Robert Hansen (RH) posted Jan 16, 2013 8:06 PM: > > On Jan 16, 2013, at 9:09 AM, GS Chandy > <email@example.com> wrote: > > > If I (GSC) may "butt in": > > I thought you were preparing a demonstration, at the > moderator's discretion, for your two biggest fans? > > Bob Hansen > Thank you, RH, for asking:
The "two biggest fans" being... yourself and Haim, no doubt?
If my surmise above is right (and even if it is wrong), then one part of the demo has already been posted, at http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=8070310 in the thread "Frontline: The Education of Michelle Rhee". I must say I'm most grateful that the Moderator has already passed that part of the demo - it was crucial. I must say that I'm also most surprised that you - with your high expertise in PERT Charts, ontology and what-have-you - failed to recognize that the message linked above was part of the promised demo.
Here below is a list of some 'elements' of an Interpretive Structural Model [ISM] from which the prose aspect of this partial demo has been developed. (The 'prose aspect' of the demo is, of course, contained in my messages appearing at Math-teach - including this one).
(The ISM itself is not illustrated; as you 'two biggest fans' do not read or understand ISMs, Field Representations [FRs] and the like - and you in particular, RH, persist in bringing up your quite useless PERT Charts [as though they are relevant at all] which you had triumphantly pinned up on all the walls of the halls and corridors of your office. If anyone is interested to see it, the model can be shown, in several parts).
Of course, I do not expect or anticipate that either of my 'two biggest fans' here would look through this list or even to understand the importance of constructing such a list: you've already provided plenty of evidence that you are incapable of that. To encourage you to at least glance at parts of the list, I observe that you are BOTH featured (not very complimentarily) in some of the elements of the list - specifically element Nos. 5 and 24 if you wish to get right down to reading about yourselves immediately.
Anyway, for whatever it is worth, I had developed a list of various THINGS TO DO in pursuit of creating such a demo as noted above. I had used this list to construct various parts of an ISM which (in conjunction with some Field Representations) helped me write that message pointed to above. Some parts of the list:
1. To try and prepare - ENTIRELY in prose - a live demonstration of the usefulness of p+sg, with justifications as possible 2. To demonstrate (using prose only) what is 'systemic change' 3. To discuss (using prose only) some aspects of 'systemic change' 4. To demonstrate (using prose only) some aspects of what may be involved in bringing about 'systemic change' 5. To try and enjoy myself while doing this demo (by taking a few pokes at Haim, RH, and others in that group of my baiters at Math-teach) 6. To use some specific cases under discussion at Math-teach 7. To demonstrate how to develop effective educational systems for the USA 8. To discuss how it may be possible to bring about systemic change in the US educational system 9. To discuss how crooks and predators may be stopped (or at least hindered) from having their say and do in complex systems 10. To discuss how the "cheating in school system after school system across the USA" may be hindered or perhaps even prevented 11. To provide information about practical 'tools for thought' that could help us change our ineffective systems; develop effective systems 12. To provide demonstrations of such 'tools for thought' 13. To demonstrate that OPMS is, specifically, such a 'tool for thought' that can help us develop effective systems 14. To demonstrate that OPMS is by far the most effective such 'tool for thought' available 15. To demonstrate that the 'OPMS process' can help us actively develop our mental models from vague ideas to actionable planning in systems 16.To suggest how the 'functional illiteracy' that plagues the US could be tackled 17. To demonstrate how the fraud in US educational systems could be tackled 18. To suggest the linkages between ill-health of systems and fraudulent practices in systems 19. To suggest how the HUGE losses that are caused by ineffective systems may be effectively tackled in practice 20. To demonstrate some truly healthy societal systems 20A: To discuss what may be the constituents and characteristics of "truly healthy societal systems" 21. To illustrate and discuss some successful Missions 22. To illustrate and discuss some FAILED Missions 23. To illustrate and discuss my ongoing Missions 24. To demonstrate that RH and Haim have persistently and continuingly lied about OPMS 25. To put up, in the simplest possible way, the fundamental rules of successfully working any complex system 26. Etc, etc, etc
I should have, of course, pointed all of this out to you right when I posted that message; my apologies for not having done so - I had several other things to think about as I was preparing for an important workshop.
