AHMAS

C. Denkhulp

• A. Vindkunde
• B. Methode
  • Inleiding methode
  • 1. Meta-denkwijze
  • 1.1 Systeemtheorie
  • 1.1.1 Waarom? (syst.)
  • 1.1.2 Hoe? (syst.)
  • 1.1.2.1 Complexiteit
  • 1.1.2.1.1 Verzameling
  • 1.1.2.1.2 Dynamiek
  • 1.1.2.1.3 Arena
  • 1.1.2.1.4 Zelforganisatie
  • 1.1.2.1.4.1 Autopoiese
  • 1.1.2.1.4.2 Gelaagdheid
  • 1.1.2.1.4.3 Aggregatie
  • 1.1.2.1.5 CAS
  • 1.1.2.1.5.1 Circ.causa.
  • 1.1.2.1.5.1.1 Interferentie
  • 1.1.2.1.5.1.2 MF.processen
  • 1.1.2.1.5.1.3 Comenius Eff.
  • 1.1.2.1.5.1.4 Kip-Ei?
  • 1.1.2.1.5.2 Multiplier
  • 1.1.2.1.5.3 Emergentie
  • 1.1.2.1.5.4 Synergie en Flow
  • 1.1.2.1.5.5 Dyn.compl.syst.
  • 1.1.2.1.5.5.1 Doelcompl.
  • 1.1.2.2 Generativiteit
  • 1.1.2.2.1 Uitdagingen
  • 1.1.2.2.1.1 Kantelpunten
  • 1.1.2.2.1.2 Differentiatie
  • 1.1.2.2.2 Principes gen.
  • 1.1.2.3 Kanttekeningen
  • 1.1.2.3.1 Catastrofen
  • 1.1.2.3.2 Complex comm.
  • 1.1.2.3.3 Compl.education
  • 1.1.3 Wat? (syst.)
  • 1.1.3.2 Systeemniveaus
  • 1.2 Ecorationaliteitstheorie
  • 1.2.1 Waarom? (ERT)
  • 1.2.2 Hoe? (ERT)
  • 1.2.2.1 Preferentiele logica
  • 1.2.2.2 Adapt.toolobx
  • 1.2.3 Wat-vraag (ERT)
  • 1.3 Drie-wereldentheorie
  • 1.3.1 Waarom (3W)
  • 1.3.2 Hoe-vraag (3W)
  • 1.3.3. Wat-vraag (3W)
  • 1.3.3.1 Fysieke wereld
  • 1.3.3.2 Psych.wereld
  • 1.4 Interactietheorie
  • 1.4.1 Waarom? (inter.)
  • 1.4.1.1 Legitimatie
  • 1.4.1.1.1 Gebruiksperspectief
  • 1.4.1.1.2 Ontwikkelingsmodel
  • 1.4.1.1.3 Kennis construeren
  • 1.4.2 Hoe? (inter.)
  • 1.4.2.2 Ontdekkingsproces
  • 1.4.2.2 Principes
  • 1.4.2.3 Voorwaarden (int.)
  • 1.4.2.4 Onderst.onderwijs
  • 1.4.3 Wat? (inter.)
  • 1.4.3.1 Non-dualisme
  • 1.4.3.2 In the mind
  • 1.4.3.3 Emerg.uitkomst
  • 1.4.3.4 Kijken
  • 1.5 Rationaliteitstheorie
  • 1.5.1 Waarom? (ratio)
  • 1.5.2 Hoe? (ratio)
  • 1.5.2.1 Criteria
  • 1.5.3 Wat? (ratio)
  • 1.5.3.1 DECIDE
  • 1.5.3.2 GOFER
  • 1.6 Soc.wet.hulptheorieen
  • 1.6.1 Waarom (hulp)
  • 1.6.2 Hoe? (hulp)
  • 1.7 Handelingstheorie
  • 1.8 Epistemologie
  • 1.8.1 Evolutionaire epistemologie
  • 2. Modelleringswijze
  • 2.1 Canmeds-model
  • 2.1.1 Vakbekwaamheid
  • 2.1.2 Communicatie
  • 2.1.3 Samenwerking
  • 2.1.4 Organisatie
  • 2.1.5 M.Verantwoordelijkh.
  • 2.1.6 Kennis ontwikkelen
  • 2.1.7 Professionaliteit
  • 2.1.8 Kapitaalmodel
  • 2.1.8.1 Toelichting Kap.model
  • 2.2 Cynefin-model
  • 2.2.1 Simpel
  • 2.2.2 Ingewikkeld
  • 2.2.3 Complex
  • 2.2.4 Chaotisch
  • 2.2.5 Wanorde
  • 2.3 ML.Design-model
  • 2.3.1 Integratieniveaus
  • 2.3.1.1 Soorten systemen
  • 2.3.1.1.1 Gesloten systemen
  • 2.3.1.1.2 Open systemen
  • 2.3.1.1.3 Fractalen
  • 2.3.1.1.3 Grenzen
  • 2.3.1.1.5 Schaalgrootte
  • 2.3.1.1.6 Technologie
  • 2.3.2 Denkstrategieen
  • 2.3.2.1 Reflecteren
  • 2.3.2.2 Analyse
  • 2.3.2.3 Synthetiseren
  • 2.3.2.4 Simuleren
  • 2.3.2.5 Evalueren
  • 2.3.3.3.3 Artificiele wereld
  • 2.3.6.3 Wat-vraag
  • 3. Werkwijze
  • 3.1 Werkvormen
  • 3.1.1 Onderzoek
  • 3.1.1 Redeneren
  • 3.1.1.1 Deductie
  • 3.1.1.1 Kennisproducent
  • 3.1.1.2 Inductie
  • 3.1.1.3 Abductie
  • 3.1.1.3 FUZZY
  • 3.1.1.3.1 Ervaringsabductie
  • 3.1.1.3.2 Design abductie
  • 3.1.1.4 Analogieen
  • 3.1.1.5 Causaliteit
  • 3.1.1.6 Finaliteit
  • 3.1.1.7 Fouten
  • 3.1.1.8 Pascals godsbewijs
  • 3.1.2 Handelen
  • 3.1.2 Kennisconsument
  • 3.1.2 Ontwerpen
  • 3.2 Competenties
  • 3.2.3 Verstaan
  • 3.2.4 Co-creeren
  • 3.2.5 Combineren
  • 3.2.6 Meervoudig kijken
  • 3.3 Technieken
  • 3.3.1 Analyse
  • 3.3.2 Synthese
  • 4. Beheerwijze
  • 4.1 Methodoloog
  • 4.4.2 Managementstappen
  • 5. Ondersteuningswijze
  • 5.1 Theory-data cyclus
  • 5.2 Hermeneutische spiraal
  • 5.3 Reflectiespiraal
  • 5.4 PDCA-of kwaliteitscyclus
  • 5.5 Socratische vragen
• C. Kennismanager
• D. Ervaringsdesk.
• E. Studiemodules

