PDA

View Full Version : Theoretical Constructs



Martin
10-16-2006, 12:18 PM
Marc,

It is not my intention to be stern or lecturing. I have not studied cultural anthropology nor more than a few articles and a book or so on neuroscience. This is for learning.

It seems to me that you are assuming that people agree on what constitutes war, I think that is incorrect. The reason I mention this is because of your comment of expanding the concept of Center of Gravity due to its presence in the minds of military men.

If you combine Jomini and Clausewitz you will find that Jomini mentioned a number of different types of conflicts but that the gist of it is to arrange yourself so that you are most protected while best assuring the destruction of the enemies forces. As a sidenote, considering that the wars we have fought the last thousands of years have always stemmed from human beings and the decision makers have been human, that is a reasonable assumption. If the other party is dead, no more war is needed. Clausewitz famous first line goes somewhat along the lines of war being the continuation of politics by other means. A military makes war and war is bloody. War always have an element of violence. If the tools available are only violence, logistics to support the military operation, and various other affairs such as PSYOPs and economics, etc, and you put it into a tendancy of people, not just Americans even if especially Americans, of putting a more distinct split between a state of war, and a state of peace, then you are much more likely to approach the subject with the intent of using all national means at your disposal to insure the destruction of your enemy. After all, politicians makes policy. The military fights. And as somebody else pointed out previously, there is an unfortunate trend of forgetting previous lessons learned because the mistakes were not seen before they appear again.

Now, whether or not this is a correct view is certainly debatable. Napoleon during his invasion of Spain faced the consequences of not correctly identifying the enemy and political objective, however brilliant his maneuvers were in a conventional sense and however much can be learnt from his example in how to deal with certain enemies under certain circumstances. Considering his perspective lending to an understanding of society and its relation to war still exceeding that of many contemporaries, it is hard to blame him, but it does point to the tendency of people to not fully appreciate what they cannot deal with. Mao, Vo Nguyen Giap, Chieu Peng, OSS/SF, and many others would certainly not agree with the limiting of objectives. They set a political objective (not OSS/SF) and mobilized entire societies while organizing to fit their environment in order to be able to carry out a number of intermediate objectives to expell the foreigners and/or topple the local government, changing organizational and logistical details during this entire process, much of which depended on civilian support. Most importantly, they understood that the political objective was to make change to get to a different position as a society, or as leaders grappling for power, or for, whatever. The difference lies not really in different types of war, although they from our perspective are different - one is conventional and the other unconventional. I tend to suspect, especially considering Mao's term for the last phase of a Protracted People's War, that the difference is one of choosing the right tool for the task - emphasis, tactics, strategy, and logistics. The point of conflict is to resolve a conflict. A conflict of war has a political objective, but how you organize for it is what matters.

The point I make is that what you learn, experience, and study, influence how you organize in your mind to adapt to the circumstances in order to shape them - dynamically - read brain plasticity. This, you probably know already as a cultural anthropologist. Alas, the question in my opinion is not really whether or not this specific concept should be expanded because it is easier to adapt, but whether or not it is the best one applicable. I had not planned to post the above, but I want to give you an example for the following statement. If you want to change a critical part of a system, you have to make sure it fits the rest of the construct's elements that may, for instance, be supporting or interacting with the part you are trying to change. This has to be done while maintaining functional integrity with the tasks/circumstances it is to be applied to. I say this for reasons of for example cohesion, rationality of a system, ability to draw right conclusions from the framework, stability/efficiency of interacting parts, and that it is much easier to create a new system than to fix a broken one on the run, especially since the logic must still conform with experience. How you first come up with it is one thing, how you communicate it so that also can implement it is a matter of training - how people in reality learn to deal with problems. Do you agree or not, and if so why not?

I think this is interesting to put into an organization and communication perspective with an evolutionary context, for both people and organizational functions needed/created by us.

