Tuesday, August 26, 2014

Types of Models


Some models describe a theory or a hypothesis and try to explain the quality or character of a system or process. These are called conceptual models.

Interactive demonstrations are physical models that apply a theory or hypothesis in order test its assumptions and also to display and clarify the workings of the theory or hypothesis. They take the theory from concept to application.





Mathematical and Statistical Models may be analytical or numerical and are used to discover patterns and recognise relationships between relevant sets of facts and figures.







Teaching models are visualizations that help teachers and students picture or imagine how something works.







You can get more information on the definition and classification of models from the introductory chapter of Ford, Andrew, 2009 (2nd edition): Modeling the Environment . Island Press, Washington D.C.

image credits: 
epa.gov
wired.com
freerepublic.com
ehow.com


The author, Dr. Ranee Kaur Banerjee, is Managing Partner at Expressions@Worka training, consulting and mentoring studio for the development of communication and soft skills

What is a model?


image credit: vtaide.com

A model could be a pattern, a sample or a specimen in any shape or style. It could be a blue-print, a diagram or even a three dimensional object that represents some structure on a smaller scale than the original. It is created to apply a theory or to explain a process or to help in the understanding of how a particular system works.

A Communication model is usually a diagram that shows communication as a process. It is a simplified representation that is useful in analysing the inter-relationships, complexities, steps and elements that are involved in the multifaceted human process that we call communication.

George E.P.Box, Professor Emeritus of Statistics at the University of Wisconsin famously described the fundamental paradox at the core of all models when he said in his 1987 book, Empirical Model-Building and Response Surfaces, co-authored with Norman R. Draper that “essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful.”

Monday, August 25, 2014

Organizational Communication Paths

Someone sent me this picture in a spam e-mail. I don't remember what the caption that went with the picture said exactly, but it went something like this: "When managers look down, all they see is sh*t; when workers look up, all they see are as*ho**s." You can fill in the blanks yourself!

This brought home to me even more how crucial effective formal and informal inter-personal communication is to organizations. If you have a group of people with good communication skills, they would get along better; they would be able to overcome psychological and social barriers; they would build better teams and work-groups.

More, working together would become so more productive and pleasurable without all the distrust and contempt that is traditionally rampant through the ranks. People would spend 8-12 hours every day so much less painfully if only they opened themselves up and recognized the importance of communication as the paramount soft-skill.

Here's to better communication skills that enable organisations to overcome traditional barriers and get people sharing and exploring the differences between them in a positive manner.

The new world and the world of the future are not meant for hierarchies that believe in sh***ing on the ones below them. Nor does it encourage hierarchies where the ranks either pick at or brown-nose those perched in positions above them!

Saturday, August 23, 2014

Language and Thought: Moulding or Cloaking?



Theories of language and thought have mostly been polarized on two opposed ends of “cloaking” and “moulding.”
Cloaking
The first school of sees language as “the dress of thought” [1] as merely a tool that makes thought capable of being shared, of being translatable across cultures. To these thinkers, language is an independent system unrelated to thought. It evolved spontaneously through a process much like the Darwinian natural selection in answer to an intuitive, instinctive need for the expression of our cognitive processes[2]
How did we learn language in the first place, they ask, if thought did not pre-exist? And why do most languages have distinct concepts of thought and language as self-determining and free of each other if they are not? They point to the pre-linguistic behaviour of children that is nevertheless intelligent.
Noam Chomsky's concept of Universal Grammar[3] iterates that the brain has a program that can build an infinite number of sentences from a finite lexicon. This program may be called a mental grammar. Children come equipped and hardwired with a universal mental grammar: an all-language, common grammatical schematic that our children how to acquire the syntactic patterns naturally and effortlessly from the speech of elders.
Pre-linguistic children can discriminate between objects and classify them, they can use tactics and intuitive insight to achieve goals. Animals also show intelligent behaviour in communication, avoiding obstacles, using tools, stalking prey etc.
Steven Pinker extends Chomsky’s framework[4]. Language, according to him, is not a cultural artifact but a distinct piece of the biological make up of the brain. Pinker proposes that the acquisition of language is an instinct.

Moulding
Thought, the other school says, is like liquid and language the container that holds the liquid. The container could be a crude earthen pot or an elegant crystal flute—language shapes thought, gives it a structure and makes it intelligible. Language differentiates thought, keeps it locked within a framework, keeps it from leaking and diffusing into undifferentiated consciousness even while it, like a glass or a pot or a mug, makes it possible for the thought to be poured without. Without language, thought would exist but it could not be understood or made comprehensible.
Sapir-Whorf aficionados believe in linguistic determinism[5] or, at the very least, the weaker linguistic relativism:
We dissect nature along the lines laid down by our native languages…the world is presented in a kaleidoscopic flux of impressions which has to be organised by our minds—and this means largely by linguistic systems in our minds.”[6]
and say that language, in fact, determines—or influences—our very perception of reality.
The author, Dr. Ranee Kaur Banerjee, is Managing Partner at Expressions@Worka training, consulting and mentoring studio for the development of communication and soft skills