1.1.2.3.2 Complex comm.

Communication is about complex dynamics of two (or more) human beings in interaction.

How?

I never react to you, it is always: you-plus-me
It is: I-plus-you reacting to you-plus-me
‘I’ can never influence ‘you’ because you have already influenced me; that is, in the very process of meeting, by the very process of meeting, we BOTH become something different.
It is I plus the-interweaving-between-you-and-me meeting you plus the-interweaving-between-you-and-me, etc
If we were doing it mathematically we would work it out to the n-th power
Human individuals, reciprocally influencing each other, thereby co-creating each other over time, with the result of both partners becoming I and THOU
Buber describes this as: you “act” on me like I “act” on you (ibid., p. 11). He adds to this that relation implies reciprocity: “my Thou acts on me like I act on him” (p. 16).
Men/women are born to relate and communicate. Follett: “response is always to a relation”
Buber views the I as a result of the web of relationships: I and Thou are weaving each other within a web of relations.
Co-creating organisms, operative as complex dynamic entities, are “both the weaver and the pattern it weaves”
Self-amplifying loops are caused by small changes in the direct effects on the other showed to generate a potential large, nonlinear increase in the loop effect, operating as a multiplier effect.
Bootstrapping, self-bootstrapping and mutual bootstrapping in interaction. Bootstrapping mechanisms may now be taken as underlying these bootstrap processes, operating as learning mechanisms (see Carey, 2009).

Meer weten? Zie Kanttekeningen