Secondly, I would like to know how you appreciate that theoretical constructs such as the CoG are incorporated into how people deal with their environment, e.g. mindset or Modus Operandi (apply where you see fit)?

I may not be able to reply immediately, since I am out of internet at home.

Take care,
Martin
Student of economy and conflict (in spare time). IT developer for a knifemaker.

marct
10-16-2006, 01:31 PM
Marc,

It is not my intention to be stern or lecturing. I have not studied cultural anthropology nor more than a few articles and a book or so on neuroscience. This is for learning.

No worries, mate:)


It seems to me that you are assuming that people agree on what constitutes war, I think that is incorrect. The reason I mention this is because of your comment of expanding the concept of Center of Gravity due to its presence in the minds of military men.

I don't really make that assumption, but it is the easiest one to use to communicate. One of the things I learned early on was that words, as symbols, have multiple meanings that shift over time and this is something I try to take into account. For example, for about the past 500 years or so in the West, "war" has some specific connotations about organization, state level organization, formailized "rules", formalized settings, and formalized technologies. Many of our discussions about small wars, regardless of how they are named, are really attempts to create a formalized template or symbol system to understand and predict.


If the other party is dead, no more war is needed.

True, but that is a special case. The goal of all social action by individuals and individuals acting in groups is to cause changes in some part of the environment (be that the social, cultural, economic or physical environment). The annihilation of a competator is only one strategy, there are many others and its not always successfull by any stretch of the imagination - ask King Pyrrhus.


If the tools available are only violence, logistics to support the military operation, and various other affairs such as PSYOPs and economics, etc, and you put it into a tendancy of people, not just Americans even if especially Americans, of putting a more distinct split between a state of war, and a state of peace, then you are much more likely to approach the subject with the intent of using all national means at your disposal to insure the destruction of your enemy.

Again, that is quite true, but also, again, it is a special case. I can't think of a single culture that has organized this way because any that did could only exist as long as there were external enemies. When we do find cultures that have held this type of organization, it has reached its limits pretty quickly and had to transform itself or collapse.


...Mao, Vo Nguyen Giap, Chieu Peng, OSS/SF, and many others would certainly not agree with the limiting of objectives. They set a political objective (not OSS/SF) and mobilized entire societies while organizing to fit their environment in order to be able to carry out a number of intermediate objectives to expell the foreigners and/or topple the local government, changing organizational and logistical details during this entire process, much of which depended on civilian support. Most importantly, they understood that the political objective was to make change to get to a different position as a society, or as leaders grappling for power, or for, whatever. The difference lies not really in different types of war, although they from our perspective are different - one is conventional and the other unconventional. I tend to suspect, especially considering Mao's term for the last phase of a Protracted People's War, that the difference is one of choosing the right tool for the task - emphasis, tactics, strategy, and logistics. The point of conflict is to resolve a conflict. A conflict of war has a political objective, but how you organize for it is what matters.

Yup, and that organization changes the people involved in it. Organizations and institutions act as "containers" of symbol systems which, in turn, are the "filters" which allow people to make sense of "reality". As organizations change, so do these symbol systems. However, when you are dealing with an institutional "understanding" of a segment of reality, you have to use the appropriate symbols.


The point I make is that what you learn, experience, and study, influence how you organize in your mind to adapt to the circumstances in order to shape them - dynamically - read brain plasticity. This, you probably know already as a cultural anthropologist.

Yup. And, just as a side note, my own research into the change process shows that it appears to take about 3 months to "rewire" neuro-symbolic connections (i.e. myelinated neuronal connections between specific brain areas; it appears to take 3 months, on average, to de-myelinate a connection, build new neuronal pathways and then start to re-myelinate them). Neuronal plasticity is a real advantage for humans (and other primates), but there are some limits to it. Not only that, but which connections are evoked seem to depend on a sensory context - think of the old idea of "which hat do you want me to answer with" :).


