User:KYPark/truth

Shannon 1949
This is "Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of a general communication system" in: (p. 34). This clearly remains within the first-order cybernetics.

Cherry 1957


This is "Fig. 3.2. Object-language and meta-language (b) The observer as a participant" in: (p. 92).

This figure clearly illustrates the second-order cybernetics (Bateson 1976), "cybernetics of cybernetics" (von Foerster 1974, von Foerster 1979), or meta-cybernetics, as it were, which also relates to conversation theory (Pask 1975) and "direct manipulation" (Shneiderman 1983) and  human-computer interaction (HCI, previously CHI) in general.

Around 1975, it seems, many academics were indirectly shocked by its likely implication for science in general. It is no accident that they were also "rethinking" metaphors, meta-language, meta-science or "science of science" (since Bernal 1939), and metaphysics beyond objectivity and certainty, hence namely, a meta-view boom since then, to address anomalous, uncertain, implicit, cognitive, constructive, creative, hence after all subjective phenomena, say, human communication for society anyway!

Schematic of Document Urge


Schematic of document urging process SDU, where: S: System U: User d: Document surrogate D: Document E: Enquiry or evaluation.

The document retrieval system S is to predict the document(s) D most similar to the user enquiry E, and the user U is to discriminate the outcome.

Sui blackbox


A second-order cybernetic brain model X (chi), consisting of System S and User U in interaction, shortly sui, marked by the initial condition Po. The former has to do with processing of information or data D while the latter with enquiry or evaluation E. This relates to human-computer interaction in particular and self-organization in general.  "Nothing is less simple than the interrelation between two processors!" (online pdf) 

Hacking 1975
The a posteriori learning and knowing subject physically and mentally relates to the newly-emerging hence a priori object or reality.

Bateson 1976


The anthropologists Gregory Bateson and Margaret Mead contrasted first and second-order cybernetics with this diagram in an interview in 1976. It emphasizes the requirement for a possibly constructivist participant observer in the second order case:  ''. . . essentially your ecosystem, your organism-plus-environment, is to be considered as a single circuit.'' (online) 


 * See also
 * 1990/Foerster
 * 1990/Foerster/criticism
 * 1990/Umpleby
 * 

Le Moigne


Jean-Louis Le Moigne's view on self-orgnaization by virtue of information. The &infin; shape may suggest the infinite loop of interaction, and the X (chi) in the middle the human-computer interaction.

Argyris 1978



 * Organizational learning
 * Argyris & Schön (1978) distinguished between single-loop and double-loop learning, related to Gregory Bateson's concepts of first and second order learning. In single-loop learning, individuals, groups, or organizations modify their actions according to the difference between expected and obtained outcomes. In double-loop learning, the entities (individuals, groups or organization) question the values, assumptions and policies that led to the actions in the first place; if they are able to view and modify those, then second-order or double-loop learning has taken place. Double loop learning is the learning about single-loop learning.


 * Reflective practice
 * Argyris and Schön pioneered the idea of single loop and double loop learning in 1978. The theory was built around the recognition and amendment of a perceived fault or error. Single loop learning is when a practitioner or organisation, even after an error has occurred and a correction is made, continues to rely on current strategies, techniques or polices when a situation again comes to light. Double loop learning involves the modification of personal objectives, strategies or policies so that when a similar situation arises a new framing system is employed.


 * Single- and double-loop learning
 * Chris Argyris and Donald A. Schon (1974). Theory in Practice: Increasing Professional Effectiveness, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1974. (Amazon reader)
 * Chris Argyris (1991) "Teaching Smart People How to Learn," Reflection, vol. 4, no. 2. (Online pdf)

Kolb Cycle 1984


The Kolb Cycle looks quite similar to the following diagram of Hacking (1975).

The similarity looks clearer when the Kolb Cycle is adapted as follows:

It shows that the a posteriori learning and knowing subject physically and mentally relates to the newly-emerging hence a priori object or reality. This figure may be further adapted so as to obtain a counterclockwise flow diagram as follows:

Quadrant brain coding cycle &sub;qb&sup;
We are an encoder and decoder by turns, conversing with each other as such taking turns, matching the codes with the coded. This cyclic coding game may be illustrated by anyone of these circular diagrams. The codes-coded and encoder-decoder axes may be respectively called the objective and subjective axes, yielding four quadrants.

The last of the above three coding cycles stresses alternateness most, where:

The difference is whether decoding is viewed as reverse engineering or reengineering, as it were, of encoding. From the "reengineering" perspective in particular, the four quadrants may well be compared with the four strokes of the internal combustion engine cycle, as well as the four stages of the Kolb Cycle, however adapted, say,

Then, the three different cycles are remarkably in concert, in consilience!

Before finishing decoding, the decoder should refer to the past experience reflectively to recall or retrieve the best case in context, that is, the most relevant to what is observed at present. Such seems to be almost the case with the encoder. No speech without learning or experiencing! In this sense, experiential learning is quite a tautology.

In this regard, speech, especially conversation, is essentially information retrieval (IR), especially by way of human-computer interaction (HCI, previously CHI reminiscent of the Greek letter "X" which in turn may be reminiscent of "crosstalk"), which may consist of the following four stages:


 * See also
 * Pfeiffer, W. & Jones, J.E. (1975). A handbook of structured experiences for human relations training. La Jolla, California: University Associates.
 * Pfeiffer, W. & Jones, J.E. (1975). A handbook of structured experiences for human relations training. La Jolla, California: University Associates.
 * Pfeiffer, W. & Jones, J.E. (1975). A handbook of structured experiences for human relations training. La Jolla, California: University Associates.
 * Pfeiffer, W. & Jones, J.E. (1975). A handbook of structured experiences for human relations training. La Jolla, California: University Associates.
 * Pfeiffer, W. & Jones, J.E. (1975). A handbook of structured experiences for human relations training. La Jolla, California: University Associates.

Gibbs 1988



 * Description : What happened?
 * Feelings : What were you thinking and feeling?
 * Evaluation : What was good and bad about the experience?
 * Analysis : What sense can you make of the situation?
 * Analysis : What else could you have done?
 * Action plan : If it arose again what would you do?

Gibbs, Graham. Learning by Doing: A Guide to Teaching and Learning Methods [monograph online]. Reproduced by the Geography Discipline Network; 2001. [cited 2011 Nov 10]
 * References

http://www2.glos.ac.uk/gdn/gibbs/index.htm

Gibbs, Graham. (1988) Learning by doing: A guide to teaching and learning methods, Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development, Oxford Polytechnic. London: Further Education Unit.

http://www2.glos.ac.uk/gdn/gibbs/index.htm

Pfeiffer, W., & Jones, J. E. (1975). A Handbook of Structured Experiences for Human Relations Training, Vols. 1-5, University Associates, La Jolla, CA.
 * See also

Nonaka 1995



 * SECI model of knowledge dimensions


 * 1) Socialization : Tacit to Tacit
 * 2) Externalization : Tacit to Explicit
 * 3) Combination : Explicit to Explicit
 * 4) Internalization : Explicit to Tacit