Regarding the Existence of Mental Models...... where Mike wrote...
> "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."
I am really glad You have brought this perspective up Mike. A number of
years ago I queried a number of psychologists about the mental model
issue... they were either dismissive or gave a less articulate formulation
of what You said above. I felt at that time that their dismissals were
missing the point. Since then, I have been exposed to some of the
Neuro-Linguistic Programming approach, but more importantly for me, the
Conversations for Action paradigm of Flores and Winograd, backed up by the
language philosopher, Searle.
The principle of paying attention to the current conversations between
oneself and another, and reducing the complex stacking of conversations by
striving for closures is an excellent one which I have been able to put
into effective use, not only in the design of object-oriented software and
graphic user interfaces, but in my part-time therapy practice. Moreover,
as a principle for deepening intimacy between myself and another it shines
as well.
But having said this, I really think that "some baby is thrown out with
the bathwater" when mental models are dismissed as ill-conceived.....
Mike further wrote...
>"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. "
Agreed, in fact what I think happens is that by focusing on completing the
conversations, we are really focusing on others as complete, whole
individuals in their own right, and NOT the static constructs of our
classifications, categories, judgments and preconceived mental models.
And yet.....
Mike further wrote...
> "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."
Yes, I think You are right here as well, although I am more inclined to
look at the pattern of distinctions that the other is making which are
different to my pattern of distinctions. These distinctions are held in
place by the various interpretations of words and concepts. When We can
become aware of the distinctions, then bridges can be made between
them....??
Your idea of making pictures at this point is excellent, and it makes me
wonder whether I have been missing the point for most of my life by trying
to find the bridges intellectually (i.e. with my own pattern of
distinctions or "mental model"). In which case, perhaps I should work only
to build experiential bridges between myself and another, letting useful
distinctions emerge from the interplay? But then what are We doing in
this electronic community... how do We make such experiential bridges
here?? More importantly, what kind of transformation in our society would
then make it possible for all of our relationships with the others with
which We interact, to be grounded with the same experiential respect and
reciprocity??
And what about the "thrown out baby".... I find that people think from
various identifications which they find themselves in from time to time,
in a very causal manner, with various fixed assumptions, and especially
fixed attitudes. Organizationally these are often held in place by the
unchallenged attitudes of their corporate culture and even the larger
corporate culture. Often they are cemented in place by performance
measures. Noticing and helping to bring these fixidities to light for
both individuals and corporations, provides a great deal more freedom for
everyone concerned, and better opportunities to succeed and transform.
Now given the earlier part of this posting, how do We do this "healing" of
exposing and loosening up fixidities of individuals and corporate culture
effectively without utilizing what experience has taught us about fixed
ideas, fixed perspectives, fixed causalities and the like, which can
easily be construed as mental models??? Perhaps it is the case, as I have
found with other apparently useful ideas in the social sciences, that
ideas like "mental models" were not originally placed on a firm enough
foundation, for their utility to be defended against some passing
conceptual fad??
This posting has been long enough... another time I wish to challenge the
notion that the stacked assumptions connect endlessly, and discuss how
conceptual loops lead to identifications...... I think that there are some
useful distinctions to be made there...
-- Dr. Doug Seeley InterDynamics Pty. Ltd. (Australia) in Geneva, Switzerland e-mail: Compuserve 100433.133 and Fax: +41 22 756 3957 "Choice and Chance are One."