Alas, the question in my opinion is not really whether or not this specific concept should be expanded because it is easier to adapt, but whether or not it is the best one applicable. I had not planned to post the above, but I want to give you an example for the following statement. If you want to change a critical part of a system, you have to make sure it fits the rest of the construct's elements that may, for instance, be supporting or interacting with the part you are trying to change. This has to be done while maintaining functional integrity with the tasks/circumstances it is to be applied to. I say this for reasons of for example cohesion, rationality of a system, ability to draw right conclusions from the framework, stability/efficiency of interacting parts, and that it is much easier to create a new system than to fix a broken one on the run, especially since the logic must still conform with experience. How you first come up with it is one thing, how you communicate it so that also can implement it is a matter of training - how people in reality learn to deal with problems. Do you agree or not, and if so why not?

On the whole, I would far prefer to through out the entire Clauswitzian model since it is a model based at the theoretical sophistication of Neutonian physics and we can do a lot better right now. The problem with throwing it out is that it is also the analogic equivalent of scripture - it has come to be part of the core symbology of institutional warfare. Because it is a core symbol (actually a symbol set), it can't be thrown out and replaced easily with a better system; too many people have too much invested in the symbol set. Let me give you an analogy - we "know" that certain parts of the Bible are wrong (I'm thinking specifically about the ratio value of the circumference of a circle listed as 3 when it is pi), so should we throw out everything in the entire symbol system? And, even if we wanted to, how many people would reject all changes, regardless of how well they may be warranted?

Let me get back to one specific question you asked -


...the question in my opinion is not really whether or not this specific concept should be expanded because it is easier to adapt, but whether or not it is the best one applicable.

Is CoG the "best one applicable"? Nope. It is based on a hopelessly outdated model of physics and social interaction from the early 19th century. Given our advances in physics, mathematics, social theory and cosmology (including the "consciousness debates" of Dennet) we would be far better to consider using Chaos Theory, quantum mechanics and the concept of Strange Attractors. It would probably take a good multi/inter-dsicplinary team about a year to develop a truly smokin' model that would blow CoG out of the water. And then what? Then we would have to sell that model to people who had no idea what we were talking about, who perceived it as a model put together by a bunch of Ivory Tower parlour pinks who had never been in combat, and who would say "Damn, Westmoreland's ghost is alive and well - freakin' computers!".

Back to you question - is CoG the "best"? Not from a modeling point, but from a sales point, the answer is "yes". It is a familiar concept, it has mutated enough from the original physics analogy so that multiple CoGs are recognized on a shifting scale (which led in physics to a recognition of strange attractors and catastrophe points) and, finally, it is symbolically supported inside the institution - it isn't "threatening".


I think this is interesting to put into an organization and communication perspective with an evolutionary context, for both people and organizational functions needed/created by us.

That would be a rather long paper :).


Secondly, I would like to know how you appreciate that theoretical constructs such as the CoG are incorporated into how people deal with their environment, e.g. mindset or Modus Operandi (apply where you see fit)?

In general, I view any symbolic construct as an interface to give people a "handle" on a segment of "reality". Back when I was working on my PhD dissertation, I ended up putting together a 200+ page theoretical model of how these interactions worked - really complex, and now somewhat out of date as a result of advances in neuroscience. While some of the specifics are now out of date, the general model still seems to work pretty well. And, no, I'm not going to put the entire thing up :D - too many people would kill me (lolol).


I may not be able to reply immediately, since I am out of internet at home.

No worries.

Marc

Martin
10-17-2006, 01:01 PM
Marc,

I appreciate your response, you are smart and easy to deal with.

I would like to clarify that that the first part about Jominian and Clausewitzian war theory was just an extrapolation of two of history's most important guides, it was simplistic and narrow to clarify a cultural tendency, rather than complete and absolute explanations. But enough of that.

The probing of your brain is going to advance on two lines. Please continue to make on the spot corrections.

