Philosophy of Sciene (10)

"Theory U: Leading from future as it emerges" is a book by Otto Scharmer (MIT). This book addresses the blind spot of our time ("open mind - open heart - open will") and leads us as basis through the whole process of Philosophy of science. It is a problem-solving process. Scharmer proposes this process to optimize both collaboration and innovation, and as a guide in order to enable collaborative and innovative capacity in individuals and teams working on problems. The problem of our group is the homo oeconomicus. Does he really exist? In my opinion he does not fit anymore.

In general the five movements of the Theory U are:

1. The co-initiating step includes self-organizing the team, studying patterns and paying attention being aware. Its principal outcome is an engaged and informed team.
2. The co-sensing step entails making sense of what you are now aware of. Its principal output is understanding.
3. The presencing step is the most challenging us to accept. It is what Scharmer calls letting go and letting come, a being open to possibility, using imagination and critical and creative thinking. Its principal products are emerging approaches.
4. The co-creating step is one of iteratively exploring and experimenting with these possible approaches. Its principal outcomes are working models.
5. The co-evolving step is the continuous and improvisational study, improvement and innovation of these models, collaboratively in peer production with the community of users of these. Its principal output is sustained innovation, relationships and resilience.

We are as group now at stage one (I would mean). Today we discussed to perform focus groups interviews as a observation strategy with a heterogenous group of managers. The topic of the focus interviews would be how managers behave in their daily lifes. What is their motivation? Are they driven by self-interest or more by cooperation? We are also found a common logo. It should be something with ants that is actually the only thing I can say without breaking a secret.

Philosophy of Sciene (9)

The thematic field of our group is the "Homo oeconomicus".

I would say that the model of the rational, self-interested decision maker who maximizes his/her utility does not fit the reality. In general people are both rational and emotional. Therefore "homo oeconomicus" does not explain all existing perspectives. In our thematic field we should not adore or worship this out-dated model. It should be more a criticism on it. Research found out that people tend to share with others for social welfare. There is a tendency to distribute and allocate payoff in a group. People share with others but also trust other people. Hence, a new leitmotif in economics is needed, since not all people are selfish orientated.

My suggestion for a logo for our group would be either Dagobert Duck on a sign with a cross or the honourable merchant as presented next to this text.

My observation idea would be to conduct focus interviews with managers at all levels and across all functions about their understanding and criticism on the "homo oecominicus". The aim should be to gain an insight in the manager’s current situation, their organizational strengths and what they see as the opportunities for improvement.

Philosophy of Science (8)

Questions/Topics that matter:

(1)
What is the leitmotif in economic life: fighting or cooperation?

I think that the "homo oecomicus" does not exist in reality and is just an economic model driven by theory. The core of human motivation is interpersonal acceptance, to give devotion and to care about somebody. From neurobiological perspective we are designed for social resonance and cooperation. Research in cooperation which is based on game theory results in that trust creates trust, whereas distrust and rejection promote aggression.

(2)
What exactly is happiness?

I like to read articles about happiness that I find by chance in newspapers or journals. On the one hand, happiness is a goal of all human striving and on the other hand it is just chance or fate. It is obviously an ambiguous term, but certainly a concept that at first can be classified into the field of philosophy. Epicure, the Greek philosopher, introduced hedonism. He mentioned that the pleasure is itself the content of happiness. From the biological perspective happiness arises in our mind by the release of hormones and neurotransmitters. Moreover there exist already a science of happiness and even an economy of happiness.

Philosophy of Science (7)

Philosophy of Science (6)

Today was presentation day of the foundations of philosophy of science. Our own presentation worked well. Thanks to all fantastic group members. We did quiz "How wants to become a scientist" as warming up ;-) ... Also the other presentations "Scientific knowledge and reality: From reality theory and back" as well as "Science as process - dynamics of scientific knowledge and its social embedding" were ok.

Professor Peschl asked: What kind of world view do you have? Hopefully I can claim to have a out-of-the box world view. Moreover he mentioned that we do not see the things themselves and do not have access to the border beyond. So we use experiments in order to get some explanations how something works ...

Philosophy of Sciene (5)

Although it is Rector’s day our group came together in order to ensure that our presentation for Monday obtains some fine-tuning. For the red-line through the slides of “What science is”, “Scientific explanation”, and “Explanation in science” we prepared a common introduction as well as a common conclusion. We fixed the settings and fixed who should take over which task. For example, we adapted the quiz with a real selection round and decided who should be the candidates and what jokers should be used. Moreover we also talked through the other experiments and role plays. I was a little bit confused because I was asked to play a man who tells a little girl that he cannot be pregnant due to the fact of taking anti-baby-pills everyday. Finally I agreed to do it because the short role play should explain the irrelevance of Hempel’s covering law model of explanation. At the end all groups members promised to do some further preparation work and fine-tuning for a great performance in the classroom. Hopefully I have nevertheless a nice weekend!

Philosophy of Sciene (4)

This time we met to discuss our presentation outline more in detail. So the meeting last longer than the week before. The three subgroups presented their prepared preliminary slides and got feedback of the other group members. My idea was accepted to perform a quiz with the name “Who wants to be a scientist”. The other groups also brought beside the content some suggestions how to make a working atmosphere less tense. We had some discussions concerning how to implement small experiments but more or less I did not observe any major disputes. Afterwards we had also a meeting with one part of our lecturer where we presented our outline. To sum up, it was proposed that we should refer in the presentation to our discipline, to look for interaction with the audience and to find a red line through our presentation. Ok. Let’s do it!

Philosophy of Sciene (3)

Today’s group meeting was quite efficient. Main goal was to discuss what and how we should design our presentation. The most important points out of the literature I summarized in some Power Point slides which were used as handout. Marion suggested to build up three subgroups of two and to prepare three distinct parts for the content as well as the creative part. Katrin agreed to be the team leader or the chairwoman of our group who is responsible for consolidation and communication. Bernhard and I choosed the chapter “What is science?” for preparation until next Monday. We discussed shortly to implement in our part a quiz in the form of “Who wants to be a millionaire”. I am satisfied to do some creative staff. It seems to to brighten up my day!

Philosophy of Sciene (2)

By reading the relevant literature of the foundations of philosophy of science I also found a practical answer to the question why the palm tree in my living room does not look anymore very nice. Actually the answer is a general law of nature. The plant is not exposed at the moment to direct sunlight. Since plants need sun for photosynthesis, it should not me wonder why the originally green leaves are getting brown. Now I moved my palm tree to a sunnier place with the hope that it can thrive and prosper in a better way. This would mean that I make now an inductive prediction.

Philosophy of Sciene (1)

Today the first session of Philosphy of Science took place. Professor Peschl’s introduction was promising. For me this day focused mainly on organization. Groups were formed for a presentation in two weeks; literature was delivered by a group member; registration on the lecturer’s homepage was completed. Our group arranged a meeting for designing the presentation on Thursday 04.03.2010. Until then I have to read the respective material. The two guys of the observation group announced that they will also come. We will see how things go on!

After two years ... I'm back!