A mental model for self-knowledge

As the title says, the idea of this text is to provide a couple of elements of the mental model of people that basically serve to self-know, insofar as it constitutes the internal filter through which we judge what happens to us and thus create reality. and we make the distinctions of the experiential moment, which ultimately trigger a certain behavior with another or with others.

The mental model is approached linked to conversational communication between people, since communication is a moment of human relationship that translates what we are, although we try to generate a certain image of one towards the rest, in the end we can only be what we are.

I. Concept of mental model

We are going to give a brief look at this concept that, as we commented at the beginning, is key in everything that happens in the relationships and interactions of human communication, citing two texts by specialists that I find interesting to know.

“A mental model is a mechanism of thought by which a human being, or another animal, tries to explain how the real world works. It is a type of internal symbol or representation of external, hypothetical reality that plays an important role in cognition. The idea is believed to have been originated by Kenneth Craik in his 1943 book The Nature of Explanation. After Craik's early death in a bicycle accident, the idea was not developed until much later.

Before Craik, Georges-Henri Luquet already developed this idea of the mental model: in his book Le dessin enfantin (children's paintings), published in 1927 by Alcan, Paris, he argued that children obviously build internal models, a vision that influenced Jean Piaget among others. "

“A mental model is a concept borrowed from psychology to bring to light a mechanism that the mind uses to explain how the real world works. The concept is very simple: people get an idea of how things work, we make our own movies, and we create our own small-scale models of the objects we interact with. This last idea was popularized by Donald Norman in his well-known book "Psychology of Everyday Objects". Despite the fact that I still believe that all this is nothing more than a reinterpretation of Plato's ideas, the notion of a mental model as a series of beliefs about how a system works is something that has a great impact on its usability, since the People interact with these systems based on our beliefs about them.How do we identify the mental model that we have? This is one of the key issues in the definition of mental models since we are not usually aware of our MM or the effects they generate on our behaviors and relationships. If we ask a person what their MM is, they probably have a hard time finding the answer or simply don't answer. The reader of this article can try to answer the question of what her mental model is and try to write it. Probably and almost certainly you will find yourself without being able to define it clearly ”.you probably have a hard time finding the answer or just don't answer. The reader of this article can try to answer the question of what her mental model is and try to write it. Probably and almost certainly you will find yourself without being able to define it clearly ”.you probably have a hard time finding the answer or just don't answer. The reader of this article can try to answer the question of what her mental model is and try to write it. Probably and almost certainly you will find yourself without being able to define it clearly ”.

Undoubtedly these are definitions necessary to know for an adequate approach to the meaning of this human dimension. The importance is that ultimately the mental model becomes the filter that we use to relate and create our reality from what we are.

Regarding being able to identify the mental model of one and / or others, it is clearly something difficult to achieve since it would be necessary to go deep inside the person, an issue that still costs psychologists a lot. Even so, some time ago I designed a form of mental model targeting that is applied through surveys and that, despite how simple it is, provides a couple of basic indicative guidelines of the mental model of people, as I could see by applying this technique in various groups of people. The results obtained from the applications carried out, without being spectacular, I do dare to say that they are quite useful for guiding knowledge, for example to have a previous vision to determine roles in the formation of work teams or to observe communication gaps in a working group,and other purposes associated with the relationship and interaction of people who act as a team.

II. Mental model and conversational communication

By mental model we understand the main values, beliefs, paradigms and emotionality that each one has as an internal pattern, a product of his personal history (childhood) added to the experiential experience that he has had since he stopped being a child, which becomes a everything that determines or draws the way of perceiving, interpreting and reacting to what happens to us in the relational network in which we cope with others.

This is how all people have a mental model from which they relate, interact, love, hate, suffer and everything else with others. According to the degree of individual knowledge that each one has of herself, she comes to understand and to what extent her own reactions. Some more, others less and there are those who really nothing.

It can be said that a mental model is a mechanism of thought by which a human being tries to explain how the real world works. It is a type of internal symbol or representation of hypothetical external reality, which plays an important role in cognition or knowledge system.

We can also say that mental models are images, assumptions or assumptions that we have deeply ingrained in our consciousness, some of the immovable type and others movable where, in my opinion, the global virtual social network is accelerating greater mobility in certain beliefs, a product of the variety and diversity of opinions that we can know and that lead us to reflect on an intensity that we were not used to before: this connectivity does have an effect on perceptions, thinking that no, it is very difficult for me.

People get an idea of how things are and how they work when we interact with them. It is not an exact image of reality, it is just an imprecise idea that helps us understand from our interpretive mental filter. Hence, when associating the idea of how things work with the interpretive mental filter that we have, we arrive at that reality is not predetermined but rather that each one builds it from the mental model that they have (see diagram in annex).