My argument in constructing systems of this kind is, as hinted and partly mentioned before, that it will necessarily deal with many of the same missions, have many of the same tools and live with the legacy of previous doctrines being accepted because they work in certain types of situations, according to experience. This means that the entire logic is not likely to change. Any new theory should validate previous success and failure, while of course taking into account chance, 'friction', incomplete knowledge, etc. But I would argue that most people do not consciously deal with the world by fitting it into a complete theoretical construct of logic, and for good reason. Here enters differences in how we view the world and correspondingly deal with it. More importantly, this is where it becomes so important to understand how people learn and apply. Like you said, containers of symbols... and principles, outlooks, and so on.

It seems to me that there are two threads relevant here in regards to systems. One, our understanding of the world. Second, how we decide to deal with it. Both influence each other.

The fundamental nature of the world has not changed. Look at it from a personal perspective. Show the world by explaining how people have adapted and needs combine to work as catalysts for creating value systems, administration, military forces, etc. You have history and personal experiences that prove you right. Now explain why doctrine in the past has worked and what their usage was, examplify. Now note the tasks that are likely to be faced in the future, and motivate why they are likely (should be evident from the understanding you created and the circumstances you show), and point out possible circumstances. But seeing and willing to change is not enough, we must know how we can have an effect on the world. Explain how systemic understanding is created and write, perhaps, guiding principles and, if necessary, what to focus on for the task at hand, etc. Compare the validity and difference of both old and new doctrine. Knowing is not enough, we must apply. Training to implement.

Organizational change is different in how you implement it. I think that what it boils down to is motivating those with the relevant power to order necessary changes and training to take place as fits the organizational structure, which may need to be altered. Punish those who refuse to train for the new tasks. Or destroy and create anew. There are other ways, and possibly better. Have to take leadership, power, and a bunch of other things into consideration, including money.

This was just an example. The points are: 1. Change understanding of world. 2. Identify needs, motivation, etc, for change. 3. Change. And you do all three at once, with various emphasis. OODA. Of course, there are other models for guiding this.

Then again, it is not that simple, because in teaching the understanding and training for dealing with it, you have to work with people who has to 1. accept, 2. adapt. And how you express it all depends on who you are writing for.

Do you agree or not? How would you change you personal understanding and life philosophy?

The second thread of the probing is a follow-on to how theoretical constructs are used. What is your understanding of the nature of metaphors, clichés and catch phrases as regards their effects?


And, even if we wanted to, how many people would reject all changes, regardless of how well they may be warranted?

[...] And then what? Then we would have to sell that model to people who had no idea what we were talking about, who perceived it as a model put together by a bunch of Ivory Tower parlour pinks who had never been in combat, and who would say "Damn, Westmoreland's ghost is alive and well - freakin' computers!".
Not if you get them to write it themselves and receive authority by the opinions of flexible and experienced minds in good standing in the communities. :)
If everyone rejects it, maybe it was not the best way? If people continue to see the message and adopt it, you may sooner or later succeed where the methodology and understanding you have prescribed fits. There is always a generational shift going on.

People and organizations have changed in the past. What is needed is an understanding, goals, then it is all about how to get it implemented.

Martin

Martin
10-17-2006, 01:10 PM
The second thread of the probing is a follow-on to how theoretical constructs are used. What is your understanding of the nature of metaphors, clichés and catch phrases as regards their effects?
I know it is lame to quote myself, but I just had to give an example from last night. :)



We swim in the same water as the guerilla. Poop muddles the water. Cut the bull#### out so we don't choke and the water remains clear, at least in our end of the pool.

marct
10-17-2006, 04:02 PM
The probing of your brain is going to advance on two lines. Please continue to make on the spot corrections.....

It seems to me that there are two threads relevant here in regards to systems. One, our understanding of the world. Second, how we decide to deal with it. Both influence each other.

