At 07:07 20-10-1998 +0100, Richard Goodale wrote:
>Since I first read of this construct (on this list a year or so ago) I've
>found it intriguing but troublesome. The concept of Unconscious
>Competence as an "ideal" end state fit in well with certain aspects of my
>own mental models on learning, but strongly conflicted with others.
But from that, you have created a more enlarged and comprehensive model :
a spiral, with 2x2 matrixes at each level. Very inspiring idea. Knowledge
progress develops as an spiral. The "4 actitudes" can very well be the
"description of each level of your spiral". ( Need to think more about
it.)
Thanks for your insight. Complementing the four stages, with a spiral
concept, seems to me much more interesting that adding a 5th stage.
In what concerns John SCOTT mail, he wrote :
>Replying to Sheila (LO19506), Artur (LO 19547), and others
>As the innocent who started this latest round of Uncon Com debate, my
>hearty thanks to you all. It has helped to move me from Con Incom toward
>Con Com. My developing thoughts took a turn(sic) from Sheila's driving
>example (LO19506) of Uncon Com -- Autopilot! Do it without thinking (20
>miles along the motorway-how did I get here?). As implied, this is
>dangerous (perhaps learning to control a skid might be a better example,
>but not as humorous), hence the need for EITHER seeing Con Com as
>preferable to Con Incom OR a 5-stage model as discussed in later entries.
>Artur (LO 19547) uses the example of the basketballer to make the point
>that internalizing a skill is necessary (Con Incom above Con Com).
>However while necessary, it is not sufficient. To become a better
>basketballer you need to internalize skills sure - to make them reflexive
>- but you cannot stop there. The further development of skills requires
>reflection, which introduces Com again and we are back where we started
>..... or are we.
Very, interesting John, but now that Richard enplained the "spiral
concept", would you agree that what you were talking about can be
explained in terms of the next iteration of the spiral concept ?.
[ about your PS :
>PS I have a sneaky feeling the real reason why we use Con and Uncon is
>that we can't spell conshusness .... is that right? :-)
For me, YES !
RElating with a smilar subject, Gene, wrote :
>Is it possible that unconscious competence is the point where the action
>is habitual, the point where it is a paradigm and a person is no longer
>open to new inputs. Is it possible that this is the point where Senge's
>ladder of inference takes one to a perviously drawn conclusion? The point
>where if it looks like something seen before it is not necessary to look
>at this. >Perhaps unconscious competence is relat4ed to bull headed and closed
>minded.
Yes, Gene. OR MAY BE NOT; I think that much more frequently are the Con
Coms (the gays that "KNOW EVERYTHING" and have a "definitive answer to
everything" that stop learning). They never hear, never question
themselves, never learn; they "Know already the *right answers*. This
"sureness" ( about what is unsure,) identifies them... Those are the ones
that Max Plank refered "they will never change their "paradigmas"; but, in
an historical time frame, it doesn't matter; after some time, they will
all die and the next ones will be educated in the new paradigm". So,
discussing with them is not even important.
Regards
Artur
PS : Sorry At, but our greatest poet ( Fernado Pessoa ) wrote "Thanks god,
that I am not good". By the way, have you all ever read anything from the
1998 nobel prize on Literatiure, Jose Saramago ( a portuguese, of couese).
It's a must !!!
--"Artur F. Silva" <artsilva@individual.eunet.pt>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>