to autistic individuals. From this newer perspective, there is advocacy for supporting choice reconsideration by those on the autistic spectrum [135]. When a reconsideration of decisions is possible in a democratic society, as it is at Autscape, this promotes Goal 10, equality.

3.1.3. Alpha II

For Alpha II, there is no prioritizing of the issues, as each group-wide decision is decided by going around the circle and asking each person their point of view. As an example, the agenda for the 22 March 2016 community meeting (archived by the author as a co-founder of the school and attendee of the meeting—private to the school) considered these issues in the following order: Teacher qualifications, Enrollment for the following year, Year-end party, Trips, Meeting attendance, Volunteering at Alpha II, Recruitment, Coffee House presentations, Grades 7 and 8, Contact list, Professional development sessions, Alumni, Nutritional services, Alpha II air quality, Mentor meeting time, and Alpha II constitution. Regardless of the topic, all group-wide decisions entail the same process [86,89,108], and their consideration regards the time of their placement on the agenda rather than a logical order. This view that there must be equal consideration of all issues prima facie for equality is not unique to intentional communities. It also reflects the current approach to patient care that equates professional points of view with those of patients when promoting self-direction [136].

Since the people who join the Alpha II community support its two pillars of self-directed learning in a community based on consensus decision-making [88], the results of this consensus decision-making are, by design, those that support the personal values of each group member. This support from these members concerns both self-direction and consensus decision-making. From the Alpha II website: “Freedom is provided to students to choose and design their own learning activities to cater to what they think is meaningful” [88]. Being permitted to make decisions based on what they value personally is seen as a significant means of achieving social justice by those who join the Alpha II community [137].

Maintaining Alpha II as a strong institution concerns making members feel that what they value personally is relevant to the group in decision-making. An example is a community meeting on 9 October 2013 (part of the archival minutes held by the author as a co-founder), when there was a discussion of what safety means at Alpha II. There was a difference of opinion among students, staff, administration, and parents in attendance. As the community considered this type of difference acceptable, some families who did not support the difference left the school. Yet, the result is that if any group member decides to leave Alpha II, the view is that it is a personal decision regarding what they value [86]. As long as the school continues, it is irrelevant to the strength of the institution that any individual member remains with the school. As an intentional community that is part of a public education system, Alpha II accepts when any member decides to leave. Private intentional communities, in contrast, may be reluctant to let go of members [138]. For at least one private intentional community, a person leaving the group is treated similarly to the death of a member [138] (p. 171).

Coming to a decision acceptable to all may take an extended time involving more than one meeting. The time to the decision is often a trying aspect for Alpha II members [108]. They are willing to endure the length of time by knowing that, in the end, the result will accommodate all values. If they are unwilling to undergo the decision time involved, participants either “pass” or decide not to participate in making the particular decision. In this case, the members who choose not to participate do not consider the decision result to affect what they value sufficiently. To the extent that group members agree with the importance of following this process, community peace remains as each person acknowledges the perspectives of others. The length of time for decision-making can frustrate school members to the point that they suggest other means of decision-making, as occurred at the 11 October 2023 community meeting when the meeting chair decided to deviate from the consensus decision-making model to reduce the time to decision (part of the minutes held by the author as a co-founder of the school and attendee of the meeting—private to the school). However, when participants are unwilling or unable to wait their turn in the process, this can decrease the peace significantly, as some members no longer have a voice in the discussion (as occurred at that particular meeting). In this regard, a timely consideration of other participants’ points of view is relevant in keeping peace in this intentional community [139].

All members participating in consensus decision-making must be satisfied with the results of the decision, or the decision-making process then continues. Those who have opted not to participate in the process accept the results. However, if some who have not taken part in decision-making are unsatisfied with the result, the process will begin again until all are satisfied. During a community meeting on 22 March 2016—for which the author took and archived the minutes—although there had been a thorough discussion of teacher qualifications for the school in other meetings, parents who had not attended the previous meetings stated that there was an omission of their interest in having staff who specialize in drama. Consequently, the discussion continued regarding the qualifications for teachers. For Alpha II as an intentional community, this aspect of the decision-making process is a significant feature and permits those involved to be more concerned with the perspectives of others as a result [140].

Reconsidering the outcome of decisions is always an option at Alpha II. The exception is when the decision is time-dependent (such as whether the school members should attend a concert performance). If reconsideration is requested, participants meet until each is satisfied with the result. An item being reconsidered as a result of community members believing their perspective is not part of the final result was regarding workshop ideas, which were discussed several times during the 2021–2022 academic year, to make changes to what was considered a workshop (part of the minutes held by the author as a co-founder of the school and attendee of the meeting—private to the school). The ability to reconsider decisions is significant for those decision-making methods similar to Alpha II that use a consensus to achieve results [141]. In understanding other points of view, participants are more likely to consider others in their decisions, promoting greater equality in decision-making [142].

