The Biological Basis of IOPT Measurement

By: Gary J. Salton, Ph.D.
Chief: Research & Development
Professional Communications, Inc.


INTRODUCTION

An organization is an entity—a thing. It is built of people assembled for a common purpose. That “thing” can be measured with varying degrees of accuracy. More precision means deeper analysis and greater accuracy.

“I Opt” technology is unique. It can access to the highest level of measurement—a ratio scale. It can do this because of the time and attention that was devoted to figuring out how to access the brain’s guidance system directly without the need for using psychology as a go between. A simple ruler can be used as a touch stone to explain how “I Opt” measurement system was developed and is applied.

Graphic 1

                                      THE BASIC CONCEPT

 CREATING A ZERO

The beginning of the ruler is the zero point of the scale. Without a zero point you cannot use division and multiplication. For example, no tool can tell that a person is 30% introvert. This is because the scale (Myers Briggs Foundation, 2019) has neither a zero base nor equal increment scaling.

“I Opt” technology is unique. It has both a zero point and equal interval scales. It can use entire range of math tools including division. It can do this because has developed methods of directly accessing the information processing capacities of the human brain. Graphic 2 is a visual representation of the model.

Graphic 2

BASIC INFORMATION PROCESSING MODEL

The simplest argument for a zero point is that a “no information” condition is possible. For example, in deep sleep. No information input means that there nothing to process. The model literally disappears as a part of the brain function. The absence of the thing being measured is the definition of a zero condition.

Nomological Net is a tool for establishing content validity—one of the eight validity dimensions. It traced each of the 96 “I Opt” statements back to the basic model. A total of 87.5% of the survey responses could be directly tied to the model. The 12.5% balance was tied back to the model by explicit inference (Soltysik, 2000, p.19). This result evidences the direct relation of “I Opt” to information processing.

The input and output parts of the model are the measurement points. Input is measured using “method.” This is the form that the input takes. It is a continuum. It ranges from “unpatterned” on one end to “structured” at the other. While the two variables exist on the same dimensional plane they are not opposites. Rather they are alternatives. For example, food input might be arrayed on a calorie scale ranging from eggs (~75 calories) on one end to hotdogs (~150 calories) on the other. They share a caloric content while being alternative foods.

The “I Opt” method unpatterned and structured alternatives are mutually exclusive. The use of one excludes the other. For example, behavior can strictly follow some predefined format. With no unpatterned element the “unpatterned” variable is zero. Similarly behavior can be completely random in manner and the “structured” end would be zero.

The concept of mode governs the output and is a continuum that ranges from action on one end to thought on the other. The variables are alternatives but here the use of one does not preclude the other. But the zero value base of output is not lost. The fact that action and thought can exist together does not mean that they have to. It is possible engage thought to the exclusion of action—a zero action condition. Similarly, action can be so all consuming that it precludes thought—a zero thought condition.

“I Opt” technology clearly has a zero level both in total and on its input and output components. The ruler has a zero level beginning. This gives it access to all of math including division. The next step is to establish that the ruler has an end point.

FINDING THE END OF THE RULER

Ratio measurement has no theoretical limit. However, human information processing does have limits imposed by society and ultimately by biology. Those limits can be seen through the lens of the “I Opt” variables.

Method governs the input side of the model with unpatterned selection at one end and structured at the other. The limit of input is that without a guiding structure attention can shift minute to minute. Carried to the extreme the frantic behavior mandates residence in a mental ward. This condition actually has a psychological designation—“attentional distraction.”

Similarly, the maximum degree of structured input causes behavior becomes robotic. Psychology’s obsessive-compulsive disorder might be an example of the character of this condition. Input is restricted to predefined items. At extreme levels, the societal response is the same as for input—the mental ward residence. Thus both ends of method input ruler has an endpoint—withdrawal from the organizational matrix.

The output side is governed by “I Opt’s” mode concept—a continuum with thought on one end and action on the other. Carried to the extreme the thought option evolves into a catatonic state. When this occurs the mental ward again beckons. Similarly an unending stream of action not guided by thought creates a chaotic condition again signaling confinement to a mental ward. Extreme levels of input and output share a common end—withdrawal from society. If society did not act, biology would. If left unattended all of the conditions described would ultimately be fatal. One way or another, the human information processing ruler has an end.

FINDING THE INCREMENTS

The beginning and end of the “I Opt” ruler has been set. The remaining task is to define the steps for getting from one end to the other.

Graphic 3

SAMPLE “I OPT” SURVEY SELECTION

Graphic 3 shows the basic approach used. Individuals are quizzed as to their information processing preference in terms of the measurement variables. Not all of the survey statements are as simple and obvious as this illustration. But all ultimately map back to input and output and that in turn maps back to the basic model.

The statements are effectively “mapping” brain circuits. Those circuits are created by use. The more a particular neuron is engaged, the stronger becomes its connection to other particular neurons. The chain of these neural connections form into circuits—a predetermined path through a neural network. Those circuits are what determine behavior. “I Opt” technology counts the number of times a respondent chooses to use a particular circuit.

