Replying to LO26179 --
Malcolm wrote, in part
>... it's not clear to me that it would be useful to reserve the word
>"information" uniquely for that which elicits or generates
>acting/doing/deciding (and, using your typology, is essentially
>cognitive),
>and somehow distinguishing this both verbally and actually from that
>which elicits or generates feeling (is affective). ...
Let me try again.
I believe it was Gregory Bateson who suggested that we consider
'information' as 'a difference that makes a difference.' (I'm pretty sure
he made that point in Steps to An Ecology of Mind -- my brother would know
for sure!) In that sense, perhaps something that changes (i.e., makes a
difference in) our feelings -is- information, regardless of whether it
leads to some sort of decision or action.
Malcolm continues ...
>... Would you then consider that decision-making, for which information
>is the primary resource, has some sort of primacy in human acting and
>being, in comparison with "merely" feeling or experiencing? can we not
>"help" people to act without analytically considering their
>decision-making process? Maybe I'm not understanding, but to me this
>limits the scope of what it is to be human rather dramatically. ...>>
I don't think I intended to concern what it is to be human, broadly taken.
The point of departure in the original note was 'minimizing information
distribution' -- avoiding the deluge. If we have as the goal to provide
people with information, something that makes a difference, then we need
to know something about what they would consider valuable. -That's- the
point I was trying to address. If it makes a difference to my boss that
I'm sad today (and therefore perhaps less productive) because of my
mother's illness, then my conveying that feeling to my boss would likely
constitute information. My acknowledging it to myself in the first place
would also likely constitute information. It makes a difference to me and
to my boss (regarding my distractedness today) how I feel.
If people make decisions based on feelings -- and I believe that we all
do, even the most rational/analytic amongst us -- then we can first look
to our own decision-making process and then if we are so inclined help
people understand what kinds of 'stuff' they employ to drive their
decisions.
Again, if the goal is to minimize the flow of information ... No, wait.
Most likely the goal is -not- to minimize the flow of information, but
rather to maximize the flow of information and minimize the flow of
-non-information-! At any rate, we need to be pretty clear about just
what makes a difference and what does not. I don't need -more- stuff that
does not make a difference. I -may- need more stuff that does, depending
on my willingness to make decisions with less-than-perfect information.
I like Dee Hock's comment here:
"Making good judgments and acting wisely when one has complete data,
facts, and knowledge is not leadership. It's not even management. It's
bookkeeping. Leadership is the ability to make wise decisions, and act
responsibly upon them when one has little more than a clear sense of
direction and proper values; that is, a perception of how things ought to
be, understanding of how they are, and some indication of the prevalent
forces driving change." (from The Birth of the Chaordic Age)
Michael A
- Michael Ayers
Mailto: mbayers@mmm.com Voice (651) 733-5690) FAX (651) 737-7718
IT Prof.Dev. 3M Center 224-2NE-02 PO Box 33224 St. Paul MN 55133-3224
Sometimes the right question is, 'Are we asking the right question?'
Ideas contained in this note represent the author's opinions and
do not intentionally represent the positions of anyone else in this galaxy.
--Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.