Now, in the mental-communication model optics, we have that human beings relate and interact through communication, mainly conversational, so it can be said that to be effective in communication, which is what everyone wants or should want, you need to start exercising self-observation to begin to know your own mental model.

Not in rigorous scientific-psychological terms since non-specialists (as is my case) would surely lose ourselves in that complexity, furthermore the idea is not knowledge in itself, but knowledge basically focused on trying to obtain an idea of the following: how it is my mental model (not as something isolated but with respect to others) and to what extent it is conditioning or perhaps distorting the way in which I interpret what I hear.

In other words, to what extent or how my beliefs and personal values are filtering and drawing what I am hearing and in the end they shape my way of perceiving and judging what I hear from the people who speak.

If you can make progress in this, you already have some basis to try to form an impression about the mental model of the person with whom you are speaking and how it can condition what he says, his ability to listen and what he is interpreting one's words. It does not sound easy at all, to say the least, since in good accounts what is being suggested is to look at yourself from a distance and look at others trying to "scan" your own mental model and others.

It is definitely not something simple. But nothing is simple in the field of mental processes, it is a complex issue that we are still far from being able to understand, as has already been mentioned several times. As I understand it, currently less than 30% of the functioning of the human brain and the very nothing of its relationship with the mind is known, so we have a long way to go.

So, in the meantime, everything related to mental model and human mental processes is better to talk about this from a humble position through opinions and reflections and not statements. But this does not mean that it is a human dimension, ours, that we must maintain active attention starting from ourselves to reflect on others.

III. Characterization of the mental model of people

As a starting point I would say the following taking questions already said: the constructive architecture of the mental model of each person in particular, rests on the gross or essential values and beliefs that they have in ethical, moral, emotional, social issues, and that they are product of the inherited culture plus the personal experience itself, and from that it is what is manifested or externalized through the attitudes and behaviors of daily life.

And it is from that mental construction - which, as has been pointed out, becomes a type of mental "filter" that operates more unconsciously than consciously as long as there is no management that one could direct at will and win - people judge and interpret the own behavior and attitude and that of others, which each one perceives in a particular way regarding what happens in each human relationship and interaction event that he participates or observes.

The characterization of the mental model that I came up with and that is presented below must be read in absolutely referential terms and has a couple of caveats that should be noted:

First, it notoriously lacks conceptual rigor since there are not a few terms used that are not explained as it would correspond or should be done, on the grounds that it is a non-theoretical practical writing, second, it is based on personal observations of various people from a level of An abstraction that even for me is entangled, but I still try to indicate in a way as understandable as possible what I have observed or rather I think I have seen in the mental model of people based on their behaviors, third, I basically point out the interpretation that I give to what I call "manageable relational mental mesh" and "difficult or even unmanageable mental maze" since, as they are of my own occurrence, I am forced to say that I understand by those terms that they sound up to half strange and I could not say how they are happened to me.Finally, this characterization actually has the purpose of bringing the reader closer to the mental model identification tool that is presented below: I hope it does and does not end up confusing things more. Well, finally daring one can continue learning and improve what you think.

Mental model of people according to the values and beliefs they have:

to). "Manageable relational mental mesh": it would be a construction that exists in people's minds based on essential values and accumulated experiences, which becomes a relational mesh where ethical, moral, social, emotional beliefs intersect, and these they are constituted in their values principles, some strong others weak, that is to say, people are a composition of rigid and flexible values. Regarding the relational cause-effect incidence of this crossing of values and beliefs, at this time I would not even try to do this since it is a rather complex modeling.

So this first characterization is defined as manageable in a situation when people conduct their actions knowing and not not knowing the principles they have. Although of course no one has a detailed list of them, it can still be said that there is management of these when, for example, the person consciously incurs some moral or ethical "distraction", a common good issue today in today's business world That is why, instead of jokingly, instead of saying that someone is a scoundrel, they say "they have distracted morals."

In a situation of "manageable relational mental mesh", the person, figuratively said, has more less an idea of "the entrance and exit door" of what he does, for the same reason, when he decides on certain behavior not in accordance with what That believes and claims to be, does not suffer from a major complication or notable metal conflict, nor is it less traumatic in the relationship between value principles and particular action: it is possible to mentally sustain, even in a deceptive way, in what it claims to be and what it does. And when your behavior is consistent or consistent with your values, obviously, you feel calm.

b). "Mental labyrinth difficult to handle or even unmanageable": when it exists, it exists as part of the relational mental mesh, that is, it coexists in it, it could not be otherwise since when it operates, it functions with the same values and beliefs of the bearer.