Method and mode categories are exhaustive. Anything that engages the model must register on the “I Opt” scales. Thus the 24 “I Opt” statement responses converted to percent will sum to 100%. Dividing the count of the 24 statements into 100% yields an increment of 4.17% (100% ÷ 24). That is the increment by which degrees of the “I Opt” variables can be measured. They are all equal increments because they are based on the same simple count.

A survey with more statements would allow for finer measurement. However, completing the survey is not without cost. Too long of a survey would result in people losing interest. This can lead to answering capriciously or even refusing to participate. In school room situations this may not be an issue. In field settings when the survey is being applied to fully mature individuals—some at a high organizational level—it is an issue. The 24 statement set was found to offer the best resolution (4.2%) on which to make reliable organizational development judgements without alienating the respondents. Thus 4.17% became the ruler’s equal interval increment.

“I OPT” BIOLOGICAL FOUNDATIONS

“I Opt” uses the model shown in Graphic 2. That model only works because it is a reflection of what is happening in the human brain. Input and output reflect the activity of neurons. The brain has over 100 billion cells. But the “I Opt” does not have to engage a particular neuron or group of neurons to work. This is due to the brain’s organization.

It has been known since 1983 (Fodor. 1983) that the brain is modularly organized. These modules consist “of a relatively large set of anatomically distributed regions” that are “anatomically separate” and that each plays “a unique role in cognitive control, including its implementation, maintenance, and updating” (Marek & Dosenbach, 2018). A recent issue of Scientific American cited seven identifiable brain modules base on MRI studies (Bertolero and Bassett, 2019). There are probably more awaiting discovery.

One characteristic of all of these modules is that they tend to interact with other brain circuits in a limited number of ways. It is only at certain points that input is accepted and their output is picked up by other circuits. This suggests that “I Opt” statements do not have engage a specific neuron or set of neurons to register a particular outcome. They merely have to engage the same module.

The foregoing is not proof. However, the direction of neuroscience research increasingly reinforces the “I Opt’s” tie back to the human mind. It is possible with today’s fMRI technology to actually image the “I Opt” statements as they are being processed. These images could confirm “I Opt’s” modular access contention. Unfortunately, the cost of that kind of study would be prohibitive. But just the ability to consider that kind of definitive work sets “I Opt” apart from all other assessments. It is theoretically possible to create and make sense of a visual picture of a mental function actually working on an “I Opt” variable. Who else could say that? Fortunately the strength of the validity study measures makes imaging a “nice to have” but not a necessity.

CONCLUSION

This brief summary is not a full explanation of how and why “I Opt” works. It does, however, illustrate the thought and effort that has gone into making sure its measures are accurate. That effort puts “I Opt” judgements and recommendations on a rock solid foundation. That solid foundation means that “I Opt” technology can be trusted to deliver accurate assessments and predictions today, tomorrow and 100 years from now.

BIBILIOGRAPHY

Bertolero, Max and Bassett, Danielle, How Matter Becomes Mind, Scientific American, July, 2019, pp. 26-33.

Fodor, Jerry A. (1983). Modularity of Mind: An Essay on Faculty Psychology. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.  ISBN 0-262-56025-9

Marek, S., & Dosenbach, N. (2018). The frontoparietal network: function, electrophysiology, and importance of individual precision mapping. Dialogues in clinical neuroscience, 20(2), 133–140.

Myers Briggs Foundation, Extraversion or Introversion, Accessed December,2019: https://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-basics/extraversion-or-introversion.htm?bhcp=1

Soltysik, Robert (2000), Validation of Organizational Engineering: Instrumentation and Methodology, Amherst: HRD Press. 

Fiona's First Year: Discovering "I Opt"

By: Fiona (a/k/a Pciona) Wells
Apprentice Organizational Theorist
Professional Communications, Inc.

What a Year! I got born, learned to walk and helped Umpah flesh out his theories.  That's a lot of travel for a 1-year old!

I met Umpah when I was still at the hospital. His real name is Dr. Salton but I call him Umpah.  He said that he knows that his theory—he calls it “I Opt” technology—really works.  But he wanted to know how it develops.  I agreed to help him figure it out.

The first thing I had to tell Umpah was that I was not born tabula rosa. I was born knowing about sucking, crying, moving and other stuff like that. I told Umpah that this was what computer scientists called the “kernel.” It was the link between “me” and whatever else there was that was “not me.”

The first thing I had to do was make a connection to the “not me” world. I had to learn about “input.” Umpah told me that input was just patterns I would recognize as “things.” My first pattern was mommy. She fed me. I began to recognize a pattern of her smell, how she felt when I nursed and what she looked like. All of this happened at the same time. The combination of inputs was the “mommy pattern.”

