MENTOMOLOGY & MINDBUGS LO3372 (long)

JOHNWFIELD@aol.com
Mon, 23 Oct 1995 07:22:07 -0400

I have received so many requests for the paper on Mentomology and mindbugs,
and have recently learned to send files via email. Therefore I am venturing
to post this article on the list.
JOHN WARFIELD
JOHNWFIELD@AOL.COM
-----
Host's Note: I don't usually distribute items this long on the
learning-org list, but I felt John's paper would be especially
interesting to LO readers.

Rick Karash, rkarash@world.std.com, host for learning-org
-----

MENTOMOLOGY

THE IDENTIFICATION AND CLASSIFICATION
OF MINDBUGS











A PRIMER

























) 1995 John N. Warfield
THE BEGINNINGS OF
MENTOMOLOGY

A few years ago, during a cruise on the Ship of
State in the Sea of Knowledge, certain behaviorally-
related symptoms appeared that seemed to be
responsible for various unfortunate occurrences.
Once these symptoms became overwhelmingly
evident, a modest effort was undertaken to try to
identify the origins of the symptoms.

As a result of the early years of study, a new
discipline was initiated called "mentomology". The
purposes to which this discipline was directed were
as follows:

To create a distinctive name that would
designate the class of origins of the
symptoms, if such origins could be
identified

To try to identify and name each distinctive
origin of one or more symptoms

If more than one origin seemed to be present, to
identify and name the categories into
which those origins could be placed, so as
to start a system of classification that could
provide some framework for continuing.

Beyond the naming and categorization of the
origins of the symptoms, to try to describe
each origin well enough to enable it to be
recognizable for purposes of further study,
or for purposes of testing possible antidotes
or remedial activities

To study past discoveries or writings, to see
whether any assistance could be found in
the Sea of Knowledge and, if successful, to
make the results known to the owners,
the crew, and passengers on the Ship.
If it turned out that cruises on the Ship of
State continued to experience the same or
similar symptoms, in spite of modest
amelioratory measures, it was thought that
perhaps ultimately mentomology might
become a recognized academic discipline,
possibly in a graduate school of business,
or some other professional school, where
Mentomology Science could be the basis
for a masters' degree, such as M. M. A.
(Master of Mentomology Administration),
or perhaps M. S. in M. S. or MS2.

The time has come to report on the early findings.
The first purpose stated above has been satisfied.
The apparent origins of the symptoms have been
designated as "mindbugs" to bring the language in
line with contemporary computer languages (in
view of the fact that computers and people are
becoming relatively indistinguishable in terms of
functions and dysfunctions).

So far, twenty-five mindbugs have been identified.
These are envisaged as falling within four
categories, although so far it has not always been
possible to consign a mindbug to just one category.
Later refinements may allow this flaw to be
corrected.

The categories identified so far are:

Mindbugs of Minsinterpretation: those where
concepts are misconstrued or
misattributed, because of faulty
interpretation, Type M.

Mindbugs of Clanthink: those where concepts
are very widely perceived to be
correct, but which are demonstra-
bly incorrect, Type C.

Mindbugs of Habit: those which involve
ingrained behavior, evinced with
essentially no conscious thought,
Type H.

Mindbugs of Error: just plain mistakes,
Type E.

A fifth category that is under consideration has been
designated as "Mindbugs of Specific Human
Shortcomings". This category is based on a
hypothesis that there may be something inherent in
people as people that causes mindbugs which can
never be corrected. However it remains to be seen,
as the field of mentomology develops, whether
there really are uncorrectable Mindbugs. In
studying this possibility, it is intended to allow all
forms of technology to be applied as aids to the
human being, and if this category is allowed to
persist, it will only be because the postulated
"specific human shortcomings" continue no matter
what assistance is provided by any known form of
technology (hard, soft, a combination, or otherwise).
Whatever else may be true about this potential
category, it does seem to suggest a challenge to
discover new ways to help overcome the impact of
Mindbugs which might, otherwise, be thought to be
fundamental to being a human.

In the following, Mindbugs are described. For each
Mindbug, one or more identifying indexes is
provided. Each index uses the type letter given
above (M for Misinterpretation, C for Clanthink,
etc.) and a number to identify the particular
Mindbug within the Type. Where a Mindbug is at
least temporarily assigned to more than one type,
the several types are separately acknowledged.

MINDBUGS

Affinity to All-Encompassing Dichotomies (H3).
The necessity of the academic propensity among
philosophers to create dichotomies, and to choose
one member of the dichotomy as superior to
another, not recognizing the possibility that there is
a continuum of which the two members may be at
best end points.

Aversity to Budgeting for Interface Expenses
(C7, E4, H2). What large organizations have
budget line items that pay only for interactions
among different divisions or components of the
organization, whose staff is committed solely to the
promotion and conduct of such interactions? What
organizations reward particular managers solely for
carrying out the function of interface management,
allocating funds to those different organizational
components solely to pay for the necessary
interactions with other components? If there are
such organizations, surely they are small in number,
because the governing organization charts typically
show functional responsibilites of the most well-
defined type, such that managers who have
responsibilities for their own particular functions
(even those whose products ultimately produce
interactions with products developed through other
functions for which others are responsible),
nevertheless do not find it appropriate to fund
interactions, because to do so might threaten their
capability to carry out their internal functions.

