Slashdot Mirror
How Much Do Models Influence Our Thinking?
OCatenac writes: "Frank Schirrmacher, head of the arts and science department for the influential German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, considers the question of how much metaphor and model influence our view of the world."
If you rely too much on metaphors and models to base your decisions on then you are going to get burned. The real world is never as clean and perfect as a modeled environment. Models should only be used for an initial inspection of how something should be approached. Prior to implementation, a more direct, hands-on method needs to be used in order to work out any bugs. This applies to any sort of project where modeling is used; software, hardware, geological exploration, architecture, sociology, etc.
Chris DiBona
--
Grant Chair, Linux Int.
Pres, SVLUG
Co-Editor, Open Sources
Open Source Program Manager, Google, Inc.
I think that our brains are "wired" to use models to describe thing. They are useful - no, essential - for communicating complicated ideas to other people.
A mathematical equation such as a line, curve, or a plan can't really be imagined without a model using the Cartesian co-ordinate system. After hundreds of years, it's still the best thing that we have. Models are also important in science, which is replete with things that cannot be directly observed - and therefore require modeling. The atom. The quark. String theory.
The model is a valuable human mental tool.
A model, in a way, is language to express ideas. Much of our knowledge today that we take for granted today is built on the knowledge from our ancestors.
George Orwell said it well in 1984... If you control the language, you control thoughts:
If you breed breed out the concept of "freedom" and take related words out of the lexicon, you can control your population so that they don't know that they're free. Even if someone has a thought in his head that he's not free, he can't communicate that idea to others.
Similarly, if you create new language (or models), you allow new thoughts to form.
In the post-modern era, discussions like this are a bit pointless. To speak of how "metaphor and model" influence our view of the world is unnecessary when it is realized that we create our world by the metaphors we use to view it.
Some psychology guy proposed this decades ago... The Whorfian hypothesis. It is a neat idea, although I don't recall why, it was discounted.
A google search reveals oodles of material.
I think 1984 was written around the time this was a big idea.
Language doesn't control our thoughts, but it does strongly affect how we express them (for obvious reasons.) To steal an example from Pinker, 1994: The fact that you can be unable to find the right words to express "what you meant to say" is, among other possible illustrations, a demonstration that lingustic determinism just doesn't totally make sense.
Creating a new model doesn't necessarily allow new thoughts to form -- but it gives a different way of looking at a situation, and lets the creator of that model express his thoughts more clearly to himself and to others, which can lead to better-developed theories and better communication of thoughts.
You can't not have a concept just because you don't have a word for it. It's just that you can't talk about it without the words.
When I see Schiffer it changes my train of thought completely.
Buyt seriously, yes, of course models do vastly affect thinking. Is this even a question? As more and more of our daily interactions are with information-driven systems, the metaphor used to convey that information is the determiner of how we interpret it.
The desktop metaphor and the command line metaphor (and it is a metaphor) define how we think of, and consequently, utilize computers. Even something seemly obvious and basic as the telephone, the pager, or the palmpilot are all used defined by their metaphors.
Kevin Fox
Kevin Fox
Some years ago, frustrated by what I felt were deficiencies in the typical business models of the day, I found myself writing a paper on developing a more organic model for analysis/description of system processes for a class in organization theory.
The article talks about HAL, "2001", and nanotechnology as well as the concept of the invention overtaking the inventor. My paper used certain ideas I found in the "Dune" series. Interesting that part of the Golden Path most clearly described in "God Emperor of Dune" involves a response to the foreseen possibility of the annihilation of humans by Ixian technology.
I think the ongoing challenge is to develop technology that supports a more organic model of ourselves and our world. The old business models of the pyramid or concentric layers are deficient not only because they inadequately describes the organization, but becauses they shape thinking into seeing organizations in static terms.
Life, it's possibilities and dangers, is less adequately described in terms of the linear dynamics of classic vectors then by elements of fractal modeling which is essentially based on clear boundaries, but my, the surprises within!!