It is formed in people who have much more rigid than flexible values when one or more of their values conflicts with what they would like to do or what they and / or others are doing. So in their relationship with themselves and others there is very little space for understanding their own actions and / or those of others (in a situation when what happens contradicts or is not supported by any of their principles) and in the absence of understanding there is no emotional management. situational only restlessness and internal conflict, where the mental rigidity itself prevents there from being an “entrance and exit door”, which ends up being a state of mental labyrinth that is difficult to handle, even unmanageable, the bearer is unable to understand why what is happening. It becomes a state of mental confusion.

In other words, it is a problematic mental model to understand and a conflictive one to handle for himself and for the others who come to perceive it, in reality many times it is unintelligible for everyone since there are no logical points to rationally understand the "conspiratorial" mental interpretation that the person makes of the facts and that in the end it results in acting absurd or irrational, from what is mostly understood by rational.

I think that we all carry in part a manageable relational mental mesh and in part a mental maze that is difficult or even unmanageable, the question is: how much of one and the other do we expel in our attitude and regular behavior.

The mental labyrinth is problematic for people, but only or only when they realize its existence, otherwise, when they are not aware that they have this, mental unrest is "normality". And there are many people who live "quietly" with thick internal conflicts: they turn to psychologists, psychiatrists, drugs, alcohol, drugs or they support themselves that way without anything external.

Now, how this labyrinth is produced, the causes can be very diverse and it is clearly a matter of specialized research, but trying to make a global mean identification, I would say that the primary source is in early childhood from the love or affection that it received or did not receive. of the mother and father figure, relationship that enters to configure the emotionality that the person will have: of stability or relative at least when he received love and when he did not receive or received little love, of instability or confusion, and worse when he received physical abuse or abuse sexual activity of his close family, the latter opening a mental labyrinth space that becomes dense and very complex.

Then in early or advanced youth, a factor that generates this labyrinth, among several others in any case, would be in the emotionality that was built from the primary affective relationship that he received and his real sexual orientation, from birth or that was conceived in the childhood.

We are going to briefly refer to the second aspect, to people's sexuality, which does not imply that emotionality or other factors are of less relevance.

We have that the inherited culture indicates that the sexual normality of people is in heterosexuality, but it turns out that bisexuality and homosexuality in men and women is something much more widespread than is believed, but not only that but there is also the fact that the nuances of tastes and fantasies of both homosexual and bisexual are highly varied and inventive, to say the least, even downright unhealthy under any reasonably balanced point of view.

From that point of view, we have that the labyrinth is nourished by two states that are socially classified as "abnormal": by the taste for the same sex and by the nuance or characteristic of the type of taste for sexual intercourse with the same gender.

At this point it could be said that this sexual condition forks towards two sides, which obviously start from the same but differ due to the effect or impact that it produces in the generation of the mental labyrinth in the person.

The first aspect or side, would be to be homosexual or bisexual who has sex with the same gender: it is an increasingly less problematic situation for the person since society currently tends to be less and less discriminatory with homosexuality.

So that it can reasonably be thought that this mental labyrinth factor is weakened in these people, in the sense that the categorization of abnormality ceases to be such or loses strength and the condition of liking for the same sex is increasingly socially accepted as normal.

Even for some time there are certain positions or job functions where companies prefer gay men for being more detailed and do not have the complications of women. What is happening with youth in Chile is also striking: many girls without being lesbians have relationships with other girls just because it is like a fashion. All of this is a growing part of the accepted social culture. For this reason, for many, homosexuality is no longer a reason for a mental maze. At least not dense like before.

The second aspect or another side, would be in the nuance or type of sexual taste in the homosexual relationship. Here the matter becomes more complicated and complex, since the tastes are so varied, from surprising and rare to pathological, where the participants or “enjoyers” (bisexual and homosexual) live in a line where nobody is clear about what “ normal ”and what is“ abnormal ”, a question that occurs, among other things, because the taste for experiencing new sexual experiences makes what at one time was“ abnormal ”for the person, after trying it and enjoying it becomes "normal".

But this does not mean that there is no impact on what you think about yourself, on your mental model. So in the nuances of sexual taste, it can be said that one lives in an underworld with no codes of conduct to grasp as mental acceptance.

For people whose homosexual tastes are not too bizarre or extravagant, what they are participating in or what they do sexually with the same gender, does not have a greater mental impact on what they think of themselves since they are in the line of what more and more socially acceptable.

But people who have complicated tastes or sexual fantasies with the same gender that are too extravagant, regardless of whether they practice them or not, turn out to live in a deep emotional sexual “underground”, accumulating personal discontent, a sense of guilt, complexes, frustration, even anger. and self-hatred.

That for sexual fantasy or what they do or do not do but wish with the same gender. It could be said that these are people who live a family social life within what is culturally typified as normal, but who have homosexual tastes that are not "standard" but rather more strange and complex for themselves and for society (punished, repressed or not), when that taste collides with deeply grounded moral-cultural values, that internal confrontation configures in the mind a dense and complicated labyrinth to sustain. In these cases, the nuance of taste is a strong generator of mental maze in people.

