Gentle Readers:
Mbayers@mmm.com seems to lament the empirical findings of a pedigree of
research in cognitive science and also confuses distinctions between various
levels of cognitive operations.
I sympathize with the lament, but I accept what respected research has
shown. (Show me the data.)
There should be little confusion about the differences between various
cognitive operations. Some operations are nested, more detailed, and
subordinate to others. The most simple and detailed are those we don't
really think about very much. Nor should we, for if we did, we'd never get
anything done at all . Transcending one level of cognitive operations (how
do I move my foot?) in order to focus on a superior cognitive operation
(should I stop my automobile now?) is, indeed, a distinction we must make
pragmatically. We cannot think about everything. The world presses in on
us: "reality is fired at us, point blank" (Jose Y Ortega). Especially in
business, we do not have the resources to reflect as we might wish (see
Henry Mintzberg's writings).
Unsubstantiated musings of what *should be* are not as useful as
focusing on ideas that are specific, contextualized, purposeful, and
empirically grounded. (Who would not generally argue "for learning"?)
I don't mind we wish things were other than what they appear to be. I
wish we would make stronger and more justified distinctions about what we
say.
With all due regards,
M.
Michael Levenhagen
High Technology Strategy & General Management
College of Business, California Polytechnic
San Luis Obispo, CA 93407
805-756-1563 (off), 756-1473 (fax)
408-456-0704 (hm)