We have met the enemy and he is us - Pogo (Walt Kelly)
If you breed breed out the concept of "freedom" and take related words out of the lexicon, you can control your population so that they don't know that they're free.
The only problem with that type of reasoning is that languages are not set in stone, and removing a concept from a populus isn't as simple as erasing some words in a dictionary. As long as the people feel the need to express "freedom", weather longing for it, celebrating it, or even removing it from others, there will be some term used to express it.
Language and concepts are tied very closely, but words themselves are only one form of communication. Also, there is always the tool of the anecdote and the metaphore. Suppose all the words relating to freedom vanished. Now, suppose an author wrote a book about a slave escaping his masters to live without their rule. Because that book's plot and theme relate to freedom so strongly, people could then use the anecdote of that book to express the concept. There are a thousand other examples, but suffice it to say that as long as there are any artists, storytellers, or visionaries around, a concept that exists in the minds of the people will have no problem finding a term by which to be expressed.
--
Feminism is the wild notion that women are human beings.
No, Karma really is meaningless now.
However, back when it was meaningful, he would have posted that without the bonus, so as to get moderated down less, and up more...
So explain to me: what is the point of being a member of the "I Hate Signal 11" club? I mean, really? Sure, he says some stupid stuff sometimes; I do too. And lots of people are members of the "I Hate Anonymous Coward" club, because he posts even *stupider* stuff. But why the vindictiveness?
I think you value Karma more than he does; that is to say, the answer here would be envy. Which is funny, since you're posting as an AC.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
As a scientist I know all about models and the limitations inherent in them. Challenge the basic assumption and question the models based on them. Never be blinded by absolutism. Lord Kelvin was convinced that the Earth was much younger than that proposed by geologists. Kelvin based his model on the thermal cooling of a molten body. Unfortunately, he did not factor in an additional factor that was just discovered, radioactive heating.
I can't remember what T.C. Chamberlain's exact published quote was in response to Lord Kelvin, but it went something like this: The facinating impressionism of mathematical models with all their precision and elegance should not blind us to the deficits that premise the whole process.
This was published 100 yrs ago. If you need a translation, then here it is: If your fancy pants model is wrong, it is wrong. This also applies for those that choose to predict the future.
Electric current direction is a convention. It does not simplify anything about the true direction of current; it is basically just a reversal of signs. We know very well the direction electrons are flowing. It has simply become a *convention*. There are few places where the actual flow of positive/negative charge needs to be considered for understanding the electrical behavior (such as in semiconductor physics or electromagnetics).
And I disagree that flawed models hinder breakthroughs... flawed models BY DEFINITION encourage breakthroughs. A model is only accepted as long as it fits all known observations. If it is flawed, an observation inconsistent with the model will force the flawed model to be rejected and replaced with better models. Yes an even more complex and still flawed model (i.e. Ptolomy's epicycles) can be created but there is every opportunity for someone (Kepler) to create a newer, better model.
We know this to be false, because of studies of other cultures where there are very few color words (White, Black, and Red, for instance). These people can discriminate between pink and purple just fine, even though their vocabulary doesn't allow them to verbally make distinctions between these colors. So people can perceive what their hardware is set up to perceive, even if they don't have any words to describe what they are perceiveing.
On the other hand, people also have a short-term memory limit of 5 to 9 (7 +/- 2) chunks of information. A good model can turn 15 to 20 unrelated pieces of informaion into three or four chunks -- which can all be held in short-term memory at one time and mentally manipulated. So having a good model will make some thoughts possible that would be impossible (because of the limitations of short-term memory) without the model.
