Joe N. posted Jun 5, 2014 4:21 AM (http://mathforum/kb/message.jspa?messageID=9479224): > > (Robert Hansen - earlier attributed wrongly to GSC): > > And you have to establish if the goal is an > > education system. Maybe the actual goal is jobs and > > standard of living. > > (Joe N.): That would be the job of a society, an even > larger > animal than the education system. Though of course, > related, in a way that GSC would capitalize. > Of course. (As was seen earlier, when I 'divagated' in an earlier post at this thread to Thomas Piketty's work on the 'decline of capitalism'!)
Such 'wider' issues (/'larger animals') would surely crop up/ leap out of the 'undermind' during any discussion of 'systems' of most kinds - and they do indeed, in practically all discussions of any system problem, issue or Mission.
[And, often enough, I may observe, they throw up enough of a diversion to ensure the discussion goes 'off-track' entirely, in particular when people have not as yet become accustomed to think in terms of 'prose + structural graphics' (p+sg). The first sentence in the last paragraph of this post may help convince about the need for p+sg. Or it may not: till my OPMS website is up and running, I'm only 'testing the waters of conventional prose', so to speak - with the somewhat inadequate tool or pure prose!]
Now, right here, partially (but only partially), a 'diversion' from the main issue: +++++ Most discussions conventionally handled are often thrown off-track when this occurs (unless there's an effective 'chairperson' of the debate/discussion).
In fact, I even found such 'larger animals leaping out of the undermind', so to speak, when a freshman college student wanted to improve on his woeful performance that he'd recorded to date through his school career: the 'Mission' that initially came to his mind, was, I recall, simply
"to improve my results in my math exams".
During our discussions on that Mission, it turned out that there were huge animals lurking in his 'undermind' (in fact, in the 'undermind' of our society as we've created it here in India, where results in exams of various kinds are often taken to be the sine qua non of the 'quality' of a person, his/her ability to perform in some task/challenge taken up).
[From my experience thus far with our discussions on many issues at Math-teach, I find this is a 'system problem' that you in the USA have not overcome either, despite your considerably greater development as a 'free society' than we in India have managed to accomplish. As for instance, is seen in the many societal issues (larger animals leaping around in the mindspace) and the "millions of goals" that come to mind when we discuss issues in the educational system. In real life, with all participants adequately familiar with 'Warfield modeling', it's not a *real issue* that need hold us up at all].
A 'diversion' from the diversion - could this be termed to be a 'divagation'?: ===== For instance, you may have come across in the international news an issue (that turned out to be a pretty sizable concern for the new Indian government) during its formation under our latest Prime Minister Mr Narendra Modi, when it was discovered that the person he'd put in charge of the ministry of education/HRD (a Ms Smriti Irani, an actor turned politician) did not seem to possess a college degree. (Thankfully, it was quite effectively handled using conventional means, or it might have even led to the fall of our new government! They do not yet know anything about OPMS).
Back to the earlier 'diversion':
It turned out in the case of our college student wishing to improve his math performance that all that was needed was a slight amendment to his Mission, as follows:
"To understand thoroughly all topics in my math syllabus, and THEREBY to improve, very significantly, my results in my math exams, tests and quizzes"
Once that college student had taken to mind and heart such a 'Mission' that more or less expressed his deeper (unstated) concerns, he was able to 'go full steam ahead', so to speak, on his issue of developing an 'adequate understanding' of his college math. ===== Commas, brackets of various kinds, new sub-paragraphings, even sometimes, new chapters, maybe even new books (!!) etc, etc, etc, - they're all pretty useful rhetorical devices within 'conventional prose' to help us handle the wealth of 'larger beasties' that our minds throw up during our discussions, the 'departures, diversions and divagations' that crop up all the time - but all together they are really rather inadequate, as I'm trying to demonstrate at a rather simplistic level in this post.