Aversity to Deep Thought (H8). One of the most
frequently noted aspects of high-level management
behavior is that whatever is to be adjudicated must
be presented (at least initially) on one page. No
distinction can be made according to "depth" of
thinking.

Sometimes such a one-pager can be followed up
with a one-hour presentation, in which
transparencies are the standard medium.

In either instance, the size of a normal sheet of
paper is normally the defining concept of what kind
of information can be offered. In some instances, a
computer screen determines the size that is
available to present a concept.

Confusing Prestige with Authoritativeness (M3).
Huge financial rewards are available today to
consulting organizations that assist clients in
working with complexity. Some of these
organizations have very high profiles. It is not
unusual to see the expression the "prestigious X"
in referring to these organizations. One must keep
in mind that, if an organization is prestigious, it is
often because of what went on there several
decades into the past. The prestige may have come
from pioneers who have long since died, and whose
ideas were not even recognized at the time as being
significant.

Failure to Distinguish Among Context, Content,
and Process (H9). The context for human
interaction, if left undefined, admits content-oriented
dialog to be random, incoherent, rambling,
unfocused; and may well cause dissension
concerning the process being applied in the
interaction. The process for human interaction, if
left undefined, admits the content interaction to fly
back and forth between discussions about what
process ought to be used in respect to a particular
topic; and may well allow context shifts to be made
arbitrarily, as various misassociations are
triggered, or as unarticulated interests emerge
spontaneously. The content that can be produced
may well be incoherent as participants shift from
one context to another, and propose different
process components.

Indistinguished Affinity to Unstructured
Discussion (C6, E3, H1). Unstructured discussion
is widely practiced as a way of sharing thought,
and as a means of providing instruction. Such
discussion, when it involves the potential discussion
of complex situations, with due attention to the
Work Program of Complexity (Description,
Diagnosis, Design, and Implementation) invariably
rests solely upon the narrow shoulders of prose
expression, which can be trusted only to the extent
that linear presentation is capable both of capturing
and communicating a complex set of relationships.
Since prose alone lacks such a capability, the
failure to distinguish, consciously, unstructured
discussion that deals with complex situations from
unstructured discussion that deals with ordinary
situations is a clear indication of the presence of
this Mindbug.

Insensitivity to Conceptual Scale (C4). Situations
are not distinguished in terms of the relevance of
their conceptual scale to human cognitive
limitations, nor to the likely irrelevance of methods
learned or experienced that apply to ordinary
situations, when faced with complex situations.

Insensitivity to the Presence and Origins of
Human Fallibility (C5). Insensitivity to the
presence and origins of human fallibility is
recognized by behavior that proceeds
indiscriminately to base large-scale activity on
fallible belief, and makes false assumptions about
the capacity of the individual human being to reach
an adequate perception of patterns involved in
complex situations through ordinary thought
processes.

Insensitivity to Role Distinctions (H5). Lack of
understanding of how the various roles in a
collaborative activity interact, in working toward
common aspirations and fulfilling expectations, is a
clear measure of insensitivity and, even more
problematic, leaves open the possibility that in
usurping the role of others, the miscreant's own
responsibilities will not be carried out.

Insensitivity to the Significance of Information
Flow Rates (H7). The ability of the human being
to learn, absorb, follow, and interpret, incoming
information cannot be imagined to be without limits.
Otherwise, everything to be conveyed could be sent
at the speed of light in one overpowering burst of
communication. Thus it must be true that there is
some limit (even if it differs from one person to
another), and this limit needs to be taken into
account when genuine communication is intended.
Very likely, effectiveness can be totally eliminated if
the information flow rate is too fast.

Irresponsible Propagation of
Underconceptualized Themes (E9). Reliance on
authority opens the door to propagation of themes
that are flawed by underconceptualization. It is one
thing to blindly accept the voice of authority. At
least such blind acceptance could be ultimately
subjected to tests. But it is another thing to go
further and propagate a theme, in the absence of
any significant logical consideration.

Leaping to Misassociation (H4). Reflection and
experience suggest that, in striving to comprehend a
situation, the mind is often prone to leap to
associations, in which an attribute often regarded
as very beneficial in promoting creativity is applied
to expand the domain of consideration, thereby
suggesting either an extended form of relationship
or a new approach to description or diagnosis, or a
creative component of a sought design.

The same mental property, when undisciplined,
leads to grave misunderstandings and
interpretation. Leaping to misassociation can be
one of the most common ways of misjudging the
utterances of another person, and it is often very
difficult to avoid this possibly-ingrained behavior.

