|
Here is the context for this TPOV:
Subject Line in an email: Generation Flux: not a
demographic designation but a psycographic one.
When you look at the title, you see it
misspelled... Psycographic... Is psychographic... Let's say it's
a hurried error, I make them all the time...
...But because of the context here, this will make a good
example for assessing capability mimic vs. generate
...Bear with me and forgive me Tim,
it's not personal...
When we talk about assessing capability, I have often gone
into diatribes about mimicking, vs. generating,
if you can't generate at a level, you are NOT at that
level, even though the language you use appears from that
level --> the walk like a duck, quack, and swim like a duck
thing...
...But when I read this just my now, my mismatching filters
went off and I said to myself, the person who wrote (for sake
of example please) is not necessarily familiar with (or
whomever sent that which means they allowed the error to
replicate), or whatever, but let me have my reason to explain
here...
The artifact nonetheless is that whoever spelled that doesn't
have much familiarity with psychographics (which is like me
who doesn't have much familiarity with the English language!)
...<G>
This is the metaphor for what I’m talking about in the
assessment of capability...the person (for the sake of the
example, I don't know really, just good example or so I
think)...mimics the word and types/allows it as it sounds, but
would have known if they had actually used psychographics
before in something other than speech that people in
psychographics know it's spelled like it is....
There are clues like this everywhere about our capability, our
ability to generate rather than mimic vicariously.
Most of the work I’ve seen done in the integral world, for
example, is mimicking, because when you look at the underlying
models they are not integral at all in most cases. They are
mimicked...this is not bad. This is how we learn, in
education, in training, in life...we mimic....
HOWEVER, MIMICING is not the same
as generating and thus becomes an essential point of
bifurcation for assessing capability and the inquiry that must
be generated to probe the languaging of whatever it is.
Bandura noted that we probably learn up to 75% of what we
learn vicariously --> mimicking others, mirroring, mirror
neurons, all the same thing and it doesn't all get driven
through empathy, but many other motives as well...
YET, the question becomes, how do we REALLY assess capability?
Understanding all of these ideas about how people are subject
to, and/or have a relationship with --> whatever it is.
One being subject to, is at a different level of conscious
awareness AND capability, than one having a relationship with,
in this example, psychographics.
|
Helpful Hint: When assessing capability, listen
and observe the artifacts that point to clues about whether
the person is languaging something from a hollow framework, or
one that is shallow, or mimicked from listening, reading or
studying something, but without the requisite capability to
generate from language the full gamut of algorithms present
when someone can take ideas and turn them inside out and put
them back together in new ways, and then put them back again.
Languaging, especially the artifacts generated are helpful
ways to observe the density of the capability at any given
range or level.
Caveat: This is one reason you have to be careful of
self-report assessments, sentence completion and other
devices, which don’t allow probing of the mimic vs. generate
axiom. Of course, if the interviewer is not as capable as the
interviewed, often the interviewer bias and the biases
presented here are just as misleading. <G> |