In another area, to end this mental maze and not only refer to the sexual issue, I would very briefly mention something that occurs in a professional work situation. It turns out that when the person works in an activity that is below the capabilities that he believes he has, regardless of whether or not it is actually the case, a situation occurs that can turn into a strong feeling of personal frustration that builds up.

Some people manage to handle this situation in various ways, without becoming a source of cumulative frustration in them, but when this is not achieved, then there is a mental labyrinth that is difficult to handle or even unmanageable many times, however the origin itself is clear.

There are many more elements that could be identified as managers of the mental maze, in fact I think the list would be quite extensive, but with what has been said it seems to be sufficiently illustrative to understand what this denomination refers to.

In what follows we will see a general typification of the mental model of people using the invented category of mental mesh referred to at the beginning.

IV. Typification of mental model in people

The typification of the mental model that is exposed, which does not pretend to have general validity and is not complete or exhaustive, is elaborated instrumentally based on the technique to identify the mental model that is included in the following point.

It should be noted that four types of mental models are characterized, only that in the way of looking at the mental model that is drawn below three are used. This is not an error, but I think that with these three levels the matter is simplified.

There are people with broad and clear values and beliefs for them that, for example, are not complicated by issues such as abortion, divorce, homosexuality, religion, etc. that despite having a clearly defined and diverse position from many and not shared with others, they can easily relate to those who have a different position. These people are what I call carry a "manageable relational mental mesh" in the sense that their values and beliefs are mostly consistent with their social emotional behavior (who I say I am vs. how I act with myself and with others), in that sense they have no conflict internally, and relate without drama or annoyance to the diversity and differences of behaviors and values of others. Conversely, they deal more with opinions and less with affirmations and they have the ability to listen.There are people with clear values and beliefs for them who are placed between half-rigid lanes, not very flexible, so that they do not relate so bearably with broad-minded people and with a certain degree of difficulty when they are too broad, while with more narrow-minded are more easily related in a way between paternalistic and benevolent even with a feeling of a certain superiority. These people also carry a "manageable relational mental mesh" as their values and principles are mostly consistent with their social emotional behavior and in that sense they do not have internal conflict. Conversely, they deal less with opinions and a little more with affirmations and have a medium capacity to listen.There are people with clear values and beliefs for them,placed between much more rigid lanes very inflexible, so that they are related in a difficult way with people of broad mind, even more difficult when they are too wide, while with the narrower of mind they are related with acceptance since they are finally similar. These people, although they carry a "manageable relational mental mesh" inasmuch as their values and beliefs are mostly consistent with their social emotional behavior, in that sense they do not have major internal conflict, but they are susceptible or can fall into "mental labyrinths" when They face situations with people who have values principles that are quite distant from them, but who for various personal reasons are not able or unable to reach out and reject even though they wish they could do so by their principles:This contradiction with their principles makes them deal with the situation in terms of a “mental maze”. Conversationally, they are poorly managed with opinions and mostly with affirmations and have low or very low listening capacity. Finally, there are people with values and beliefs that are confusing for them (although they do not always admit it) placed between rigid, almost inflexible lanes, so that they are related in a very complicated or difficult way with broad-minded people and of rejection with those that are too broad, while with the narrower of mind they are related to acceptance since ultimately they have been like counterparts. These people carry a "difficult-to-manage relational mental mesh" because their values and beliefs are not consistent with many performances of their social emotional behavior,They have internal conflict that can become dense, for the same reason their relational mental process with themselves and with others dances in a “mental labyrinth that is difficult to handle or unmanageable” while they cannot understand why what is happening is happening and they do not have tools to be able to understand. Conversationally, they are basically handled with affirmations and have minimal or no listening skills.

Finally, this mental model is a key aspect for understanding the relationship and interaction that occurs between people that should not be neglected just because it is a complicated human issue.

Many complex things it is possible to access certain knowledge by looking for the basic logic of operation and in the case of a mental model, I think that it is found in what we have been saying about how it is built in one.

So with the above, I believe that we have enough elements of basic knowledge to begin to deal with our mental model, not as an isolated question or subject in itself, but from the perspective of the effect it has on the relationships that we establish through of conversational communication, in short, to interpret as well as possible the unsaid meaning of what one hears when talking to others.

An infinite number of other reasons could be indicated by arguing the relevance of not only trying to know one's mental model but also feeling attractive about it, but it seems to me that with everything said it is clear. At least that's how it seems to me.

In conclusion: then we need to make an effort aimed at identifying our own mental model and we know that it is a complex issue since it is not reaching and looking at something that we do not understand or know so little or nothing about how it works in its entirety.