Using 'Warfield modeling' (ISM, and Field Representation, FR; and some other developments yet to come), it's as simple as articulating the new concern by way of an 'element' and checking out right then or later its "CONTRIBUTIONS" to the other elements already in the model. (Of course, all of this "IMPLIES" that the people involved in the discussion are intellectually able and generally willing to work in that way! Q: Why that 'exclamation mark' right there??!!)
I observe as an 'aside' of some kind, perhaps by way of a 'side-bar' of sorts, that 'prose + structural graphics' (p+sg) seems a practical way to help get us further than 'pure prose' can. I also note that p+sg is a still-developing technology (and a yet-to-be evolved 'culture'). Here, I might further observe that the 'CAPITALISATION' Joe N. has remarked upon is actually intended to serve a purpose that is not accommodated in 'conventional prose' at all - but is quite satisfactorily handled via 'prose + structural graphics' (p+sg), for which rather few people, I'm afraid, have as yet adequately understood the need despite my several postings here at Math-teach. Perhaps the forthcoming OPMS website may help a bit. +++++
It is generally found that a pretty *effective* way to handle such issues in most discussions is simply to enable people involved to sketch or formally develop their own models of the systems (or parts of systems) they are seeking to 'handle' and thereby to check out whether they want to handle such issues in that discussion right there or later whether they feel they can 'decouple' for the moment their current interest from the larger issues that have cropped up.
In part, this may be accomplished through formal 'systems modeling' (mostly via Interpretive Structural Modeling, ISM, *Warfield's powerful modeling tool*);
In part it may be done through 'informal modeling' such as is possible by way of tools such as 'Mind Mapper' (http://www.mindgenius.com/Download/MindGenius/Business.aspx?_kk=mind%20map&_kt=110fed92-c93c-4da5-9248-744d94e988a0&gclid=CLP12q3W4b4CFdcXjgoddn0A2Q) or 'Free Mind' (http://freemind.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/Main_Page). There are numerous other tools I understand that can I understand at least partially enable such 'informal systems modeling', but I've not tried them out. The two mentioned above are 'adequate', though not 'sufficient' to bring home the full power of the 'informal systems modeling' I strongly recommend to help us develop our 'representations' of our 'mental models' of the systems issues our minds think of quite naturally - as, for instance, when we often 'doodle' sketches while we discuss complex issues. (We do not generally realise the following - but those 'doodles' are in fact representations of our 'mental models' representing our understanding of the 'systems' we're thinking about when we think about complex issues!)
In part, I note that even Warfield's modeling tools, powerful though they are, do need some further development, in particular to help us handle system relationships like "IMPLIES", unless of course Robert Hansen - who, with varius other world 'experts' assisting him, has I believe understood "IMPLICATIONS" within complex systems thoroughly and in depth - if he would deign to help us out, we may be able to handle such complex matters.
[The 'informal modeling' part of OPMS that somewhat better enables this 'informal systems modeling' is not yet ready: hopefully, I shall be able to get it done soon after my OPMS website is launched later this year; the formal 'Warfield modeling' part of OPMS works pretty well in the prototype OPMS software, though it will surely see some improvements being made in it].
There are at least a dozen other divagations and other large animals leaping around in my undermind (including, probably, my lack of knowledge of (American) English poetry, which prevents me from properly understanding in depth the subtleties of Robert Hansen's postings here) - so I'm closing my post right now in the hope that I've at least partially made my point, whatever it may be.
The *ONLY* point I'm really trying to make - amongst all the diversions, divagations, incoherencies, contradictions and distortions - is that it could be most useful to learn to use Warfield's approach to systems in our discussions of ANY complex issue. In fact, I believe I might well have responded to you with only the above sentence, I really needn't have gone through the sizable exercise of creating this long response - but I thought you might find that 'dismissive'. Not so at all, I think: I do believe more or less every argument I've made here is 'encompassed' in that first sentence, just as practically everything that may be relevant to the 'state of school education in the USA' is encompassed in the 'simple' Mission: "To develop an effective school education system for the USA".