1. Lists: As implied above, the most favoured way of presenting a set is in the form of a list of items or points. Such lists may be unstructured or else items may be grouped into subsets. No other aid is provided for the comprehension of the set. It is assumed that any normal mind will be able to grasp the content in a satisfactory manner. Such lists do not identify the nature of the relations between the elements of the set (other than by what is implied by grouping into subsets).

Herbert Simon notes: "An early step toward understanding any set of phenomena is to learn what kinds of things there are in the set--to develop a taxonomy. The step has not yet been taken with respect to representations. We have only a sketchy and incomplete knowledge of the different ways in which problems can be represented and much less knowledge of the significance of their differences." (5 p. 78)

1. There is an implicit assumption that authors are free to include as many elements in a set (of the above kind) as they wish. In fact, 1-element and 2-element sets are seldom of interest to scholars, although there is a tendency reinforced by public policy considerations to identify 1-element sets (e.g. the fundamental value, need, problem, principle, etc.). At the other extreme, 1000-element sets are considered unacceptable, as are 100-element, or even 20-element, sets.

1. The following argument applies only to cases where the elements are conceived as making up a complete set. It does not apply when the elements have been selected (possibly as a sample) from a larger set. Where the elements are selected on a priority basis, as being the "most important", the argument only applies when this may be interpreted as implying most "fundamental" or "basic" [1].

There is a widespread tendency to formulate insights, proposals or principles in point form, namely as made up of a specific number of items usually presented as a list. Such items will be considered here as the elements of the set that they collectively constitute in any particular case.

Reproduced with the permission of the Secretary of the Commonwealth Science Council (CSR) by whom it was originally commissioned. Presented to a meeting on forms of presentation of the Goals, Processes and Indicators of Development (GPID) project of the United Nations University (Geneva, October 1978).

Originally published in 3 parts in International Classification, 5, 1978, 3, pp. 126-133; 6, 1979, 1, pp. 15-25; 6, 1979, 2, pp. 92-103. Also published by the United Nations University as working paper HSDRGPID-22/UNUP-133 in 1980.

This collection of papers arises from an investigation into the manner in which sets of concepts are ordered and interrelated. The focus is on why phenomena, and especially psycho-social phenomena, tend to be comprehended using concept sets of a particular size range (e.g. 2 to 6 elements). The concern is whether this tendency is taken into account in efforts to order existing psycho-social processes or to design better ones. A special concern is the consequence of using "incomplete" or inadequately diverse sets to order comprehension of any environment or of action in it.

Collection of papers arising from work in connection with the Goals, Processes and Indicators of Development (GPID) project of the United Nations University (UNU). Published under that title by the Union of International Associations (Brussels, 1984).

Sections of this Article (accessed via the links on the right)

Collection of papers arising from work in connection with the Goals, Processes and Indicators of Development (GPID) project of the United Nations University (UNU). Published under that title by the Union of International Associations (Brussels, 1984).

Sections of this Article (accessed via the links on the right)