Text item: Text_1

     I was thinking about the business of "map recon" that Bill C. brought
     up re: the chase through a snowy wilderness, and in a blinding flash
     of insight I saw the obvious - that maps are models, and, like any
     model, an abstraction of reality. The formal exercises used in the
     martial arts are also abstractions (of conflict) and are therefore
     also models. (Wow! It's amazing what happens when I drink good stuff
     in the morning, rather than rogut.)

     OK. Now if katas, maps, and symbolic representations of psychomotive
     events are models, how are they related? ONE of the main things one
     looks for in a model is its ability to aid imagination in preparing us
     for a real experience. We practice katas to gain some level of
     perception of actual conflict. We recon maps to gain some perception
     of what a terrain may be. We study "models" in psychology, sociology,
     and economics to gain some perception of.... Well, I'm not sure.

     There IS a real terrain somewhere that matches the abstraction of the
     map. An ACTUAL combat can be very close to the real thing.
     (Hand-to-hand combat can be very much like kumite - practice fighting.
      Or - Schwartzkopf ran an exercise called INTERNAL LOOK in April, May
     & June, then fought the identical campaign in October through
     January.) What do we get from models in social science. Can we
     establish what makes a model good for anticipating a class of
     perception, even though it may be lousy at reproducing A SPECIFIC

     Economics fell into a hole in the thirties with the insistance that
     all models be consistant with the concpt of competitive equilibrium -
     even though noone could reproduce that beast except with the most
     rediculous of constraints. It was the economic version of the Curia
     dealing with Aritotelian versus Coperican astronomy. Economics became
     ever more adept at discribing what had happened (in terms of deviation
     from a ficticious condition) and almost totally inept in predicting
     what MIGHT happen. Economists were like doctors who could describe
     physiology and anatomy, but had no idea of kinesiology.

     I think those of you are REAL SCIENTISTS working with PCT and S-R need
     to make sure you don't fall into the same trap as did the economists.
     What is the psychological sceiences version of the trap?