I've found this discussion very interesting and couldn't resist putting in
my two cents worth. I turned to Senge's work and found this quote, "
Mental models are the images, assumptions, and stories which we carry in
our minds of ourselves, other people, institutions, and every aspect of
the world." Sounds sort of like Senge is equating mental models and
assumptions to a large degree. But I don't think this is really the case.
Hal Steinbeigle wrote:
> To me, mental models enable us to see some things and prevent us from
> seeing others (see Khun's Scientific Revolution). Mental models determine
> how we interpret data. Our assumptions usually come from our mental
> models.
I can't argue with this. I've used Khun's work, and later Joel Barker's
work, to study how mental models work (or to use Kuhn's terminology, how
paradigms affect our world view). I thought Hal's example of the office
worker interpreting the actions of other employees through the filtering
effect of his mental model (paradigm) was right on target. We generate
assumptions "on the fly" all the time as our mental models interact with
the world. I think Joel Barker's definition of paradigm is helpful in
differentiating mental model from assumption. He defines paradigm as, "a
set of rules and regulations that does two things: 1) it establishes or
defines boundaries; and 2) it tells you how to behave inside the
boundaries in order to be successful." I think that Hal might go along
with me in adding a third part to this definition and say that, 3) it
determines the assumptions we make as we encounter new information. The
power of paradigms is really phenomenal. Joel Barker even coined a term
for this power called "The Paradigm Effect". The paradigm effect says
that, "What may be perfectly visible, perfectly obvious, to persons with
one paradigm, may be, quite literally, invisible to persons with a
different paradigm." Kuhn's work showed that even scientist, when
confronted by new experimental results that conflicted strongly with their
mental models, would make the assumption that the "data was wrong", or
that the experiment was flawed.
Chuck Gesmundo wrote:
> Mental models ...are constructs using various assumptions; assumptions ...
> are the materials used to create mental models; you change an assumption,
> you change the mental model.
If you combine Hal's slant with Chuck's slant on the relationship between
mental models and assumptions you can construct a feedback loop in
accordance with systems theory. The relationship becomes circular with
mental models influencing the assumptions made which in turn are
continuously impacting on, and possibly changing, the boundaries of the
mental model.
This feedback loop is essentially what William Issac's first described as
a "reflexive loop" in his 1992 working paper titled, "The Ladder of
Inference". You can find more info in "The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook,
pages 242-246.
There is another interesting connection with the "Ladder of Inference"
. At de Lange wrote:
> A mental model is made up of interrelated sentences excluding
> propositions. In other words, there is not a single sentence in a model of
> which we do not know in advance its truth value. Thus all the sentences of
> a model is of the "assuming" kind. This is why it is so easy to confuse a
> mental model with assumptions. However, there is a marked difference
> between a mental model and assumptions. The sentences of a model are
> interrelated while assumptions need not to be interrelated.
> A mental model often contain a number of assumptions as part of it.
Mental models, by their very nature are indeed made up of 1) multiple
concepts (many are assumptions) that 2) hang together within some logical
construct (at least internally logical to the person holding the mental
model).
Here's a "Ladder of Interence" example from the Fifth Discipline
Fieldbook. Starting at the bottom and going up the ladder it goes like
this: 1) The meeting was called for 9 am and John came in at 9:30. He
didn't say why. 2) John knew exactly when the meeting was to start. He
deliberately came in late. 3) John always comes in late. 4) We can't
count on John. He's unreliable.
In this example, assumptions are clearly being made, and, they are being
related to each other. This ladder of influence and maybe some others,
connect assumptions that, when interrelated, will form a very unflattering
mental model of John. This model will clearly 1) govern how John is
viewed (well beyond his tardiness problem), and 2) influence future
assumptions generated with regard to John.
As always, I find the comments and analysis in this forum to be very
insightful, interesting, and useful. Thanks for your thoughts.
--Doug Jones <djones@asheville.cc.nc.us>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>