[1] The full quotation reads "Language is the dress of thought; and as the noblest mien or most graceful action would be degraded and obscured by a garb appropriated to the gross employments of rusticks or mechanics, so the most heroick sentiments will lose their efficacy, and the most splendid ideas drop their magnificence, if they are conveyed by words used commonly upon low and trivial occasions, debased by vulgar mouths, and contaminated by inelegant applications." Johnson, Samuel; Lives of the Most Eminent English Poets (1779–81); London, 1781
[2] Pinker, S and P. Bloom; “Natural language and natural selection” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 13: 1990 pp.707-84
[3] Chomsky, Noam; Language and Problems of Knowledge; Cambridge, Mass.: MIT, 1988 
[4] Pinker, S. The Language Instinct; London: Penguin, 1994 
[5] Sapir, Edward; "The Status of Linguistics as a Science," Language, 5 (1928): 207-214.
[6] Whorf, Benjamin Lee; “Science and Linguistics,” 1940 in  Language, Thought and Reality. Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Ed. by John B. Carroll. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1956

Thursday, August 21, 2014

More on language and thought.

I found this wonderful article on language and thought. You should all read it. Here's the link:

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/boroditsky09/boroditsky09_index.html

The Thought-Language-Communication Debate Continues...

The following excerpt is taken from:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=does-language-shape-what


Does Language Shape What We Think?
A new study looks at what happens when a language doesn't have words for numbers
By Joshua Hartshorne

...In a paper published in 2008, MIT cognitive neuroscientist Michael Frank and colleagues demonstrated that Pirahã, a language spoken by a small Amazonian community, has no number words at all.

The research team simply asked Pirahã speakers to count different numbers of batteries, nuts and other common objects. Rather than having a word consistently used to describe "one X" a different word for "two Xs" and yet another word for "three Xs," the Pirahã used hói to describe a small number of objects, hoí to describe a slightly larger number, and baágiso for an even larger number. Basically, these words mean "around one," "some" and "many."

The lack of number words had a profound and surprising effect on what the Pirahã could do. In a series of experiments, the researchers presented Pirahã participants with some number of spools of thread. The participants' task was simply to give the researcher the same number of balloons.

If the participants were allowed to line up the balloons next to the spools of thread one-by-one, they did fine. But if they weren't allowed this crutch -- for instance, if the spools of thread were dropped into a bucket one at a time, and then the participant had to produce the same number of balloons -- they failed. Although they were generally able to stay in the ballpark -- if a lot of spools went into the bucket, they produced a lot of balloons; a small number of spools, a small number of balloons -- their responses were basically educated guesses.

Could it be that the Pirahã not understand the concept of "same amount"? That's unlikely. When allowed to match the balloons to spools one-by-one, they succeeded in the task. Instead, it seems that they failed to give the same number of balloons only when they had to rely on memory.

This actually makes a lot of sense. Try to imagine exactly seventeen balloons in your head, but without counting them. It's impossible. Decades of research have shown that people can tell the difference between one object and two or between three objects and four without counting, but such fine distinctions with larger numbers like seventeen versus eighteen requires counting. You wouldn't match seventeen balloons to seventeen spools by sight alone.

You would count the spools and then count out the same number of balloons.But the Pirahã can't count. They don't have number words.This suggests a different way of thinking about the influence of language on thought: words are very handy mnemonics. We may not be able to remember what seventeen spools looks like, but we can remember the word seventeen.

In his landmark The Language of Thought, philosopher Jerry Fodor argued that many words work like acronyms. French students use the acronym bans to remember which adjectives go before nouns ("Beauty, Age, Number, Goodneess, and Size"). Similarly, sometimes its easier to remember a word (calculus, Estonia) than what the word stands for. We use the word, knowing that should it becomes necessary, we can search through our minds -- or an encyclopedia -- and pull up the relevant information (how to calculate an integral; Estonia's population, capital and location on a map). Numbers, it seems, work the same way.

I don't know whether my seventh-grade English teacher would be disappointed. Do more words mean more thoughts? Probably not. But more words do make it easier to remember those thoughts -- and sometimes that's just as important.

Thursday, August 7, 2014

Communication Noise

Students of communication should not confuse the word noise with unwanted sound.
picture credit: incrove.com

Noise in the communication context is anything that distorts information or obstructs the transfer of information from point A to point B. It causes a breakdown or warp in the process of exchange of information. It may be physical or semantic or physiological or psychological and is a barrier to communication.


picture credit: uxmatters.com

A loud crash, too many scratches and errors on a page, illegible handwriting, distraction, inattention, mistrust, ambiguity, language differences—these are all examples of communication noise.