Jim Dobbins wrote about comparisons and mental models :
"....when we encounter anything about which we have a mental model, the
model governs how we deal with, respond to, and what we remember about, that
person or event. That is one of the reasons eye-witness testimony is so
unreliable. We see what we believe is truth, not always what actually
happened." (see below for the context of this extract)
Whenever someone - Jim, or I or you - appeals to a distinction between "what
actually happened", and what we believe happened, what status does this
comparison have? Is it the product of a mental model? If so, which model?
One response would be : it is the (objectivist and absolutist) model that
invokes the idea that we can know, without dependence upon any ( partial or
constitutive) mental model, what actually happened. It is the model that
denies undecidability and thereby accommodates monism, fanaticism and
tyranny in all its myriad forms.
Making such distinctions is very difficult and perhaps unavoidable. So
attempting to erase or suppress them is probably futile. The issue, then, is
whether their constructed or rhetorical character and political effects are
acknowledged, or ignored and thereby naturalised.
Regards
Hugh Willmott
Director of PhD Programme
Convenor of Human Resources and Organization Group
Diageo Professor of Management Studies
The Judge Institute of Management
University of Cambridge
Trumpington Street
Cambridge CB2 1AG
www.jims.cam.ac.uk
Home Page : http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/close/hr22/hcwhome
4th Critical Management Studies Conference to be held in Cambridge in July
2005.
See www.cms4.org for details
----- Original Message -----
From: "James H. Dobbins, Ph.D." <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 12:38 AM
Subject: Re: An Explanation-Why We Compare?
> Mike,
>
> If we do not do comparisons, each thing is approached as unique, and we
> could not survive in society. To survive in life we all have mental
> models; hundreds of them, maybe thousands. Mental models are how we
> survive without having to address everything as a unique experience. We
> have mental models of what things should look like, how people should
> act, what lawful behavior is, what kindness is, what is good taste in
> clothes, etc. Our mental models are our picture of truth about that
> thing. Every prejudice we have is founded in a mental model about some
> group of people, letting us treat them in a collective sense rather than
> as the individuals they are. All (Jews, Catholics, Polish people, black
> people, short people, fat people, etc., etc.) are ... Therefore, when
> we encounter anything about which we have a mental model, the model
> governs how we deal with, respond to, and what we remember about, that
> person or event. That is one of the reasons eye-witness testimony is so
> unreliable. We see what we believe is truth, not always what actually
> happened. We have mental models about how traffic should move, and my
> mental model for that almost killed me when I went to England and was
> preparing to cross a street on foot. The fundamental engine of mental
> models is comparison. Our mental models are our interior standard of
> truth. When something does not fit, we treat it as an aberration. If
> it happens enough, if our model fails enough, we begin to question our
> model. None of us wants to give up our model, our picture of truth, so
> we make a lot of excuses about what happened to justify the validity of
> our model. That is why going through a religious conversion can be so
> wrenching an experience. We don't want to admit we were wrong, or this
> new one is better. But we live by comparing things we encounter to our
> models. Many of us do this without any sense of what is really
> happening. If you ask most people what their mental model of XYZ is,
> they won't have a clue what you are talking about, yet they use their
> models every day.
>
> Jim Dobbins
>
> Mike Metcalfe wrote:
>
>>Colleagues - I am looking for some references to a theory of comparison -
>>an
>>explanation why we compare things as knowledge creation. For example, to
>>measure the length of something is to compare it to a standard; to
>>question
>>people can be seen as comparing their experiences. I am aware of
>>comparative
>>theories in history, sociology, religion etc, and am more interested in a
>>philosophical (clarifying concepts) or sociological explanation than a
>>strong
>>cognitive science one. Am I making sense - any ideas?
>>
>>Regards and thanks,
>>
>>Mike Metcalfe
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> James H. Dobbins,Ph.D.,PMP
> Management Consulting
> Critical Success Factor Analysis
> 13653 Sillamon Road
> Goldvein, VA 22720
> [log in to unmask]
|