In general, I would agree with that but extend it a touch more. We, as individuals, have multiple "maps" of component parts of reality, some of which overlap. Each of these maps is "embedded" within institutions (in Malinowski's sense of the term: they don't have to be actual organizations). Institutions are differentially embedded within social organizational entities such as schools, branches, units etc. These organizations are, in turn, embedded in higher order systems - e.g. politics, economics, etc. Often "how we understand the world" implies "how we decide to deal with it" since the logics of "right action" are inherent in the formulation of a mapping of action potentials.

Sorry if this is osunding overtly academic, but it is getting pretty technical <wry grin>. In plain English, how we see the world implies what we can do in the world and both of these potentials are bounded by our social and cultural environments.


The fundamental nature of the world has not changed. Look at it from a personal perspective. Show the world by explaining how people have adapted and needs combine to work as catalysts for creating value systems, administration, military forces, etc. You have history and personal experiences that prove you right. Now explain why doctrine in the past has worked and what their usage was, examplify. Now note the tasks that are likely to be faced in the future, and motivate why they are likely (should be evident from the understanding you created and the circumstances you show), and point out possible circumstances.

About that comment of mine about being embedded in a socio-cultural environment. What you suggest is laudable but, and it's a big but, I have already written one dissertation.:D What you are suggesting is a major undertaking and I do have to make a living so that I can support my cats (and my wife) in the style to which they have become accustomed since I finished my last dissertation.


Organizational change is different in how you implement it. I think that what it boils down to is motivating those with the relevant power to order necessary changes and training to take place as fits the organizational structure, which may need to be altered. Punish those who refuse to train for the new tasks. Or destroy and create anew. There are other ways, and possibly better. Have to take leadership, power, and a bunch of other things into consideration, including money.

Okay, as part of my first dissertation, I had to spend a fair amount of time dealing with Bussiness Process Re-engineering - you know, implementing organizational cultural changes. In order to make any reorganization work, you need two things: a "champion" at the highest levels who provides a solid vision of what changes will be made, and a lot of buy-in at the lower levels in the organization. Most of the time, changes are evolutionary not revolutionary, and changes can only be made in areas controlled by the organization.


Do you agree or not? How would you change you personal understanding and life philosophy?

I would have to say that changing personal understandings is quite different from changing organizational understandings. Changing an entire "life philosophy" (a weltanschuung?) is even more tricky. I do know how to do it, but that's the subject of another essay :).


The second thread of the probing is a follow-on to how theoretical constructs are used. What is your understanding of the nature of metaphors, clichés and catch phrases as regards their effects?

I tend to draw on both Charles Pierce's concept fo semiotics and on Dawkin's ideas of memes. That's the short answer <wry grin>. For the longer version, I would say that theoretical concepts are used as operators in the mind to manipulate sensory data into something that "makes sense" even though it probably isn't "true". I view clichés and catch phrases as "rule of thumb" transformations of sensory data, while metaphors and analogies I consider to be more formalized operations of the mind.

Marc

Martin
10-17-2006, 04:38 PM
I guess it would be more beneficial to ask smaller questions.


In general, I would agree with that but extend it a touch more. We, as individuals, have multiple "maps" of component parts of reality, some of which overlap. Each of these maps is "embedded" within institutions (in Malinowski's sense of the term: they don't have to be actual organizations).
I will have to ponder that some more in my little head. Have you considered psychological/emotional consequences of the integration, or rather the possible lack thereof, of these maps/understandings? (side note: I made up a word for something similar to this before)


Institutions are differentially embedded within social organizational entities such as schools, branches, units etc. These organizations are, in turn, embedded in higher order systems - e.g. politics, economics, etc. Often "how we understand the world" implies "how we decide to deal with it" since the logics of "right action" are inherent in the formulation of a mapping of action potentials.
EXACTLY!! :D


Okay, as part of my first dissertation, I had to spend a fair amount of time dealing with Bussiness Process Re-engineering - you know, implementing organizational cultural changes. In order to make any reorganization work, you need two things: a "champion" at the highest levels who provides a solid vision of what changes will be made, and a lot of buy-in at the lower levels in the organization. Most of the time, changes are evolutionary not revolutionary, and changes can only be made in areas controlled by the organization.

