Re: Challenges to systems thinking.

["John Constantine" <thesfg1@cox.net>]

Replying to:
"Speaking personally, I never talk about "profound knowledge" with the
people with whom I work on a day-to-day basis.  To do so would be to
risk them thinking that I was saying my knowledge was profound, whereas
their knowledge was puny and insignificant."

No howls of protest here. I'm afraid I agree with Alan Meekings on this
aspect of how best to voice the elements of systems thinking, as espoused by
Deming. Perhaps part of the difficulty is with the common language barrier,
in that a great many people would not know how to use the word "profound" in
any other way than in church, in dealing with a higher being. There's always
the risk of being misinterpreted.

Since we are not dealing with God, the context of the word profound seems
appropriate in discourse involving the need for a "deep insight" into this
or that particular. How Deming used it was most appropriate for his time,
his education, his colleagues. There is still a need for deep (or deeper)
insight into the interconnectedness of human beings and how they come to
know what they know, how their minds work, the fact that variation exists,
and some appreciation of systems in general.

People do not use profound in everyday communication, without the risk of
talking Zen. The word is perfectly fine, but misunderstood. I don't read
Deming as getting "hung up" on this point. 

If the aim is to make such things more palatable, then it is better that it
not be with a dose of castor oil, but rather a bit of fruit. It is the same
message, but with a different medium, is it not? Talking to those who grow
pale at the mention of system is not helpful if is not able to be better
explained in un-profound terms.

No howling allowed please. :)

________________
John Constantine
thesfg1@cox.net
Phoenix, AZ