John wrote:
>Yes, mental models can get in the way of understanding, and certainly can
>throw up impediments to changing one's understanding. But isn't it also
>true that without mental models we would find it impossible to think at
>all? I don't even mean that they are a necessary evil -- I think they are
>a necessary good. The human brain has as-yet-unmatched powers of
>abstraction, ability to compare and contrast and use analogies and
>metaphors and to visualize constructs that cannot be actually seen with
>the eyes, etc., -- all these are part of our ability to use mental models.
>
>I, for one, would hate to be without them -- even though I must take care
>(as with any powerful tools) not to use them carelessly or thoughtlessly.
Well said, and regard my apparent implication that mental models are
negative as a poor choice of words. Without mental models we would be in a
whitewater of thought, with so much noise and confusion that we'd never
get anything done.
I wanted to express that suble transition that can take place if I am not
vigilent of that point where my view of reality becomes synonymous with
reality, and I 1) cease to draw any distinction between the two and 2)
cease to consider anyone else's view. The piece by Rick Ross in the
Fieldbook (p. 242) summarizes what I wanted to express.
- Our beliefs are THE truth
- The truth is obvious
- Our beliefs are based on real data
- The data I select are the real data
When I suspend mental models in this regards, I still get to take
advantage of the positive aspect of mental models (which John cites above)
PLUS I get some additional insights.
Bill
--Bill Braun <medprac@hlthsys.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>