Types & Sources of Reference Conditions

[Fred_Nickols3]

I kind of like the idea of Bill Powers' Theory (BPT), not the least reason
being that it's open only to interpretation by Bill himself. Hmm.

Anyway, be it BPT or PCT, I've got a few questions about types and sources
of reference conditions. I think these questions are triggered by some
work I've been doing lately in the area of knowledge management (KM).
(Much as I hate to admit it, paying work has kept me away from
participating in CSG for several weeks. The money was good, too.) :- )

There appear to be at least three kinds of knowledge in one scheme of
thinking: explicit, implicit and tacit. (These are different from other
schemes such as know-about, know-how, know-why and so on.)

Explicit knowledge is the kind that can be and has been captured,
articulated and communicated. Formulas for finding the area and volumes of
certain shapes offer a good example. Implicit knowledge is the kind that
can be inferred (e.g., Suzie outsells her peers by more than four times her
nearest colleague so she probably knows something the rest of us don't) but
has not yet been articulated or captured. Moreover, not all implicit
knowledge can be articulated; some of it is tacit. Tacit knowledge
reflects the fact that "we know more than we can tell" (to use Michael
Polanyi's words). Thus, I can pick a friend's face out of a sea of faces
and even recognize him or her in a gallery of similar faces but I'm darned
if I can tell you how I do it; ditto for riding a bike and so on.

So, it seems to me that in BPT/PCT we're dealing with the same three
categories of reference conditions: explicit, implicit and tacit. We can
probably extend these categories to include controlled perceptions as well.
But we also have "the test," a way of determining the perceptions that are
being controlled in a given situation. Consequently, just as a good task
analyst or performance analyst or knowledge engineer can often make
implicit knowledge explicit, we can often make visible certain controlled
perceptions and, by implication, the underlying reference conditions.
Moreover, just as a task analyst or performance analyst or knowledge
engineer would be distrustful of what an expert performer says is the basis
of that performance, we, too, are not inclined to quickly accept a person's
own views of their reference conditions. (Am I confusing reference
conditions and controlled perceptions too much here?)

The third category, tacit knowledge, would have as its counterpart in
BPT/PCT, "tacit reference conditions." Some of these are doubtless way,
way down in the hierarchy. Others might be much higher up yet still not
available to us for expression and communication via language. (That
aside, people can be helped to learn how to ride a bicycle or recognize
faces or interpret intelligence photographs and so on even if the
articulation of the underlying know-how is difficult to articulate.)

Here's one question: Does it make any sense to think of reference
conditions and controlled perceptions in terms of their being explicit,
implicit or tacit or are these meaningless terms in BPT/PCT?

Here's another -- with a little by way of lead in. It seems to me that
what lots of other folks call "master performers" or "really talented
people" generally seem to satisfy two sets of criteria. First, they
generally excel, often in a wide variety of situations under a wide range
of circumstances. Second, it seems to me that their success owes in part
to (a) having a different set of reference conditions from the rest of us
and (b) a better repertoire for coping with disturbances to their
controlled perceptions. So, the perennial question is some circles is "How
do they do it?" More germane from a BPT/PCT perspective, perhaps, is the
matter of how we might reliably identify their reference conditions,
ascertain those portions of their repertoires that give them an edge in
managing disturbances, and communicate both these to others. Anyone got
any ideas along these lines?

···

--

Fred Nickols
The Distance Consulting Company
"Assistance at A Distance"
http://home.att.net/~nickols/distance.htm
nickols@worldnet.att.net
(609) 490-0095

[Marc_Abrams3]

from [ Marc Abrams (91121.2136) ]

Nice to see ya back on the net Fred.

I kind of like the idea of Bill Powers' Theory (BPT), not the least reason
being that it's open only to interpretation by Bill himself. Hmm.

Great point. It does make things a whole lot simpler.

There appear to be at least three kinds of knowledge in one scheme of
thinking: explicit, implicit and tacit. (These are different from other
schemes such as know-about, know-how, know-why and so on.)

How do you classify things into your categories? How are they different from
one another? How are they the same? What do they represent from a BPT or PCT
perspective?

Explicit knowledge is the kind that can be and has been captured,
articulated and communicated.

Captured where? What's the difference between articulated and communicated?

Formulas for finding the area and volumes of
certain shapes offer a good example. Implicit knowledge is the kind that
can be inferred (e.g., Suzie outsells her peers by more than four times

her

nearest colleague so she probably knows something the rest of us don't)

but

has not yet been articulated or captured.

I don't follow Fred. How can you "know" something and not have "captured"
it. What am I missing?

Moreover, not all implicit
knowledge can be articulated; some of it is tacit. Tacit knowledge
reflects the fact that "we know more than we can tell" (to use Michael
Polanyi's words). Thus, I can pick a friend's face out of a sea of faces
and even recognize him or her in a gallery of similar faces but I'm darned
if I can tell you how I do it; ditto for riding a bike and so on.

Telling me "how" you know something is different then actually "knowing" it.
Two different processes You can tell a face in part because of a certain
configuration of facial features. How you know them to be different from
someone else is relative and is a different question .

Here's one question: Does it make any sense to think of reference
conditions and controlled perceptions in terms of their being explicit,
implicit or tacit or are these meaningless terms in BPT/PCT?

