What do you mean by the term mental model?

[Bill Harris]

7 Jim, Take a look at the first paragraph of Barry Richmonds contribution on http://www.stewardshipmodeling.com/System%20Dynamics%20in%20the%20Elevator.htm. It works for me. Bill From: Bill Harris <bill_harris@facilitatedsystems.com> -- Bill Harris 3217 102nd Place SE Facilitated Systems Everett, WA 98208 USA http://facilitatedsystems.com/ phone: +1 425 337-5541

["Thompson, James. P (Jim) A142"]

I would be interested to learn what practitioners of system dynamics mean by the term mental model. If you refer to a written authority, I would appreciate learning what your reference source is. Thanks, Jim Thompson jim.thompson@cigna.com Tel. 860.226.8607

["Prof. Dr. Niall Palfreyman"]

3 "Thompson, James. P (Jim) A142" schrieb: > I would be interested to learn what practitioners of system dynamics mean by > the term mental model. If you refer to a written authority, I would > appreciate learning what your reference source is. Kenneth Craik ("The Nature of Explanation", 1943) says: "By a model we thus mean any physical or chemical system which has a similar relation-structure to that of the processes it imitates... If the organism carries a small-scale model of external reality and of its own possible actions within its head, it is able to try out various alternatives, conclude which is the best of them, react to future situations before they arise, utilise the knowledge of past events in dealing with the present and future, and in every way to react in a much fuller, safer, and more competent manner to the emergencies which face it." I regard the term "mental model" in Craiks positive, useful sense. Weighed against this, however, is the constructivist standpoint that we can never prove the truth of our models, but rather only the falseness of them when they dont work. This leads then to the rather negative view of models in, for example, "The Fifth Discipline", in which we are warned not to believe too strongly in the "truth" of our models, lest they lead us astray. Needless to say, I also agree with this warning. So the name of the game is therefore to use my models as much as possible in the hope that they will be useful, but also in the hope that they will one day fail, and so give me the chance to develop them to even greater usefulness. Cheers, Niall Palfreyman. From: "Prof. Dr. Niall Palfreyman" <niall.palfreyman@fh-weihenstephan.de>

[Bill Braun]

6 At 09:02 AM 11/20/2003 -0500, you wrote: >I would be interested to learn what practitioners of system dynamics mean by >the term mental model. If you refer to a written authority, I would >appreciate learning what your reference source is. Jim, I most commonly refer to information that is filtered, which leads to incomplete information, and information that is added which is not really there, which leads to inaccurate information. I then ask students to inquire into the quality of their decisions when they are based on incomplete, inaccurate information. This leads to the conversation on suspending mental models, usually in the context of Senges point about mental models as obstacles to learning. Bill Braun From: Bill Braun <medprac@hlthsys.com>

[=?iso-8859-1?Q?Andr=E9_Reichel?=]

0 Hi Jim, in a wider sense I would regard a "mental model" as a map of the world made up from and in front of our cognitive structures. These structures are twofold: (1) They are based on past experiences on the world and assumptions about how and why it works in the way it does. This is a construct (or approximation) of something we regard as reality. (2) The cognitive structures have a phylogenetical background, they are the products of human evolution. Therefore, they enclose a certain a priori (non-individual, non-empirical) knowledge about the world in which the homo sapiens developed. The first aspect of cognitives structures is clearly constructivist and the usual sources would include Humberto Maturana, Francisco Varela, Heinz von Foerster, John Richards and Ernst von Glaserfeld. The second aspect points towards an evolutionary epistemology from the likes of Konrad Lorenz, Manfred Eigen, Gregory Bateson and John Eccles. André Reichel From: ÿso-8859-1?Q?André_Reichel?ÿreichel@sofo.uni-stuttgart.de> _______________________________________ Universität Stuttgart Institut für Volkswirtschaftslehre und Recht Abteilung für Umwelt- und Innovationsforschung Keplerstrasse 17 70174 Stuttgart Telefon: 0711 / 121 - 3550 Telefax: 0711 / 121 - 2800 E-Mail: reichel@sofo.uni-stuttgart.de Internet: www.sofo.uni-stuttgart.de/umwelt

["Brian (Bo) Newman"]

3 <html> <body> At 09:02 AM 11/20/2003 Jim Thompson wrote:<br> <blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>I would be interested to learn what practitioners of system dynamics mean by<br> the term mental model.  If you refer to a written authority, I would<br> appreciate learning what your reference source is.</blockquote><br> Jim, <br> Might I suggest, if you havent done so already, that you check Ruth Byrnes page on Mental Models.<br> <a href="http://www.tcd.ie/Psychology uth_Byrne/mental_models/index.html" eudora="autourl">http://www.tcd.ie/Psychology uth_Byrne/mental_models/index.html</a> -- Clearly representing the Craik perspective. <br> Follow the link for "publications" and I think you should find some of what you are after -- probably more. <br><br> As for myself, as part of my work on knowledge flow theories,  I have been treating mental models as one of many types of specific networks of concepts, held within the memory of an agent, and applied, as a unit, as one of a number of knowledge sources enabling that agents actions and decision.  I use the term agent to include individual, automated, and collective agents. <br><br> As evidenced by Byrnes list of articles, much has been written on how mental models are formed, and how they are used. However, this "ontological" perspective has allowed me to start to formalize the rolls that mental models, like value systems and other operative ontologies, play in the dynamics of knowledge flows. From a systems dynamics perspective (and that being an example of what I would call a mental model held by a collective agent and the individuals therein), mental models would serve as a gating and flow control mechanisms within the knowledge flows that support multi-agent behaviors.  This all premised by the basic axiom that knowledge enables the actions and decisions of agents. <br><br> I am also of the belief, although I have not worked through the proofs, that this ontological perspective would rationalize both the  "positive" and "negative" views as espoused by Craik and Senge respectively. <br><br> <br> I hope this helps.<br><br> Regards --<br> From: "Brian (Bo) Newman" bo.newman@km-forum.org <br> <a href="http://www.3-cities.com/~bonewman/">Brian (Bo) Newman</a><br> <a href="http://www.km-forum.org/">The KMForum</a></body> </html>