I realize that you are joking, but what you say is not all that far from how newborns start making sense of their senses. it is generally believed that they don't see "objects" from the start, but blobs of light and color (and this is also what adults see when they've been blind for all their life and somehow have their vision restored -- reference: one of Oliver Sachs' books). if you think of it, the whole idea that the world is made of "things" is a mental construct -- the actual, underlying physical world (assuming materialism here) only has particles and fields and the like, there is nothing in an electron that makes it part of "this table". of course, our senses don't deal with the world at the particle level, but the same problem applies: your brain has to *learn* that the table is one "thing" and the book on it is another "thing" even though they're physically contiguous.
It's 2000. No moon base. No quarter mile wide rotating office complex in orbit. No regular operating commercial space shuttle with velcro-wearing stewardesses.
No HAL.
This nonsense about science fiction being the essence of prophesy has gotten out of hand when we start redefining "myth" as "model" in some pseudoscientific sense.
Models yield precise, quantifiable and accountable predictions -- not a bunch of mumbo-jumbo for parasitically castrated engineers to opiate the pain of their existence with falsely inspired visions of "tomorrow".
Yeah, Arthur C. Clark had a hit on geostationary satellites. OK, so let's rename geostationary orbit "Clark orbit" but, please, can't you just face the fact that you've been screwed out of the future you could have built if you'd merely been given the chance by the scum who provided you with false inspirations while they centralized control?
Seastead this.
me, I'd rather shoot for another way of opening my mind: trying to *really* understand at least two radically different cultures, from the inside (yeah, i'm working on it, and it's quite confusing at times). of course, that is not culture-free either in itself; it's another western-modern trend to value multi-culturalism, just a somewhat less mainstream one :=)
I'd have to agree with you on the Bronowski series (and it really was better than watching Sagan staring in wide-eyed wonder out of his spaceship in Cosmos). I was taking some physics courses at the time AoM was being shown and for some reason the show was popular with just about everyone in the class. Some memorable discussions invariably followed each week's segment.
At one time you could purchase VHS tapes of the series. Well, that was a long time ago. Since PBS cannot see fit to re-air great programs like AoM (they might upset someone who really needs to see another Antique Roadshow) I decided to re-read the book that was written along with the series. Still a recommended read.
Cheers...
--
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
Bruce Sterling's comments are spot on:
Speaking of Newt Gingrich as a "science fiction novelist" he argues that there are nobody left to assess technology and its impact on society. "Nobody but hobbyists, day-traders and cranks."
Science, models, thinking about the future and thereby shaping the future is too important to leave to Hollywood. We need informed debate, constructive arguments and a vision that can once again make Americans (and the rest of the world) passionate about science and the future. There are no great dreams anymore because, perhaps, there are no great dreamers.
Dream, then, but know that dreaming in itself is not enough.
Hi!
Models influence my thinking quite a bit.
Models like:
Cindy Crawford
Naomi Campbell
Tyra Banks
Linda Evangelista
Patricia Ford
Just to name a few....
Co-founder and designer at Music Nearby: http://musicnearby.com
Models are necessary to think; Without a Model, you cannot think. Thinking involves manipulation. Unless your thoughts physically manipulate the world in real time, (in which case the world is in your mind, and could be considered to be... "only a model"), your thoughts manipulate a model in your head.
Consider that you wake up in the morning and you'd like to sneak off to eat a sandwitch. But, you're disoriented; your model in your head of how your house is layed out and where you are with respect to it is incorrect. But then you check yourself with the world, and align yourself correctly; you make your model and the world align correctly. Ah, now we can go on to get that sandwitch.
Similarly, if you are manipulating a program, you have a certain model in your head about how the program works. Sometimes we keep it in a hash in our heads (A->B, B->C, C->E, E->D, A->E as well), and sometimes we keep it as a planar graph. This is analygous to playing quake in two ways: One, you run ahead until you get to an intersection. At the intersection, you've memorized the response that you should turn right. This is good for quick response, but bad for cognizing a strategy. The other way, you keep an overhead map in your mind, and then consider your location on the map. This is better for formulating a strategy, but not good for running around in the maze quickly.