Misassignment of Relative Saliency (E8). In a
wonderful book, Kenneth Boulding identified
"spurious saliency" as one of the three primary
reasons for poor intellectual productivity. Spurious
saliency generally refers to a practice of
misperceiving the relative importance which well-
designed criteria would suggest should be attached
to different situations from a particular set. Yntema
and Mueser described results from psychology
showing that individuals could do a lot better at
dealing with several attributes of a single entity
than they could in dealing with one attribute of
several entities. Misassignment of saliency
apparently reflects a frequently-made error. This
can be described as the result of behavior that
allows a superficial assessment to be made when
several distinct entities are involved.

Misattribution of Consensus (M6). Misattribution
of consensus refers to a well-known aspect of what
is called "groupthink" in the technical sense given
by Janis, and what is sometimes called "the
Abilene Paradox" in business consulting. The
unwillingness of members of a group to identify
their own opposition to what is mistakenly
perceived as a general agreement may result in a
widespread belief that the members of the group all
agree on something which, in truth, none of the
members may believe.

Misconstruing Persistence as Validity (M7). If a
certain concept has appeared to be widely accepted
for a long time, it may be perceived and acted on
as though it were a valid belief just because of its
persistence, and without any corraborative,
collateral evidence to support the belief; even when
abundant evidence could be marshaled to show
invalidity.

Misconstruing Philosophy as Ideology (and vice
versa) (E7). Some people, in history, span the field
of philosophy and other fields, such as sociology,
psychology, political science, and management. In
presenting their views, they are prone to mix
philosophical considerations with political or
management beliefs. As a result, it becomes
difficult if not impossible to sort out the
components. As a consequence, ideology is often
described as philosophy, and philosophy may
sometimes be called ideology, depending on how the
critic views the material.

Misconstruing Structural Incompetence as Innate
Incompetence (M5). "Structural incompetence"
was defined by a group of federal program
managers as something to be strongly distinguished
from innate incompetence. The latter refers to the
inability of people to accomplish particular tasks
because they lack the requisite knowledge and
ability. The former refers to their inability to
accomplish particular tasks, for which they possess
the requisite knowledge and ability, but still cannot
accomplish these tasks because the situation in
which they perform imposes upon them a
constraining institutional structure that
disenfranchises their capabilities.

Misconstruing Technology as Science (and vice
versa) (C3, M4). Science progresses slowly.
Technology progresses rapidly. They are
mistakenly thought to march apace.

Misinterpretation of Linguistic Adequacy of
Natural Language (C1,M1). The belief that
natural language is adequate to describe, diagnose,
and provide corrective designs to practices
involving complexity.

Misinterpretation of Linguistic Adequacy of
Object Languages (C2,M2). Object languages,
following David Hilbert, are languages that are
especially constructed to communicate about
specialized knowledge. The most prominent of
these languages, at present, are those that have
been developed for use in constructing software for
computers. Now that organizations which work
with complexity are finding it necessary to turn to
computers to manage the massive amounts of
information required (often by law), they are
learning how ineffective these object languages are
for communicating about the substantive work that
goes on in fields such as medicine, law, and
economics. Thousands of consultants are now
striving to sell contracts to large organizations to
"help them" make the necessary changes. In the
process, they strive to force the client to adopt
significant linguistic components introduced by the
contractor. They misinterpret the linguistic
adequacy both internally and externally.

Mistaken Sense of Similarity (E6). Organizations,
individuals, or concepts are placed in the same
category in a mistaken belief that, because they are
similar in some respects, decisions that are believed
to be applicable to the category are applied to
every member of the category.

Mistaken Sense of Uniqueness (E5). There
seems to be a tendency for organizations and/or
individuals to construe themselves to be unique. As
a consequence of this, there is an unwillingness to
apply systems of thought or practice, even though
they may have been highly productive when applied
elsewhere. The generality of concepts that
underpins virtually all of physical science, and
which is responsible for virtually all of its relevance
in modern life, is thereby denied in areas that
involve behavior.

Susceptibility to the Fad of the Month (E1,H6).
The history of recent events in organizational
development and management clearly shows a
shower of fads. A fad is distinguishable because it
comes into play like a meteor, and flashes across
the sky at the same time that it is engaged in
burning itself out, then it disappears, sometimes as
abruptly as it appeared.

Unawareness of the Cumulative Impact of Many
Colocated Mindbugs (E10). Mindbugs are located
in the human nervous system; the conscious or the
subconscious, perhaps mostly the latter. While they
may individually create havoc, it is devastating to
observe what they produce when acting in concert.

Unawareness of Imputed Structure (E2,H10). It
is frequently true that model structure is smuggled
into a model by constructing models based on
formats that have a preassigned type of structure,
such that a person using that particular format has
already implicitly imputed that structure to the
model, without ever considering the model structure
independently of the kind of model chosen. For
example, if a person builds a systems dynamic
model to study the dynamics of a situation, the
structure of that model necessarily conforms to the
presuppositions associated with systems dynamics.
Many modelers do not consider the development of
model structure to be a step in the process of model
development. Instead they bypass that step
altogether, intuitively imputing a structure to the
model without specific awareness that they are
doing so.