Should have asked this one right off the top :-). The current BPT or PCT
model does not view reference levels, signals or CV's
in those categories.

Here's another -- with a little by way of lead in. It seems to me that
what lots of other folks call "master performers" or "really talented
people" generally seem to satisfy two sets of criteria. First, they
generally excel, often in a wide variety of situations under a wide range
of circumstances.

What data do you have on this?

Second, it seems to me that their success owes in part
to (a) having a different set of reference conditions from the rest of us

Again, what data do you have?

and (b) a better repertoire for coping with disturbances to their
controlled perceptions.

This might seem so to an outside observer, but again where is your data?

So, the perennial question is some circles is "How
do they do it?" More germane from a BPT/PCT perspective, perhaps, is the
matter of how we might reliably identify their reference conditions,
ascertain those portions of their repertoires that give them an edge in
managing disturbances, and communicate both these to others. Anyone got
any ideas along these lines?

Sure. ( tongue firmly in cheek ) All you need to do is figure out how
awareness, memory, emotion and reorganization take place. Make sure all the
levels are in fact there and have the characteristics we presume they have.
Then figure out how one ecs affects another and how that all plays out. And
lastly lets throw in our ability to communicate with one another through
symbols I know I've left a few things out but I think you get the drift..

Marc

[Bruce_Gregory]

[from Bruce Gregory (991122.1036 EST)]

Fred wrote:

I kind of like the idea of Bill Powers' Theory (BPT), not the
least reason
being that it's open only to interpretation by Bill himself. Hmm.

I agree. It solves a lot of problems.

There appear to be at least three kinds of knowledge in one scheme of
thinking: explicit, implicit and tacit. (These are different
from other
schemes such as know-about, know-how, know-why and so on.)

Calling all these "knowledge" seems to invite difficulties. I prefer to
stick to skills. Knowing how is demonstrated by doing. Knowing about is
demonstrated by speaking or writing or answering questions about
something. I assume knowing why means being able to describe using a
model.

Explicit knowledge is the kind that can be and has been captured,
articulated and communicated. Formulas for finding the area
and volumes of
certain shapes offer a good example. Implicit knowledge is
the kind that
can be inferred (e.g., Suzie outsells her peers by more than
four times her
nearest colleague so she probably knows something the rest of
us don't) but
has not yet been articulated or captured. Moreover, not all implicit
knowledge can be articulated; some of it is tacit. Tacit knowledge
reflects the fact that "we know more than we can tell" (to use Michael
Polanyi's words). Thus, I can pick a friend's face out of a
sea of faces
and even recognize him or her in a gallery of similar faces
but I'm darned
if I can tell you how I do it; ditto for riding a bike and so on.

Why one would call the ability to ride a bicycle an example of tacit
knowledge is not obvious to me. Which is one reason I avoid the term
knowledge, I suppose.

So, it seems to me that in BPT/PCT we're dealing with the same three
categories of reference conditions: explicit, implicit and
tacit.

Reference conditions are simply neural signals. I don't see how they can
be explicit, implicit, or tacit.

We can
probably extend these categories to include controlled
perceptions as well.

Same problem. Perceptions are neural signals.

But we also have "the test," a way of determining the
perceptions that are
being controlled in a given situation. Consequently, just as
a good task
analyst or performance analyst or knowledge engineer can often make
implicit knowledge explicit, we can often make visible
certain controlled
perceptions and, by implication, the underlying reference conditions.
Moreover, just as a task analyst or performance analyst or knowledge
engineer would be distrustful of what an expert performer
says is the basis
of that performance, we, too, are not inclined to quickly
accept a person's
own views of their reference conditions.

That's unfortunate. If you don't "know" what perceptions you are
controlling, I'd hate to ride an airplane that you are piloting. You may
have difficulty telling me what perceptions you are controlling, but
"thinking out loud" is likely to give me some good clues.

(Am I confusing reference

conditions and controlled perceptions too much here?)

The third category, tacit knowledge, would have as its counterpart in
BPT/PCT, "tacit reference conditions." Some of these are
doubtless way,
way down in the hierarchy. Others might be much higher up
yet still not
available to us for expression and communication via language. (That
aside, people can be helped to learn how to ride a bicycle or
recognize
faces or interpret intelligence photographs and so on even if the
articulation of the underlying know-how is difficult to articulate.)

Exactly.

Here's one question: Does it make any sense to think of reference
conditions and controlled perceptions in terms of their being
explicit,
implicit or tacit or are these meaningless terms in BPT/PCT?

Here's another -- with a little by way of lead in. It seems
to me that
what lots of other folks call "master performers" or "really talented
people" generally seem to satisfy two sets of criteria. First, they
generally excel, often in a wide variety of situations under
a wide range
of circumstances. Second, it seems to me that their success
owes in part
to (a) having a different set of reference conditions from
the rest of us
and (b) a better repertoire for coping with disturbances to their
controlled perceptions. So, the perennial question is some
circles is "How
do they do it?" More germane from a BPT/PCT perspective,
perhaps, is the
matter of how we might reliably identify their reference conditions,
ascertain those portions of their repertoires that give them
an edge in
managing disturbances, and communicate both these to others.

Yes. Tony Robbins describes how he became an expert pistol coach without
ever firing a pistol. In effect, he simply asked expert pistol shooters
what they were perceiving when they were most successful.

Bruce Gregory