Date: Oct 25, 2012 2:57 AM
Author: GS Chandy
Subject: Re: Jo Boaler reveals attacks by Milgram and Bishop
Robert Hansen (RH) posted Oct 21, 2012 7:40 AM (GSC's remarks follow):
> On Oct 20, 2012, at 12:49 PM, GS Chandy
> <email@example.com> wrote:
> > The late John N. Warfield (JNW) devised a way of
> looking at the world that enables us quite clearly to
> see how actions performed day to day may "CONTRIBUTE
> TO" each other and to things that happen in the
> course of events.
> And since this has not succeeded in all that time,
> doesn't this tell you that the world's problems are
> far too complicated to be solved by a to-do list?
What makes you think:
a) it is not in the process of succeeding?
b) that what develops out of Warfield's contributions is a "to-do list"?
Attached herewith is a description of a direct development from Warfield's work, namely, the 'One Page Management System' (OPMS), which should clearly indicate (to those who are not blind) that this is VERY different indeed from a "to-do list" as you quaintly term it. Challenge: Show this attachment around (to others than Haim, Wayne Bishop, yourself). Ensure that you have a reasonable size of sample. What percentage of viewers of that presentation will claim, after looking at this presentation, that what develops out of it is a "to-do list" (as you so quaintly term it)? My claim/prediction is that it will be around about zero percent.
As the obvious fact has not become clear to you as yet, let me clarify: what develops out of Warfield's work is a simple, actionable 'representation' of the 'mental models' that may exist in the mind of the (individual/group) user. This is far cry from the "to-do list" that you've been fixated upon for years! These models have the special characteristic that they are not mere 'descriptive models'. What develop out of an application of Warfield's approach to systems science are 'normative models'. We can provide references, if required, to: a) 'models'; 'mental models'; 'descriptive models'; 'normative models'.
By the way, here is something for your special interest:
Next week, a college student proposes to start work using the OPMS process for the Mission "To improve (his) spelling in the English language". (His current skills at spelling are something worse than yours - to the extent I have been able to judge yours from interactions here. I estimate it will take about 2-3 months before he significantly improves his spelling. (This estimate is based on the kind of time he feels he is able to put forward on this Mission.
Unfortunately, I don't have anyone yet who has shown interest to take up the Mission "To improve his/ her truthfulness and scientific accuracy in what he/she writes".
("Still Shoveling Away!")
> am dead-on in my analysis of OPMS and comparing it to
> the PERT charts of the 70's and 80's. In the 70's and
> 80's the hopes were very high for many computational
> advances. People realized that real issues don't work
> that way.
> Bob Hansen