3.2. Effect of the Decision-Making Models Adopted on the Mental Health of Individual Members

The second research question, Q2, concerns the positive and negative aspects of individual mental health in the decision-making for the three intentional communities. As their negative mental health symptoms—defined as such by the Advantaged—are what limits children, youth, and those experiencing disability to be Dependents in social construction theory, it is relevant to consider how the decision-making process adopted by the three intentional communities affects their mental health.

How the decision-making practices of these three intentional communities affect the mental health of the communities’ participants will regard enhancing positive mental health and creating negative mental health symptoms. In working towards SDGs 10 and 16, assessing the decision-making processes of these three intentional communities must be transparent in what is effective and potentially detrimental to the individual mental health of members when considering mental health as a complexity [23,24].

3.2.1. Stray Kids

Although all members of Stray Kids are willing to accept the outcome of Rock Paper Scissors by supporting the group over self-interest, this does not mean that each member individually feels content at a personal level. One member in particular, known as the “man of principles” [143], has voiced that he does not like to play Rock Paper Scissors as he always seems to lose [144]. A 2018 recording shows this, including his dislike of a result when he lost twice and had to carry all the winter coats up a long flight of stairs [91]. Another member who does not like to lose in Rock Paper Scissors reacts by finding various ways of being humorously discontent. An example is in 2023, when he had to carry ice cream for all the group members after a loss in Rock Paper Scissors [97] (17:38). Both reactions of these two Stray Kids members to losing in Rock Paper Scissors demonstrate that they are frustrated by the game and endure its results for the greater good. As such, when putting their interests first, at least these two members temporarily experience associated negative mental health symptoms if they lose in Rock Paper Scissors. However, even though they may experience some negative mental health symptoms, they are transient feelings. As an example, recently, the “man of principles” was part of a live broadcast with two of the other members where he was the one who called for the use of Rock Paper Scissors more than once during the broadcast and appeared to willingly and happily accept the result even in instances when he lost [145]. The types of decisions reported here for Stray Kids regarding individual mental health are trivial in the larger scheme of decision-making in democratic societies. On the other hand, if the group’s focus differed from maintaining a strong institution above self-interest, these minor problems might have escalated, resulting in the Stray Kids disbanding after seven years—similar to most other K-pop groups [118,119].

3.2.2. Autscape

As the best place for them to have their needs considered in interactions, many attendees of Autscape return to the conference year after year [79] because they can take responsibility for communicating their needs and working out strategies to meet them [146]. Autscape is especially valuable because what well-being means to adults on the autistic spectrum is not well understood, as its measure has depended on tools designed for neurotypicals [147]. Therefore, a study of mental health in the autistic population is of particular importance. In a 2018 study of attendees of Autscape concerning their relationship with their primary healthcare provider, the potential value of the badge system used for consensus decision-making was reinforced by the finding that 59% of these autistic respondents reported difficulty in communicating with their physician during a consultation ‘all the time’ or ‘frequently’ compared with 12% of non-autistic respondents, with 78% of the autistic individuals noting that anxiety makes it harder to communicate [148]. Unlike at Autscape, they do not use the badge system to communicate with their primary healthcare provider. If the Autscape badge system were transferrable to interactions the autistic person has with their physician to improve communication, it might simultaneously promote their positive mental health. Yet, the badge system may not be transferable to the clinical setting, as those involved in the clinical setting are outside the intentional community of Autscape. To this effect, the badge system originated by Autscape may have a limited value regarding improving mental health. Recognizing the limitation of this method in their interactions with their physicians may promote negative mental health symptoms in those who attend Autscape events regarding their primary healthcare relationship—although not concerning Autscape.

3.2.3. Alpha II

For those members of the Alpha II community committed to the two pillars of Alpha II of self-directed learning in a community based on consensus decision-making, the ability to provide their point of view at decision-making meetings is significant to them in supporting their mental health by telling their own stories and knowing themselves. Alpha II can provide an environment that encourages and reinforces the positive mental health that community members “can maintain throughout their life’s pursuits” [86] (p. 208). Nevertheless, for students, parents, and staff who are not committed to the two pillars of the school—or who have overwhelming difficulty waiting their turn to speak or listen to others—the author notes that they find the length of the decision-making process frustrating. To diminish their negative feelings, some Alpha II members have tried to change the philosophy of decision-making at the school to non-consensual principles (the meeting chair, in 2023, abandoning the method during the meeting to speed up decision-making is an example). The proposed methods for decision-making in this regard have included people putting up their hands to participate, majority rule voting, and no one strongly disagreeing with a decision [108]. The original decision-making process continues at the school; thus, the group member who is against this form of consensus decision-making may choose to leave the school rather than the decision-making process changing. If the school member who suggests these changes instead continues at the school, they regularly question the founding vision of the school [108]. In this situation, for the young people, parents, and mentors involved, negative mental health symptoms result and can affect the entire school environment in any one school year. Negative mental health symptoms of some members resulting from the decision-making process are not a regular occurrence, but it has happened in the past in more than one year.

