We are Made of Stories
In one of the communication theories I’ve read about, there’s this technique called Modeling. Simply speaking, it’s a method that allows you to take any successful person and dissect this person’s approach into a series of abstract steps that can be later used by anyone. You can think of it as an algorithm, similar to the one we write when planning our code. Of course, some functions will have a more clever approach or they might have better performance than others but the underlying rule is that if well written and detailed enough, any coder could technically take the algorithm and turn it into a working program. Modeling is based on an incredibly powerful idea that any successful behavior can be modeled and reproduced by anyone.
Whether the concept of models truly works is not scientifically proven, as far as I’m concerned. There is no research nor metrics on how successful this approach can be if applied. Nevertheless, The Theory of Models, how I like to name it, has always been a source of fascination to me so I would like to invite you to play with me a simple ‘what if’ game.
To begin with, assuming the idea of models is true, why are some techniques working for some people and not for others? And if models are universal, would that mean that merely anyone can use the strategy of a professional basketball player and consequently become one?
Considering the aforementioned functions, for them to work they need to take into consideration inputs. If functions are not designed for too many or too few arguments, or for different data types they will simply not work. It’s the same with the models. You need to consider what your inputs are and if the model is intended for their particular type. If your input is ‘short stature’ and ‘poor physical condition’, the chances that the model will currently work for you are not great. Either you need to change your inputs, or you need a different model. Moreover, models can only affect your behavior. A well-written function should be pure, it should always return the same value, given the same arguments. Therefore it should not be dependent on external circumstances. Successful use of the model should therefore not depend on things that you cannot control, such as how other people will react or luck.
Based on the Theory of Models, we could define success as a set of formulas that a person has developed and implemented which resulted in, what is universally presumed as a positive outcome. For some, this might even be a revolutionary idea as this would imply that we are not our accomplishment. Nor are we are failures. Rather, our success is defined by what we do or what we don’t do. Consequently, we would no longer BE ‘bad’ students, mediocre communicators, poor problem solvers, inattentive programmers. We would instead HAVE an inadequate model.
Following the thought that a successful outcome relies on an appropriate collection of techniques, natural would be to assume that a failure is simply a lack of it. Hence, a low grade or fruitless interview could no longer be seen as something particularly negative. Rather, they could be considered as types of tests for the effectiveness of the model. Therefore it couldn’t be perceived as a merciless attack on our self-esteem anymore. Isn’t it why we write lines and lines of tests for our code, taking into consideration every possible edge case? To make it stronger? To make it unbreakable?
The belief that we ARE something negative is very destructive and demotivating as it cultivates the idea that it’s a part of our personality, our inner-self, and it cannot be changed. But the concept which models introduce might be uncomfortable too. If the truth is, that this significant distinction between what we ARE and what we DO is what our success depends on, it would mean that we are the one in control. Suddenly, we become the ones with the enormous responsibility and overwhelming amount of possibilities to choose from.
If we assume models are real and we are able to extract and implement those strategies, we could theoretically improve in any field we see fit. We could have more effective methods to deal with stress on coding interviews, preparing for assessments, memorizing abstract concepts, or learning a new programming language. And perhaps, if we really discover the set of models that work best for us, we too could achieve mastery in anything we desire. How different our perception would be if instead of comparing who we ARE to who others ARE, we could compare their models to ours. How would this reframing influence our self-image each time we fail?
That is of course if only the Theory of Models was genuine. Maybe even scientifically proven. If it wasn’t just a hypothetical idea, an abstract concept, a constructed belief to influence our perception of our own competencies. Perhaps then we could be able to model any successful behavior and apply it to every area of our life. Or, could we maybe do it anyway? Would it be possible to challenge our own beliefs if they are limiting us, and instead ‘import’ the ones that serve us better? At the end of the day, aren’t we all just made of stories that we’re telling ourselves?