Mommy’s face was interesting. At first I could only see clearly for about 18 inches. Everything beyond that was a blur. So what I saw was mom’s head—kind of an oval with lots of stuff inside. Umpah said that people tend to recognize things by their boundaries. Mommy’s head was the first “object” that I learned about.  I inferred that the “not me” world was stuff that had boundaries.

As I got older my eyesight improved. I began to notice lots of other things that had boundaries.  Daddy had the same kind of face as mommy. But it had fuzz on it. Then the Grannies began to appear. More faces. I studied them hard. I was able to begin to identify another pattern. It was my “people pattern.”  It was my first input category.  I had learned to generalize!

Umpah got excited when I told him. He told me that people are social animals. He said that it made sense that the core input concept of “people” would lie immediately adjacent (whatever that means) to my “kernel.” He said I would spend the rest of my life embedded in a network of people. It made sense that this was the first category of objects that I recognized.

When I was visiting my cousin Clementine I began to see the value of being a social animal. Clem is a little older than me. I couldn’t take my eyes off of her for over 2 hours! I watched what she did. I noticed her reactions. Everything she did was interesting. My “kernel” helped me recognize that “people” were different. Some are more like me than others. Clem was little. I was little. Umpah calls it an age cohort. Umpah likes to use big words. 

Umpah also told me that the reason I was interested in Clementine was that people model behavior. When I was watching Clem I was learning. She was teaching me what was possible. I could see what other people did when she acted one way or another. Umpah said that this was a lot easier than having to learn everything by myself. I can see why being social is a big advantage.

Output came next. My “kernel” had movement built in. I found that as I flailed around that I occasionally hit something. It would move. I could affect the world! Then I began to figure out that I could grasp some objects. I could move them to wherever I wanted.  I told Umpah that I had discovered causation! 

Umpah got excited again.  He said that causation was a key concept. He said that process—the third element of the “I Opt” model—did not make much sense without it. He said that I had discovered the sequence with which the human information processing model develops—input, then output and finally process. He said that this was a big deal.

Well, once I got the basic processing model down, I began to refine it. I had to figure out if color made noise. Did noise have a taste? Are objects with different textures different “things?” I spent a lot of time examining things. Throwing them. Tasting them. Pushing them. Umpah said that what I was doing was discovering stable patterns. He said that I was constructing a mental model of my world. 

Then an interesting thing happened. Aunt Shannon (she is the company CEO but I made her an honorary aunt) showed me a sheet of paper. I studied it. It had boundaries. It was an object.  Then she tore it in two! I found that hilarious! I asked Umpah why that was funny.

Umpah said that we laugh at things that are unexpected. He said that tearing the sheet was funny because I had been assuming that objects were fixed and permanent. When Aunt Shannon tore the paper she showed me that objects were made of other objects. I confirmed Aunt Shannon’s discovery by learning to tear paper myself. It could take a “thing” and make it other “things.”

Umpah said that philosophers had spent a lot of time trying to figure out what is a “thing.” I told him that it was simple. “Things” were just patterns of reality that I found useful. A sheet of paper was a thing if I wanted a sheet. Pieces of paper were things if I wanted pieces. Whatever I decided a thing was could then become “input” into my information-processing model.

Umpah said I had another important insight. He said that the patterns we create can cause us to “see” new things. He said a guy named Einstein took two “things”—time and space—and saw them as a new “thing.” He called it space-time. Neither could exist without the other. They were not separate “things” but really only one “thing.” I told Umpah to cool his jets. I don’t even know what a clock is yet.

I spent most of my first 6 months at home. I have lots of Grannies and they sometimes came over to take care of me when Mommy and Daddy went to the office. My environment was pretty stable. Stuff pretty much stayed in the same place and did the same thing. It made identifying the patterns of new “things” pretty easy.

After about 6 months I started going to work with Mom and Dad. At first it was scary.  Umpah and Aunt Shannon were there but in a new place. I still wasn’t sure where they stopped and other “things” started. But Umpah had built a little nursery for me. It had the same toys and stuff in it every time I came. I could spend my time figuring out how “things” behaved rather than if they were “things.” I got used to the office pretty fast.

This “I Opt” stuff is pretty easy and makes a lot of sense even to a little person like me. Umpah said that things look complicated when you start out in the middle rather than at the beginning. My first work with “I Opt” had been at the core. He said that I could now use the ideas I had discovered to get even greater insights as I grew up. 

I told Umpah that “I Opt” was no big deal. It was kind of a “thing” like everything else. It was just a pattern. Umpah got excited again (he seems to be a pretty excitable guy). He said that I had discovered abstraction. I told him that was nice. But figuring out how to get the colored rings on and off the pegged toy was a lot more interesting. I had a lot more work to do on “process” before I started worrying about second order mental constructs.

Well, that about sums up my first year. I will be coming into the office more regularly now. I figure that I’ll be able to teach Umpah more about “I Opt” since we will have more time together. I just have to be a little patient. Umpah tends to go off the deep end on this stuff.