4. Discussion

The discussion concentrates on four matters concerning the research questions.

Q1 What are the common decision-making factors of these three intentional communities in reducing inequality and promoting peace and justice while supporting a strong institution?

Q2 How do the different forms of decision-making of the three intentional communities affect the mental health of the individual members?

The first is the relationship of the research outcomes to the social construction theory that is the focus of this investigation. The second is the implications for policy and practice. The third concerns future research directions. The fourth, while indicating the strength of the historical method employed, will identify the limitations of this study.

4.1. Research Outcomes and Social Construction Theory

This investigation shows that sustainable intentional communities are possible through the decision-making practices developed by those commonly considered Dependents in social construction theory. It also reveals that these practices developed can differ depending on the interests of the community regarding the six identified features of the decision-making process of each intentional community. As Contenders in social construction theory, Stray Kids (representing youth) have developed a preference for a luck-dependent form of decision-making that consistently maintains their position as Contenders rather than Dependents (or the Advantaged) in society. As Deviants, both the participants of Autscape and the young people who enroll in Alpha II Alternative School have used consensus-based models of decision-making that situate their institutions apart from the label of Dependents that society attributes to them by default [149]. This result is significant, as the move from autocratic to democratic institutions is necessary to fulfill the SDGs since ensuring all citizens can participate in social life and express their skills is a notable feature of a democratic society [150].

4.2. Implications

Each of the three intentional communities studied has found a decision-making practice that sustains their community without the help of the Advantaged to guide them in the methods they have created. For other communities looking to meet Goals 10 and 16 of the SDGs by promoting equality, peace, and justice while ensuring the future continuation of their community, a selection of any of the three decision-making methods will depend on the focus of the community in meeting the SDGs. If the community upholds keeping the same membership intact, the luck-based decision-making of Stray Kids may be the preferred option. Rock Paper Scissors is an easy-to-use method known to most people that is playable at any time. What may complicate its use is employing it with more than two people. Stray Kids have found a way to use this method with more than two people. Although a method for more than four is unclear from the videos (see Table 2), the World Rock Paper Scissors Association provides instructions on several methods for multi-player games [101].

Concern for improving the mental health of participants who sense that they have been treated unequally and unjustly in society (such as those who participate in the annual Autscape gathering) may result in other groups wanting to initiate a nonintrusive and visible means of providing their point of view in decision-making. The badge system works well at this conference. However, it may be inappropriate in other settings, such as a doctor’s office (where Autscape participants say they feel misunderstood [148]).

Finally, when the primary concern is sustaining the core values of the intentional community in contrast to the specific group membership, devising a system representing each point of view in decision-making is valuable for demonstrating equality, peace, and justice. Using the consensus-based method of Alpha II requires a time commitment that may not be acceptable to some participants. Yet, as the point of the intentional community is to support the core values, when any member cannot find the time to participate in decision-making, it is accepted that they may choose to leave the intentional community. This Alpha II practice may be the choice of other intentional communities focusing on sustaining their core values rather than maintaining a particular group membership.

4.3. Future Research Directions

There is little research on various aspects of the analysis presented. Although there is research dividing the SDGs into categories [2,3], there is no study comparing the divisions. There is research on mental health from the perspective of complexity-informed health promotion in considering SDGs [24], but this research is in its infancy and more work is required. The boundaries of naturalistic decision-making occurring in real-world situations were defined in 1993 by Orasanu and Connolly [12]. Since then, the only research that has enhanced this field includes its support advocated in 1996 [51] and two more recent articles from 2017 [52] and 2021 [53]. As the author found the analysis by Orasanu and Connolly beneficial in creating the relevant features of the timeline for decision-making, an additional study of these boundaries would be worthwhile, especially concerning the finding of where equality, peace, and justice occur in the decision-making process. The 1993 social construction theory—by Schneider and Ingram—is invaluable to this study. Yet, already as early as 1999, the most influential textbook regarding the policy process, Theories of the Policy Process [151], reclassified this theory as a “framework” with an omission of it in the updated volume [152]. Recent research has argued that the social construction theory of Schneider and Ingram should not have been reinterpreted as a framework, decreasing its popularity [41], with several current publications using social construction theory as intended by these authors in 1993 [153,154,155]. The value of the 1993 version of social construction theory has not been extended to SDGs, requiring future study. Studies are beginning on intentional communities and SDGs [156,157], but understanding their relationship needs more research, as the analysis of this examination depends on historical research, with limitations regarding soundness and validity [158].

