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 Second Year: Discovering "I Opt"

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

In my last blog I reported how I helped Dr. Salton—I call him Umpah—define the foundations that underlie his “I Opt” theory. I told him how I figured out what “things” were. I showed him how I was able to group these things and come up with other things—like “people.”  I told how I discovered that I could make things I want to happen actually happen. Finally, I described how I could use patterns to learn things without having to do them myself. 

Umpah listened to me and gave my discoveries big names. He called them things like generalization, causation, abstraction and modeling.  Umpah likes big names.  I told him that big names were okay as long as he remembered that these were just tools.  He told me that my next job was to use these tools.

One of the first things I noticed as I entered my second year was a new pattern. Things happen in sequence. First Mommy talked. Then Daddy talked. Then Mommy talked again. I told Umpah about this. He was impressed. He said that I was building new “objects.” In my first year the objects were physical things that were defined by their edges.  I had now discovered how to replace the edges with events. This let me see patterns in the relationship of things.

Umpah said that relationship patterns were called interactions rather than objects. But the principal was the same.  He said I could put these together the same way I did physical things. I could then construct the situations that I wanted to participate in.  The “I Opt” styles I would use as a grownup would depend on where I decided to put the event “edges” on relationship patterns. That was a lot for a 2-year old to chew on. I told Umpah to put it back in the cooker and see what it looks like when it is done.

As I progressed in my second year I spent a lot more time playing. I was gradually able to use my muscles more exactly to do what I wanted done. That led to an interesting discovery. I noticed that if I moved a toy one way, it played music. If I moved it another way, nothing happened.  I told Umpah about this. He said that I had discovered experimentation—another tool. It is a way of figuring out what is going to happen by trying it on a small scale. I told him that I’d keep it around but now wanted to learn how to make things work without having to test them each time.

Chloe wrote in her Growing Up with “I Opt” blog that she used Umpah’s spontaneous RS strategy in her first year as a way of surveying her environment.  I did the same thing. Really it is the only way you can figure out the scope of the world you were born into.  What I did different from Chloe was to try to figure out the building block tools that it generated the style.  Now I wondered how these tools would help me get to the second development   phase that she reported—the methodical LP strategy.

The answer came as I progressed through my second year. I found that things held my attention longer than they used to. I wondered why.  Umpah said that it was probably because I was actually using the tools that I had discovered.  He said my neural network was growing (more big words!). Bigger networks just take longer to navigate. He said I was able to focus on things longer because I had more things to think about.

I thought about Umpah’s speculation.  I think he is right. I can now figure out when something is really new to me.   I have ways of figuring out how to get it to do what I want.  I can use things that worked in the past. A little experimentation can tell me if I’m right  or wrong. Putting these and my other tools to use—the stuff; Umpah calls causation, generalization, experimentation and so on—means I have more things to think about. Umpah says that big people call    this attention span. He said it is not something you teach. You get longer attention spans because you have use for them.  

Okay, but what is that use? The only use I can think of is that these tools help me to both predict and affect  my future.    That means I can arrange things so I get more of what I want. And the things I want right now is to know how to tie my shoes, feed myself without help, open things by myself and put on my own clothes.   I have the tools.  I have the attention span. All I need is to learn the sequence of actions—   the procedure.  Umpah says that that is why I’m going to be using the Logical Processor style in my next phase. It’s going to help me get what I want when I want it.

And I think I’ve figured out a way to get a jump on the game. Umpah got me a Lego set with a boy and girl for Christmas. He also got me a figurine of Dora the Explorer and her pet Boots.  I knew about Dora from TV and I’ve been to the playground with other kids. So I kind of knew how little people behaved. So I started pretending that Lego Boy and Lego Girl and Dora were playing together.

Aunt Shannon—that’s what I call our CEO—made me a little playground on her window sill. She used plastic spoons to build a teeter-totter, the pull-string tied to the window handle as a swing and kind of a bowl for a merry-go-round.  I had great fun pretending that my toy people were playing at a real park. I asked Umpah why this was so much fun.

He said that I was testing out things that may happen in the future.  He said I was figuring out how the new things I discovered—the stuff he called interactions—worked together. He said that big people call this simulation.  It’s kind of an experiment without the need to actually do the stuff. He said that I was testing the procedures I might use in real life. Playing let me test a lot of things faster than by actually doing them. Playing is really just practicing stuff.

A lot of things are beginning to make sense to me now.  I like Sesame Street, Dora the Explorer and cartoons because they tell simple stories.  They are teaching me structure—how “objects” in my world relate to each other. The duck game I played with Umpah now makes sense. He would give me a stuffed duck; I threw it down; he picked it up and gave it back. I threw it down again. He picked it up again. He was teaching me about patterns of interaction.

Coming to work with Mommy taught me that that where you are matters.  The rules were different from those at home. You have to use different structures—different patterns of activity—in different places. The TV shows, coming to work with Mommy and playing “duck” with Umpah were all preparing me to develop the procedures. I figured out that procedures are just purposeful forms of structure.  I will be building on this in my next phase of growth.

There is one thing I’m still puzzling over. When I was very little I would hear music and rock in a particular way. Everybody at work got real excited when I did that. They called it the Fiona Shuffle.  I liked the praise. I repeated it.  In the process I got pretty good at it. I asked Umpah if this would have any effect on the kinds of things I’m learning about in “I Opt.” He said maybe. 

Umpah told me that all of the tools I had learned about were just ideas in my head—he called them mental constructs (more big words).  He said that the same idea could be interpreted with words, pictures or by how things felt to my senses (he called them visual, auditory and kinesthetic just to show off).   He said that words tend to be precise and definitive—kind of like formulas that give you one result. Pictures tend to be expansive—he said that you can look at the same picture and see different things at different times. Kinesthetic understanding kind of combines words and pictures.  You get to use more variables than are available with words but fewer than are contained in pictures. How much we stress one or the other will affect the kind of options we’ll consider in addressing life’s issues.  He said everyone uses all three of these approaches. 

Umpah said he did not know how much I would come to rely on any one of these modes.  He said he did not know how much getting praised for the Fiona Shuffle would affect me but he thought it would have some effect.  I guess big people do a lot of things without really knowing what they are doing.   We little people just have to do the best we can with what we get.

I thought I’d conclude this blog by trying to extend Umpah’s theory. After all, I am an apprentice organizational theorist.

There is a picture above Mommy’s desk of an alien that I really liked since I was little.  Below it is a framed statement of Umpah’s Alien Hypothesis.  It claims that “I Opt” is universal.  It does not say why.

I got to thinking about the stuff I discovered in my first two years of life. It seems to me that any living creature would have to learn about the tools I discovered just to live. They have to learn to define objects, generalize, abstract and cause things to happen.  The only way anyone can use these tools is through Umpah’s basic “I Opt” process—method (input), mode (output) and process (linking).  Successful strategies will tend to be repeated.  “I Opt” styles are merely patterns of behavior that repeat. That means that—in one form or another—styles will automatically appear. This means that we will find the principles underlying “I Opt” everywhere that we find life anywhere in the universe. The only limit is that the laws of physics that we understand has to apply. “I Opt” may not work in a multi-verse where causation is not applicable   

When I grow up and can use big words I just might try to explain exactly how this works. But that will have to wait. For now I’ve got to work on how to tie my shoes—first things first.