Models that Work

In building up their worldviews, people and communities of people assemble an interacting set of “models” which they use to make predictions so that they can make better decisions that will lead to the best actions they can take. Before going further, I need to define the concept of “models” that I am using here. To me, a “model” is any means that an individual or group uses to make predictions about the possible outcomes related to decisions or to the actions that result from decisions made. These “models” may be such things as sayings, stories, narratives, rules of thumb, parables, proverbs, fables, laws, norms, schema, or anything more formal, including either logical or mathematical structures. For example, “love your neighbor as yourself” can be considered to be a “model”; the fable about the tortoise and the hare leading to the conclusion that slow and steady wins the race can be considered to be a “model”; and the parables of Jesus can be considered to be a “model”.

“Models” are fallible; they never predict with 100% accuracy. For example, there is the problem of applying the appropriate “model” to a specific situation. The advice “slow and steady wins the race” is not appropriate for someone running a 100-yard dash. Here, “the race goes to the swiftest” is a better “model”. Furthermore, “models” can be thought of as probabilistic. That is, “models” supply a range of possible outcomes for any proposed action…not just one outcome. “Models” that provide only one outcome are called deterministic models and tend to be circular in reasoning.

Everyone needs “models”! People and communities of people cannot function without them. Many argue that humans are hardwired to develop “models” because human beings are problem solvers and this is the unique characteristic of the species that has led to its higher development. People just naturally construct models to help them solve more difficult problems and make better decisions. The test of whether or not a “model” is relatively adequate is whether or not it can do better than other models in solving more difficult problems or help individuals and groups make better decisions.

People and communities are pragmatist in terms of the “models” they use. The ‘kicker’ in this approach is that the “models” used must be reflective of the worldviews of these individuals or groups. People construct these “models” using assumptions that are consistent with how they view the way the world works. But, not all assumptions are equal. Some assumptions are more important than others. Willard Van Orman Quine, the philosopher, argued that people have a hierarchy of assumptions running from assumptions that are relatively superficial and not that crucial to a model to assumptions that are very, very deep crucial to the model and are deeply held by the supporter of the worldview.

When people get new information that raises questions about the relative adequacy of a model, they tend to modify or adjust the assumptions that are not that important so as to make their model more adequate. If the model continues to underperform normal practice is to go deeper into the hierarchy of assumptions making further changes to improve model performance. This process continues until the model being used has been altered sufficiently so as to now be a relatively adequate model once again, or, the individual will have to go back to the drawing board and build a new model that is relatively adequate, or, the individual will switch models and begin working with another model that is relatively adequate.

Of course, individuals and groups differ on their willingness or ability to move through their assumptions so as to build a relatively adequate model. Some will move fairly quickly to deeper and deeper assumptions; others will only move slowly through their hierarchy of assumptions. I am not saying one approach is better than another because this is just human behavior and all individuals are different.

Now part of the worldview of individuals or communities is that related to religious or theological issues or questions. It is my position that all human beings approach religious or theological questions in exactly the same way that they attack any other type of question. That is, they construct “models” that conform to their worldview and pragmatically use these “models” to make predictions about possible outcomes so that they can make better and better decisions or solve more difficult problems. The only difference between areas of practice is the complexity of the subject being addressed. The ultimate test of these “models” is whether or not they help individuals or communities gain greater unity within themselves and lead better lives: do these “models” help people achieve “the peace that passes all understanding?”

Achieving the goal of living better lives or achieving “the peace that passes all understanding” is dependent upon how well the “models” of the particular worldview do in predicting the possible outcomes of different actions. If the “models” are consistent with the way the creation works then the individual or the community of individuals will make decisions that help to bring unity within the individual or within the community. However, if “models” are not consistent with the way world works then sooner or later the “models” will prove to be inadequate relative to other “models”.

Crucial then is the way that individuals or communities respond to this inadequacy. Some will respond and adjust in a timely manner. Others, however, will take another path. One such response is for people to develop explanations and excuses about why their “models” don’t work as well as others or as well as they would like. If an individual or a community of individuals wants to ‘defend’ their worldview, they will find explanations and excuses outside of their selves or their community to justify maintaining their existing “models”. These explanations and excuses may run all the way from “the weather” to the fact that “others oppose and put down our worldview” to the devil is attacking us. In this way, the individual or the community is able to deflect concerns, at least temporarily, about the deficiency of the “models” they are using and create an “us versus them” attitude among the supporters of their specific worldview.

If the models continue to be inadequate, the individual or community may attempt to cover up the lack of performance of the “models” being used in order to protect the worldview. Thus, censorship, falsifying information, and other means of restricting news that the “models” are not performing well relative to the “models” of other worldviews are common means of hiding the existing inadequacy. Openness and transparency are the victims of such a failure. These efforts may be combined with attacks on the “them” the individual or community has identified as the evil force behind the putting down of “us”!

When an individual or a community begins to turn in on itself in order to protect its worldview and its “models” the next step is to physically and/or mentally enforce the worldview and its “models” on those affected. In this way, the individual or the community “locks down” their worldview and takes on all outsiders that they consider to be a threat. Strict controls and discipline are enforced upon the individual or community being threatened from external forces and, in such a state, the individual or community can actually conduct offensive actions against those that they consider to be their enemies. They believe that the “truth” of their worldview must be defended at all costs.

In my view these individuals and communities cannot succeed. Ultimately, they will succumb to the spread of information that their worldview, at least in its present manifestation, is not relatively adequate and some will adopt the view that their “models” need to be modified so as to incorporate the new information and produce more adequate predictions or those involved will move into other communities that have a worldview that produces more adequate predictions. The problem is that in the interim time period, much unhappiness and dislocation may be inflicted on a lot of people.

Humans are problem solvers and our ability to solve problems is crucial to our survival. Failing to use our abilities of problem solving is not a strategy of survival…either for an individual or for a community.