4.4. Limitations

Using the historical method has been fruitful in devising the timeline of the decision-making process of the three intentional communities. However, there are specific limitations to this method. There are few peer-reviewed references on these investigated communities. This lack of peer-reviewed research is often the case in original historical research [159], representing a general limitation to the historical method in its focus on primary documents [55] (p. 83). A more specific constraint in using the historical method for this research relates to an imbalance in gathering the materials for Stray Kids, Autscape, and Alpha II Alternative School.

Regarding Stray Kids, the author has viewed the large majority of the YouTube videos associated with the group to understand the group’s decision-making practices. Although all evidence supports their genuine use of Rock Paper Scissors to settle disputes and their continued interest in remaining as outsiders, Stray Kids may be so skilled as entertainers and their company so astute in maintaining their image that the recorded results may be a business strategy. With no supporting evidence for this interpretation, a serious consideration of the assessment of Stray Kids is reasonable. Compared with the author’s awareness of data related to Stray Kids, the author has little knowledge of the Autscape community, only becoming aware of this intentional community upon being emailed an article on Autscape [82]. Although primary documents informed the assessment of Autscape, the emailed article provided the participant quotations. In the case of Alpha II, the author is one of the co-founders of this intentional community and has been an integral part of its development. As such, the author has more assurance of correctly interpreting the documents associated with the community. The result is that confidence in the material of each intentional community is not equivalent, representing a limitation.

A further limitation is that although intentional communities are represented by the participation of all members in their decision-making, rather than through representation, the author was unable to know the views of every member historically associated with each intentional community. Thus, the positions of participants may be inexact. For example, one of the Stray Kids members left the group for personal reasons early in the group’s history [160]. What those reasons were has never been revealed. Knowing how Stray Kids were able to weather this period would be valuable in understanding their group cohesion regarding their decision-making; nevertheless, only a week after this ninth group member left, the remaining others acted on camera as if the group had always consisted of only eight members [161].

One method of interpreting naturalistic decision-making was used [12] and one interpretation of social construction theory [34]. The selection of these was the most relevant to democratic societies, especially regarding Goals 10 and 16 of the SDGs. Nevertheless, consideration might have been given to other interpretations of naturalistic decision-making [162] and social construction theory [151]. An additional limitation is that there is no complete investigation of all other potential methods of interpreting naturalistic decision-making and evaluating social construction theory.

The final limitation is that, as a historical study, this research is not a psychological study with a designed research focus to study individual behavior in a social context [163]. Future investigative directions to determine the decision-making processes of intentional communities would be to incorporate other qualitative methods, such as interviews or focus groups, to triangulate data and enhance the robustness of the findings.

5. Conclusions

There is more than one type of decision-making practice intentional communities offer that can sustain them while supporting the mental health of the community members. The options investigated are using a luck-based approach, such as Rock Paper Scissors, to determine the outcome, employing a badge system to represent preferences, or following a consensus decision-making model where each person contributes their perspective to the outcome. The selection of decision-making by community members requires an understanding of the relationship between the particular commitment identifying the intentionality of the community and participant self-interest—an outcome supportive of previous research on naturalistic decision-making [12,52,53]. Regarding SDGs, complexity-informed health promotion must define mental health [24] rather than what equates to a competent adult. Whatever decision-making method is selected, it must permit the intentional community to continue regarding its core values and, concurrently, be acceptable to each member.

As decision-making by these intentional communities does not result in a decision event as in representational decision-making through voting, it is constructive to employ the historical method to create a timeline of the naturalistic decision-making practices of these groups, identifying those decision factors that start with considerations regarding equality, move to justice, then are concerned with peace during the midst of the decision-making, evaluate the justice of the outcome, and determine whether there is an equal chance for participants to reconsider the decision. Advice to groups considering emulating the decision-making practices of any of the three investigated is to compare the outcomes of each part of the process to determine if they align with the group under consideration.

That it is possible in a democracy to consider more than one type of decision-making practice for any particular intentional community is a novel finding from this historical research. This result may be valuable to intentional communities contemplating modifications in their decision-making practices for settling potential interpersonal conflicts to ensure their continued satisfaction with their democratic process. The results may also be valuable in extending such practices beyond intentional communities to the dominant culture, which would especially meet Goals 10 and 16 of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals in providing mentally healthy human interaction, thus offering a cultural foundation for meeting all seventeen goals.