Replying to Chris McRae in LO29327 --
Hmm. I fear I've asked another dumb question but I'll give it another
shot.
I didn't have any particular instance in mind when I posed the question.
It simply occurred to me that we talk about mental models as though they
are things that exist inside our heads when in fact we have no way of
looking in there to see them. I suspect that, like lots of other things,
"mental models" is a notion we've invented to account for certain
observable events or patterns. I will give you an example of my own
making:
Suppose someone says to me (as someone did once say), "Fred, you seem to
have a knack for getting quickly to the heart of the matter. Why is
that?"
Suppose I beam with pride, flattered by the compliment, and suppose I
reply, "It owes to a particularly good diagnostic model that I use." I
then draw out on paper something like the following:
. i E
. | |
. | |
. v g v
. o ------------> A -----------> o
. ^ |
. | |
. | v
. p <---------------------------> R
I then say, "Look, people intend for certain things to happen. Let's call
those certain things 'results' and let's represent those with an
upper-case R. And, let's represent their intentions with a lower-case i.
"People also have perceptions of what is actually the case. Let's
represent perceptions with a lower-case p.
"If intention and perception don't agree, there is a gap or discrepancy.
Let's represent that with a lower case g.
"Gaps between intended conditions and perceived conditions lead to action
on the part of the person in question. Let's represent actions with an
upper case A.
"Now we all know that any results we achieve reflect not simply our own
actions but the mediating effects of relevant environmental influences.
Let's represent those with an upper-case E.
"So, what the model tells me is that results (R) are a function of my
actions (A) and relevant environmental influences (E). It also tells me
that my actions (A) grow out of gaps (g) between what I intend to be the
case (i) and what I perceive to be the case (p).
"From there, I can also readily see that my actions (A) are best viewed as
interventions in the structure of the situation. As a practical matter,
this means that I change things at one point in this structure and those
changes ripple through the structure of the situation, making themselves
felt in the form of results (R) at other points in the structure.
"Further, I can also readily see that the effects of any environmental
influences (E) must also follow this same path, that is, create or cause
changes at one point which then ripple through the structure of the
situation, making themselves felt at other points.
"Without a great deal of effort on my part, I can conclude that, in order
to make something happen or to figure out why something isn't happening, I
have to understand the structure of the situation. I have to know its
composition, that is, the nature of its elements, their connections and
their relationships, and I have to be able to work forward the point of
action (A) and backward from the point of result (R) to see how to make
something happen or, conversely, to see why it isn't happening.
I then smile and say, "That's how I'm able to get so quickly to the heart
of a matter."
Is the diagram I drew a mental model? I don't know. Does it qualify as a
"construct"? Probably. Can I visualize it in my mind's eye? Yes, but
what is my "mind's eye"? Can I draw it? Yes. Does it exist in my head
in the form it takes when I draw it? I don't know but I doubt it. Does
the model consist of more than the diagram? I think so. It certainly
includes the explanation provided above (or something similar). Do those
words reside in my head? I don't know. Are words mental models, too? I
don't know. I do think they are the stuff out of which we fashion meaning
and communicate images and ideas.
I was questioning the existence of mental models, Chris, because it
suddenly dawned on me that I'm not sure what that term means. Right now,
I put it in the same category as motivation, that is, some internal state
attributed to one person by another but for which there is no hard
evidence that it actually exists. "Mental models," then, is, to my way of
thinking, like motivation, a convenient explanation for certain observed
phenomena.
Regards,
Fred Nickols
nickols@safe-t.net
>Fred - could you amplify a bit ? as a mathematician I assume we all use
>constructs? and organizations use shared constructs as soon as they
>structure information
>
>I am particularly interested in transparency of information (how clear and
>open assumptions are) in monitoring relationships with stakeholders
>www.valuetrue.com - in a sense all of system knowledge is a mental model
>as is any measurement
>
>Could you give us an example as to why you are querying the existence of
>mental models? perhaps I've tripped over the vocabulary?
>
>chris macrae
>
> >From: "Fred Nickols" <nickols@safe-t.net>
> >
> > Just out of curiosity, does anyone know of any evidence that so-called
> > "mental models" actually exist or are we dealing here with an assumption,
> > a hypothesis, a theory that mental models exist. How would we know that
> > they exist?
--Fred Nickols <nickols@safe-t.net>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.