I shall try, in future, to do above-noted 'pointing out' to you more conscientiously. On the other hand, perhaps not, for this reason: ALL MY POSTINGS, whether to this Forum or any other, are in fact the outcome of some OPMS modeling done for one purpose or another. In fact, WHATEVER I ever do in my daily life or achieve successfully (including the writing of this particular message to Math-teach) or fail to achieve - ALL I do is in fact an outcome of some such modeling done in pursuit of my all-encompassing main 'Mission', which is: "To propagate and apply OPMS, in India and worldwide".
Successes and failures of the OPMS: several instances have been pointed out in the PowerPoint presentation, "Some Missions of Interest", which has been attached to my post at "Democracy - how to achieve it?" - http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?threadID=2419536 .
Some casual remarks about all or some of the elements in the above list (and about models that may be made from such lists of elements):
Few of the elements (here; or in other lists) have as yet been 'FULLY ACCOMPLISHED' - though practically all have seen some MEASURABLE progress. This is in the nature of the OPMS process itself: it goes on, as systems do, as life itself goes on, and things keep happening, only some of which may be within our firm control.
The OPMS models constructed from such elements help the users to arrive at an *effective* and *usable* understanding of the systems they may be living/ working in. Via such effective understanding, users are enabled to act more effectively in pursuit of chosen Missions. This is clearly demonstrated (to anyone who actually uses the process; and who does not create foolish argumentation on irrelevancies).
Element No. 5: "To try and enjoy myself while doing this demo (by taking a few pokes at Haim, RH, and others in that group of my baiters at Math-teach)". I note that this is very much in line with the suggestion at the title of this thread: join in defending fun. I must say I REALLY HAD FUN! I do hope the both of you have also had some fun.
7. To demonstrate how to develop effective educational systems for the USA This demonstration is of course 'not quite complete' nor is what has been done on it it entirely successful as yet - but we're getting there, I believe. Full demonstration in due course.
Element No. 20. "To demonstrate truly healthy societal systems": such systems do not exist, to the best of my understanding, ANYWHERE in the world - though doubtless many of the systems in the Scandinavian countries may well be 'more healthy' (or even 'MUCH more healthy') than systems in most other 'nominal democracies' around the world. (I believe this has been one of the themes that Paul A. Tanner III has been articulating from time to time).
Element No. 20A: I have, in all my posts (here and elsewhere) been trying to demonstrate what may be the constituents and characteristics of "truly healthy societal systems" (and of 'individual' and 'organizational' systems as well).
Elements Nos. 21,22,23 in the above list have been fairly well illustrated in the Powerpoint presentation, "Some Missions of Interest".
I observe that one important element, No. 24. "To demonstrate that RH and Haim have persistently and continuingly lied about OPMS" has been quite successfully demonstrated - but it is not (yet) included in above-noted presentation. It will surely be included, in due course.
I've more or less arrived at the conclusion that the description "ENTIRELY" in Element No. 1 of the above list may be impossible to satisfy. To an extent, the argument CAN be provided in 'prose' - and I'm doing that in these messages of mine. However, for full and proper understanding, 'p+sg' is essential; further it is also clear that full understanding would only come to those who take the trouble to work through their own models on any Missions of direct interest to them.
Meanwhile, I do thank 'Math-teach' and its Moderators for giving me the opportunity to put up this demo as it stands thus far - and I look forward most keenly to continuing it over time.
GSC ("Still Shoveling Away!" - with apologies if due to Barry Garelick for any tedium caused; and with the observation that the SIMPLE way to avoid ALL such tedium would be to refrain from opening any messages purporting to have originated from GSC)