What and How

In doing somethign we need to know what to do and how to do that thing. There is a relationship between them that seems to go unwritten, but will be explored here.

What and how are two aspects of the noam framework: the “3MVW3” as I have called it where the 3Ms are Mission, Method and Materiel; V is the values; the 3W are Where, When and with Whom. What and how map to mission and method respectivly and are two of the three elements (along with materiel) that comprise the kappa point (top-left) on the noam diagram. Mission corresponds to what; method corresponds to how while materiel is about resources and tooling. Together the 3Ms are what allow us to do things, while the V is the reasons for doing so, and the 3Ws are the context.

In common interpretation, “what” is an objective, the thing we want to achieve; wheras a “how” referrs to the processed by which we go about achieving that given objective. However, a deeper understanding is required. The relationship between what and how is not one of type, but rather one of level. A “how” is a more specific kind of “what”, so that which determines a “what” or a “how” can only be seen relative to other “what” or “hows”. It is possible to state an objective and break it down into the processes involved. When we do so, however, those processes themselves become objectives, sub-objectives of the original statement of intent: we might think of “hows” as being “sub-whats”.  By this definition, we can consider that the sub-whats themseves break down further, and so on; we can also consider that the original “what” as being some kind of “super-how” as a component process for some more elaborate objective. The structure then forms a hierarchy, or more correctly. a holarchy whereby objectives are processes, and visa versa, but on different levels of appreciation.

Software development employes top-down stepwise refinement in its methodology whereby software modules are decomposed into several sub-modules and so on. We can think of as a module or routine (as a whole) as being what to do, while the sequence of lines of code in it as being how to do that thing, but the lines of code each become a statement of what to do as they refer to sub-routines which are composed of further sequences of lines of code. A routine is then a sequence of sub-routines and so on. In programming, routines, methods, functions and other code blocks are given names which the computer calles in the prescribed sequence. In essence then the name of a routine (considered as a whole) is a reference to a collection of routine names. For coding, this allows us to understand the structure of the application and reuse code we are confident works.

We can think of “what” and “how” in a similar way. The “what” is a label for conceptual whole, while the “how” is a conceptual cluster of labels. The conceputal whole refers to a conceptual cluster, and each individual item in the conceptual cluster is itself, a conceptual whole. This conceptual partitioning may seem somewhat arbitary, but it is a form of chunking whereby a clutch of ideas (and their labels) are agglomorated into a single chunk (and label). It allows for an understanding of how to do things without overloading our communication. If a “how” is understood, then a simple instruction of “what” will suffice, otherwise the “how” will need to be elaborated and refined to the point of understanding. Again, this is top-down stepwise refinement applied to cognition.

In noam terms then, the Mission, or objective, is a larger chunk that referrs to a Method, or process, whereby each method is a sub-objective. The kappa point of capacity, then consists in actuality, of the stucture of top-down stepwise refinement, breaking down to, or building up, ever more detailed chunks. For the cliological framework, this allows for specification and codability of behaviour through instruction.