Two people with conflicting or incompatible mental models will likely:
- See different slices of the real world (read blog post “Q7- We Found the Enemy: Our Own Concepts!”);
- May be looking at the same thing but will interpret what they see differently;
- Use different language, or use the same words but with different meanings; and
- Will not be aware of all the above and will not know why they are unable to communicate productively (unless they practice internal listening and the rest of the discipline of “Mental Models” in Learning Organizations).
If they harbour mental models of each other that the other does not agree with (“On Michael Jackson, or Our Mental Models of People We Know”) then listening stops and the erosion of goodwill starts; further communication is unworkable.
What are the options in such a case?
- Option 1: Stop communication. To preserve goodwill, an agreement to acknowledge the fact that they have basic differences and to respect each other’s mental models instead of –
- Option 2: Use force so that the mental model of the more powerful will prevail or
- Option 3: Agree to obey the authority and judgment of a third party or
- Option 4: Use universally-accepted protocols for validating, eliminating or selecting mental models.
Unfortunately, protocols for Option 4 are not yet fully developed. The scientific method is a rather well-developed and tested set of protocols for validating mental models, but applied only to empirical validation or only on “what is” and “what works” (in figure below, only right side of Ken Wilber’s quadrants). Knowledge management is engaged in seeking, innovating, developing and re-using “what works”. Sustainable development criteria falls on the lower right quadrant.
Parallel protocols for validation and selection of mental models for the left side of Ken Wilber’s quadrants (see figure below) are not yet fully developed. Protocols for application to validation of experiential data (upper left quadrant) are still being developed in the discipines of transpersonal and paranormal psychology and in phenomenological research. There is no consensus on how “individual benefit” (upper left quadrant) is to be defined and assessed. What does it consist of? Money? Social opportunities? Learning and realizing human potential? Security? Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs is a step in clarifying this area. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the slew of accessory protocols on other aspects and varieties of human rights is a notable contribution on the lower left quadrant. Surprisingly, the Rotary Club’s “Four-Way Test” fits very well with Ken Wilber’s framework and provides commonly-understandable or laymen criteria for the four quadrants:
I have written about Ken Wilber’s framework and applied it in many ways in past blogs:
- Comparing the expanded KM framework and Wilber’s framework: “Tacit-Group Processes in KM” and “Practical Exercise #15: Ingredients of Effective Group Action”
- Applied to estimation of global stocks of human capital, relationship capital, tangible assets, structural capital and natural capital: “Towards a Global Balance Sheet”
- Applied to understanding learning organizations: “Knowledge Pathways in a Learning Organization”
- Applied to classification of memory: “Four Types of Memory”
- Applied to understand societal megatrends: “Combining Megatrends #1 and #2: the Next Societal Innovations?”
- Applied to evolution of institutions: “Evolving Forms of Governance”
- On the scientific method’s bias for the external world: “A Paradox of 20th Century Scientific Practice”
Note that there are embedded links in this blog post. They show up as colored text. While pressing “Ctrl” click on any link to create a new tab to reach the webpages pointed to.
Tags: Abraham Maslow, benefit, communication, conscious living, expanded KM framework, Four-Way Test, governance, hierarchy of needs, human capital, KM framework, knowledge assets, knowledge management, learning, learning organization, listening, Maslow, memory, mental model, natural capital, paranormal psychology, personal KM, personal knowledge management, phenomenological research, relationship capital, Rotary Club, structural capital, sustainable development, tangible assets, transpersonal psychology, Universal Declaration of Human Rights