But both the hash and the map (cartography, not mathematics) are models in our mind; just different forms.
There really is no way to think without a model.
Now, as for the nature of these models, what do we need from these models?
They are like any tools; Speed of execution, accuracy, reliability, and cost of formation are all consderations.
Visual models are generally the best model for cognitive processing; Aural models are generally the best model for direction processing.
Visual models have two primary advantages over aural models:
- Visual models are 2 dimensional. Aural models, if they can be called models, are one dimensional streams of syllables. For example, mathematical computation (1.00794*2 + 15.9994) on paper is significantly easier than mathematical computation through a tape recorder. This is because the visual image. Visual models can tunnel through an Audio stream, but this is generally not as efficient as resorting to the visual models in their pure form, and using the aural form only for the elements that it excels at, such as conveying experience, which is fundamentally tied to temporality. For example, consider music, a song, or even the song, "5 'n' 8's 13." (It *is* a song.)
- Visual models persist. Aural models disappear as soon as the syllables pass through the mind, and are thus terrible for cognitive analysis. Again, consider a piece of paper vs. a sample on a tape player. It is trivial to to remove the 2D element and make the argument orthogonal. Now, the visual model can be shaped, manipulated, moved about. You can take your scissors, either physical or mental, and can move things about with ease. Now, let's consider the audio model. To manipulate it, we need to replay over and over, either on a tape player or in our mind, and reposition information slowly, tediously. While we are replaying, we have no queue's to our location other than the song stream that is going through us. This is what I mean when I say that sound does not persist, but images do.
Sound is good at conveying linear instructions, because they require step by step temporal guidance. Light is a little worse, because you have to consider your "current temporal location" on the instruction guide, and navigate your map. This is a small price, but it is a price. Do remember that it's easy to correct for missed steps by indexing back on a visual track, rather than with an aural track.Excellent examples of visual description are comic books (in which authors have finer control over their communication patterns), manuals for repairing cars with diagrams of the pieces of the car (also a comic), airplane guides for what to do in the event of an emergency (also a comic), and the Illustrated TCP/IP volumes I-III (Stephens; almost a comic).
I'd like to add that there is no such thing as 3 dimensional vision; the illusion of 3 dimensions derives completely from...
- the passage of time
- blurring of distant objects
- overlapping semi-transparent representation of objects
This lends to the primary reason that I believe that 3-D OS's are generally a bad idea: The essence of 3d is that something must be hidden in order for something else to be revealed (through turning, or whatever). There are many cases where this is actually a good thing (task bars), but generally, there is an equally good, or better, mechanism on recognized two dimensional surfaces.Yes, this is still entirely on-topic; desktops are one of the models that we use extensively. Note that icons and cartoons are the best depictions of our folders and files (rather than, say, physical pictures), since it better reflects the icons in our mind (and by extention, our model). For a better understanding of this principle and a better depiction of the argument, read Scott McClouds's "Understanding Comics". Stated briefly: If you see a cartoon picture of a knife and fork, you wouldn't be surprised if they started talking and dancing around; but if it was drawn realistically or photographically, the effect is quite different. One is an icon, and thus a symbol living in the mind, the other is a picture, and thus a depiction of something dropped in the world.
Some day, I plan to write a more elegant, cohesive, and comprehensive description of these ideas, but I am not there yet; this is just some Sunday morning Slashdot. Don't bother checking out taoriver.net just yet; I just moved, and DSL won't be up for another month.
Let me finish with a general association of mine: Light is for knowledge, understanding, and the mind. Sound is for experience, awareness, and life.
Models are just that...convenient ways to explain the universe around us. Unfortunately, the scientific community seems very establishment, and resistant to change. Nobody likes to see models they got Nobel prizes for torn down. I'm sure a lot of people didn't like Einstein's proposition that time and space are not absolutely flat as in Euclidean geometry. And until recently most of the medical world laughed at things like acupuncture and herbal remedies. But lo and behold, after doing scientific analysis, they find that all those "primitive" people who have been using "natural" methods of healing for millenia, actually got something right. Who woulda thunk?