I would have to say that changing personal understandings is quite different from changing organizational understandings. Changing an entire "life philosophy" (a weltanschuung?) is even more tricky. I do know how to do it, but that's the subject of another essay :).
So, prove it! :p
Seriously though, even if you will not solve all my problems, I appreciate showing pieces of your knowledge.

Regarding the differences between changing them, I agree, but you have to start somewhere... I have "a bit" of experience in personal change and functioning, that was more for getting somebody else's perspective and widen my understanding of methodology, etc. As for organizational change, that I have not studied as much, but I think it is an extremely important follow on which varies a lot with the organizational structure and purpose, which is why I tried to move a bit in that direction. I hope you don't mind if I come up with more specific questions in the future.


I tend to draw on both Charles Pierce's concept fo semiotics and on Dawkin's ideas of memes. That's the short answer <wry grin>. For the longer version, I would say that theoretical concepts are used as operators in the mind to manipulate sensory data into something that "makes sense" even though it probably isn't "true". I view clichés and catch phrases as "rule of thumb" transformations of sensory data, while metaphors and analogies I consider to be more formalized operations of the mind.

Marc
Okay, thanks.

Martin

marct
10-17-2006, 04:54 PM
I guess it would be more beneficial to ask smaller questions.

LOLOL - Probably.


I will have to ponder that some more in my little head. Have you considered psychological/emotional consequences of the integration, or rather the possible lack thereof, of these maps/understandings? (side note: I made up a word for something similar to this before)

Yup. It's actually built right into fairly standard phenomenology. Take a look at Peter Berger's work (e.g. The Sacred Canopy).


So, prove it! :p
Seriously though, even if you will not solve all my problems, I appreciate showing pieces of your knowledge.

<truly evil grin>Well, I could send you a copy of my dissertation (:eek: ).


Regarding the differences between changing them, I agree, but you have to start somewhere... I have "a bit" of experience in personal change and functioning, that was more for getting somebody else's perspective and widen my understanding of methodology, etc.

No sweat :). As far as personal methodologies are concerned, there are so many of them it's almost ridiculous! It does, however, seem to all boil down to using personalized symbol systems as a "user interface" to reprogram individual level neurology.


As for organizational change, that I have not studied as much, but I think it is an extremely important follow on which varies a lot with the organizational structure and purpose, which is why I tried to move a bit in that direction. I hope you don't mind if I come up with more specific questions in the future.

Sure, although we may want to move this entire part of the CoG thread over into the "personal rant" area of the members only forum since we are now totally off topic.;)

Marc

Martin
10-18-2006, 08:17 AM
Yup. It's actually built right into fairly standard phenomenology. Take a look at Peter Berger's work (e.g. The Sacred Canopy).
Oh thank God you didn't behead me. I was so annoyed with myself yesterday for making that question too quickly. I did think about this, but I do think that I should read up on the details and foundations for the "mapping" from the adherents' viewpoint. I'll pick up The Sacred Canopy. May I ask if it is Structure Mapping you are referring too? I have only heard it mentioned in regards to a small post about metaphors.


<truly evil grin>Well, I could send you a copy of my dissertation (:eek: ).
Please do! E-mail or snail mail? PM for details if you are serious. :)


No sweat :). As far as personal methodologies are concerned, there are so many of them it's almost ridiculous! It does, however, seem to all boil down to using personalized symbol systems as a "user interface" to reprogram individual level neurology.
Right. I have a theory about this.


Sure, although we may want to move this entire part of the CoG thread over into the "personal rant" area of the members only forum since we are now totally off topic.;)

Marc
I would argue that we are now going off topic from this thread, but we are discussing the foundations for force transformation in regards to a changing environment. Highly relevant.

Okay, so I'm a nerd. Ranting done. Returning to regular schedule.

Martin