According to Perry (2003), cognitive systems are "...systems coordinate transformations on representations in goal-seeking behavior". My example of a cognitive system is my sorority. A task that is performed regularly in my sorority is having sorority meetings. At these meetings our shared goal is to agree on which programs should be implemented in the semester, and how to go about it. Our desired end state is to have a successful semester with meaningful programs.
The representations used in carrying out this task are both internal and external. The internal representations include memories of what did and did not work in the past. While the external representations include more physical objects such as agendas and notes that members prepare to share with the group. Another external representation used is the actual discussions and conversations between members. We move closer to our goal state when we agree on which programs to implement and which programs to not implement. In my organization is very important that the representations have the same meaning. We all understand the time and effort that must be put into implementing our programs.
Olson states, “The designation of coupling involved two factors: how immediate a response is needed, and how much interaction is required for either clarification or persuasion” (422). My task is both loosely and tightly coupled. It is loosely coupled in the sense that when we are actually coming up with ideas for programs there is no immediate response needed or much interaction; everyone goes home and thinks of ideas about what could possibly be a meaningful program. This is loosely coupled because members can do this in parallel (Olson, 422). But when we have a sorority meeting, the task becomes tightly coupled because when we are presenting the programs and discussing the pros and cons of each, there is much interaction between members. An immediate response is needed to determine if members like the program or not.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
• I’m also in a sorority and I was on the exec board for a year as philanthropy chair. I think I found that in general (although I’m sure it depends on each house) that our group was mostly loosely coupled. I think it had a lot to do with the fact that we each had defined roles and positions within our exec board. So people who stay on top of their own things and tell other people how things were going. In looking at our sorority as a whole, I think there are so many people in it that when it comes to certain tasks, (a philanthropy event for example) when you send out emails asking for help, it’s easy for people to be less involved since they know the emails going to another 150 girls.
ReplyDeleteYour analysis of coupling involved in your sorority meetings is well-observed. I would be interested to know the interactions between internal and external representations. How do external representations, such as notes and meeting agendas help with the members' motivation, attitude and memory involved to achieve the goal? What functions would external representations play in the cognitive system?
ReplyDelete