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
It's called the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, and Brown and Lenneburg showed in their paper "Hanunoo color categories" (undoubtedly misspelled) that linguistic terms for colors did in fact affect color discrimination.
Now as to the strong form of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, that you can't think about things you can't say -- something neither Whorf nor Sapir ever said anything close to, but if they read about the work in deconstructionism that they're being called the originators of, they'd just shit -- of course that's nonsense. But there's enough evidence and has been for years that linguistic constructs affect such fundamental cognitive mechanisms as color discrimination, and we ignore the effects of language on thought at our peril.
Whorf and Sapir were linguists, not psychologists, though the field of psycholinguistics arose (in part) from their work.
Many, many years ago psycholinguistics was one of the things I took more courses in than many others.
I admit I didn't read any article(s) in question, but rather only the Slashdot replies. It seems that readers took the notion of models and metaphors to mean pretty much anything, so I'll chime in as well.
We use models pretty much every waking moment. There are of course the obvious scientific models, where we try to model the physical "reality" around us and try to explain new unknown observations with these models, or try to predict as yet unobserved behaviours. This is what brought us from the dark ages of religiously-oppressed pseudo-science to where we are today.
Then there are the models that we use in everyday life. Typically we have different names for them: rules of thumb, old wisdoms, experience etc. All of these help us build a model of life around us in general that is supposed to make decisions easier. Once we've learned that fire burns, we don't have to find that out again and again, it's a safe assumption that it does. This carries over to interactions with other people, and we build models of certain types of people, the kinds of behaviours of adopt or avoid to be liked or not disliked etc. These accumulated models then make up a large part of one's personality. We all know how this or that friend will react if we do or say a certain thing.
While these model certainly make everyday life much easier and less stressful, I think models can become very limiting or even desctructive if relied upon to the exclusion of new learning. Take the old saying that you can't teach an old dog new tricks; while it seems that most people tend to follow this course with advancing age, many people adopt this rigid attitude much earlier.
The boss at my previous job was a classic example. He was a very conservative person, his entire life dictated by rules of thumb, generalizations, and only his own personal experiences. Unfortunately this carried over into his professional life of managing a software and hardware development team. While managers in general are served very well by their experience and a certain dose of cautious conservativism to prevent them from gallopping into every new direction they hear about, the almost complete exclusion of new approaches and the unknown can eventually transform them into dead wood. This is more true in the IT industry than almost anywhere else.
My boss would always try to make each new problem conform to his set of experiences, and if that didn't work, he would either dead-lock, or try to over-simplify it to where he felt it became a familiar problem. When he pulled out his bag of platitudes and wisdoms, and we tried to convince him that this problem was sufficiently different to warrant some new thinking, he would always ridicule us by saying that we always thought each new problem was unique. Eventually the standoff between the manager and the team became so debilitating that the team members started leaving the company one by one.
I guess the moral of stories like this is that while models and metaphors are vital in helping us deal with an ever more complex world, we have to follow the scientific world and discard models when they are proven wrong or inadequate by new observations. We can only make our models conform to reality, and not vice versa.
Uwe Wolfgang Radu
Well, I think most of the people at Slashdot are the ones charged with making science fiction reality, but come back to reality for a while.
Deal with the following:
1. We kept up with Moore's law, and we haven't reached talking intellegent computers yet. Oh well.
2. Steady and impressive advances have left rocketry still very hard and expensive. Oh well.
3. People just haven't been motivated to put stewardesses in velcro. In fact, velcro is out of style. Oh well.
Humankind is doing okay. The only reason it's called 2001 is because people can't see that far into the future. And aren't we happy another deadline year-named novel didn't come about?
-Ben