Re: Data Selection

Fred Reed (freed@cc.atinc.com)
Mon, 16 Jan 95 14:51:05 EST

Andrew Moreno wrote:
>Has anyone figured out how some people have selected the same data
>from observable data as other people have? I wonder if a management
>consultant could go into an organization and figure out which people
>have the same selection structure as the management consultant. Then
>the MC could "network smarter" than just choosing anyone to aid in
>changing the organization.

Yes, I think a way *has* been figured out. But first I would like to tie
in a different thread. Stephen Wehrenberg wrote in the Wheatley's list
thread:

>Two decades ago, while reading Pirsig's Zen and the Art of Motorcycle
>Maintenance, I happened on his passage discussing "quality" as being the
>name for the edge of which you speak. <deleted>
>His edge was the place where you meet the environment BEFORE you assign
>value oto the signals you are receiving. That's a pure place, untainted
>by the values, attitudes, beliefs, prejudices, and KNOWLEDGE you might
>couple to the signals. <more deleted>

What I am proposing is that (somewhat contradictory to Weherenberg's
interpretation of Pirsig) *values* are the pre-conscious "selectors" by
which individuals come to perceive their own reality. Now I understand
that the meaning of "values" has been spread pretty thin lately by
politicians and op-ed writers, but in fact there is a fairly rigorous body
of research concerning "value", also known as "axiology". A significant
part of this research is directed at answering Andrew Moreno's question.
I will try to summarize:

There are three dimensions of value:

1. Systemic: judging how "things" conform to formal systems or "law". For
example, when one says something "ought" to be, it presumes a system or
law that provides the basis for "ought". (e.g., A beer of this style
*ought* to be darker*) The result of systemic value is often judging
acceptable/unacceptable.

2. Extrinsic: judging how things measure up to the characteristics of
generic classes. For example, this is a "good" chair because it has
characteristics similar to those of a generic class of things called
chairs (it doesn't fall over easily, it has a padded seat, etc.
Extrinstic result is carried to its extreme by "conniseurs."

3. Intrinsic: judging things by their own unique characteristics.
Because it precedes putting things into concepts and systems, it is often
a "felt" rather than "thought" judgement. For example, I love my wife for
what she uniquely is, not because I have reasoned that she is a *good*
(extrinsic) or *acceptable* (systemic) person.

Note, these are called "dimensions" for good reason: a thing can be
simultanensously "valued" in all three dimensions.

Now, I don't have time to explain it here, but everyone *learns* to place
different relative importance on each of these dimensions in forming
perceptions (and thoughts and actions as well). Each of us has our own
way of "valuing" (n the Pirsig sense) that determines what crosses that
"edge" into perception. We learn these values through experience: if
judging the world (or ourselves) systemically seems to work best, we
reinforce our likelyhood of "seeing" the world systemically.

Now, getting to Moreno's question: There is a simple "test" that has been
developed to determine the relative balance a person places on each of
these three dimensions. It was developed about 30 years ago by Robert
Hartman (and is often called the "Hartman profile"). It has been used for
puposes similar to what Moreno described (IMHO I don't think the
consultant's view of the world should be the starting point), and others
such as sales training, learning styles, leadership development, and so
on. I don't have references with me, but I know that related work is
still being done with Hartman's axiology at the U. of Tennessee, and by a
handfull organizations and consultants. If someone is interested, I will
look them up.

Fred Reed
freed@cc.atinc.com