In a message dated 99-04-01 01:27:14 EST, you write:
Fred wrote:
> "Mental models" is a term, an abstraction, an idea, a notion, a
> theoretical construct, a conjecture, or whatever label you prefer.
> "Mental models" are not concrete, tangible, solid things to which we can
> point or weigh or grasp physically. They exist in language and thought
> but we are so far unable to establish unequivocally that they exist
> anywhere else, especially in concrete, tangible form.
I agree that Mental Models are abstractions. What is also important is
that nervous systems of all kinds operate "as if" they are real. Without
them, the perceptual constructions of reality (mental models) would have
no orientation. We could not determine the difference from a foreground
to a background (distance). Object recognition would be impossible because
there would be no objects. Without a mental model of that "thing" we are
labeling our environment would be totally incoherent. Hence the production
of language would be useless. Each letter construction (word) we use would
not provoke any construction.
>What is useful -- and quite productive -- is to explore the words -- and
>diagrams -- that people claim represent their "mental models" for these,
>more than anything else, predict what they will do in this or that
>situation and, in the last analysis, predicting a specific person's
>behavior in a specific situation is something I'd like to be able to do.
>What about you?
I am also a "fan" and practitioner of profiling work. I see predicting an
individuals or a groups behavior as different from understanding their
Mental Model. Their behavior is in RESPONSE and REACTION to their model.
Why shifting models (reframing) is helpful in altering behavior.
The opposite direction of analysis is also helpful. Predicting ones mental
models can be done by observation of their behaviors, especailly their use
of language.
What I have found in profiling work that is most helpful is watching the
consistency of behavior will tell me the rigidity of their model and
therefore the probability rises that the behavior will be repeated. The
behavior is a pattern of construction response which is similar to the
basic behavioral principle of stimulus response. The only significant
difference is the number of variables that build the construction.
The person consciously or unconsciously precieves a situation as being
something (mental model). They then have a patterned response to it.
Learning is either varying our constructions (mental models) or varying
our responses...or both of course.
For example I have a business in helping people with Weight Management.
One of my goals is to shift the people out of using the mental model of
weightloss, dieting, deprivation, pain, etc. etc. I do this because the
data demonstrates that most people have an avoidance pattern of responding
to those mental models. In that context the goal is not achieved because
the patterned response to the goal is avoidance eventually. The individual
is usually, momentarily, attempting to suspend one model in order to
respond differently. My goal was to create a mental model where the goal
was something that would create an approach response as opposed to an
avoidance response.
Glen
members.aol.com/voxdeis
--Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>