Mental Models & Identity LO21125

George Bartow (jorge@tenet.edu)
Thu, 01 Apr 1999 21:32:44 -0600

Replying to LO21062 --

Fred -

> "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, ...
> So, when someone refers to mental models, it is pointless to defend or
> attack them; . . .

I hope no one was construing that I was attacking anyone . . . However,
there is some merit to "attacking" notions, IMHO. Maybe not attacking.
More like questioning what is so or true? Is it true that we need shared
meaning to communicate? Instead of "mental model" could we say "mystic
interpretation" or "psychic pattern" or "spiritual paradigm"? I'm trying
to discover why "mental models" is such a negative phrase to me. It's not
that it has no meaning. At some level I actually have a negative reaction
to the phrase.

> 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?

Exploring meaning is very crucial, IMO. Is this different than
exploring words and diagrams? I don't know. As far as predicting
people's behavior in specific situations is concerned, I'm think I'm
more interested in training/developing responsible, thinking partners. 

-- 
 
George 'jorge' Bartow
e-mail:  jorge@tenet.edu
Home:  http://web2.airmail.net/jorge
Research:  http://web2.airmail.net/jorge/research
===========
4/1/99
"Young men are apt to think themselves wise enough, as drunken men are
to think themselves sober enough." - Earl of Chesterfield


        Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com>
  Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>