Richard, the way you have posed the question is such a relief. I've
just responded off-line to a similar question about this distinction
and had assumed you'd shunted this conversation to the side.
But this is an even better opening. I have been "fighting" the
mental model terminology in other places and not taken on this sacred
cow because there didn't seem to be an opening. Your question
invites distinctions to be made without having to fight or refect the
mental model terminology.
I think that "mental model" is being made to carry too much weight
for its formulation. As a way of pointing at a phenomenon, it seems
to have immediate impact. As a tool to work with once awareness has
been created, it appears to me a blunt instrument.
> This is quite close to what we're trying to access when we address mental
> models. We might ask, "What would have to be so in your model of the world
> for your surface thinking and actions to be reasonable and rational?"
The problem with the terminology is that it implies something far too
fixed and static compared for what is going on in an intelligent
being. There is no single mental model. There is no mental model
that is unchanging. There isn't even a coherent set of mental models
that are reliable. It is far more like there are stacked assumptions
(or presuppositions) that are endlessly connected. _Any_ particular
idea, statement or mental construct emerges from a much larger
complex of thoughts, experiences, beliefs, etc. More simply put, it
emerges from the linguistic background that is triggered by the
environment of the moment and the intentions of the being.
> Is this addressing the same thing as your question?
Yes, it appears to be addressing the same question but from a
perspective that grants too much to explicitness and static
certainty.
John's suppositions and presuppositions was a start at some
distinctions. The advantage is that they assume no particular
coherence and can be satisfied with occurrence alone. No "grand
scheme" has been added or implied.
In many cases, I find that referring to "mere" conversations will
give a freedom of working in this area that is inhibited by the idea
of mental models. The attachment seems to disappear. Then
conversations can be compared and worked with without the need to
make a logical whole or to defend anything.
There are useful distinctions of logical levels in considering how
we are approaching things and I find that the largest disagreement is
in these levels rather than differences in the content of the models
or the beliefs that people hold. The possibility of resolution and
convergence is greater without the introduction of mental models.
One of the most useful technique I use for freeing up this area is to
have groups engage in dialogue and then construct cartoons about "the
way it is". This lightens up the grip of belief and historical
accident and allows people to just let them go rather than do
"serious" work on the mental models.
> I'm wondering if there are different levels which have different
> characteristics, need different terminology and different ways of
> accessing them. Mike (and everyone), should we be lumping all these
> together as "Mental Models" or do we need finer distinctions?
I'm sure that we need different terminology and different ways of
access. I'm not sure how to address your challenge here because I
don't use the term "mental models" at all. While I don't miss the
term, I'm not sure how to relate my distinctions to the question
which, I think, is still coming from that there are mental models and
only looking for a better way to talk about the. You see, I don't
think they exist and are only a useful fiction for a beginning in
revealing that something is going on which is often outside of
awareness.
But that returns me to suppositions and presuppositions.
If this dialogue develops - and I hope it does - then I'm sure that
distinctions will emerge that respond to your challenge
-- Michael McMaster Michael@kbddean.demon.co.uk