Different Thinking Styles

The previous topic examined the different preferences for action or ideas to guide change. These differences, which are most marked by comparing the diagonals (see diagram at right), contribute to generating distinctive styles of thinking.

Thinking styles vary according to the quadrant. Antagonism naturally develops between protagonists using different styles, most evidently (but not only) between diagonally-opposite quadrants.

Perceptions and accusations of «wrong thinking» can make discussion almost impossible amongst diverse protagonists.

These thinking styles are not proposed as an expression of personal identity, or necessarily used for decision or inquiry. This thinking appears to be a function of the choice of depiction paradigm and used to operate change within it.

Simplistic v Rational Thinking

In the UL quadrant, the two paradigms support simplistic thinking because action is regarded as primary and ideas are viewed sceptically and used to manipulate.

In the Unitary paradigm, almost anything can be asserted because independent thinking is blocked, and all are expected to conform to a given viewpoint however false or outrageous.

In the Dualistic paradigm, the polarization is generally obvious to all, and convenient or self-serving for the user. Despite appearances or claims to the contrary, comparatively little effort goes into thinking through the object of interest because most effort goes into dominating, winning arguments, and emotionally persuading supporters.

In the LR quadrant, the Causal paradigm is very different and requires rational thinking.

The Causal view is that situations are complicated with many components, and information and theories must be used constructively to find cause-effect relationships. Only rational thinking enables the use of evidence and reasoning to deduce causation. Scientific thinking goes further to exclude random associations and handle confounding factors.

Antagonism Details

Causal protagonists in the LR quadrant, typically academics and intellectuals, view simplistic Unitary and Dualistic thinking as an anathema. They regard those approaches as unable to address practical challenges effectively and despair helplessly. However, politicians and demagogues, who inhabit the UL quadrant, view rational thinking and science as impractical, even dangerous, and to be kept at arms length. If politically necessary, such thinkers are targeted: deprived of funds or tenure, blocked from studying certain topics, placed under strict control, and even exterminated.

Systems v Mechanistic Thinking

Evolutionary paradigms in the UR quadrant deal with much greater complexity than adherents to the UL paradigms are capable of addressing.

In the UR quadrant,  both the Dynamic and Unified paradigms require systems thinking because they focus on entities that are assumed to be systems.

Situations and entities here are always compound with feedback amongst components that are often on different non-linear evolutionary trajectories. System modelling typically reveals hierarchies and dualities. More recently "complex systems theory" or "theory of complexity" has emerged in special Institutes, primarily to develop and apply a Unified paradigm.

In the LL quadrant, Atomistic and Structural paradigms reduce complexity and simplify control greatly by applying mechanistic thinking.

The Structural paradigm can use a machine-like model to specify relevant ordering, choice points, roles or responsibilities amongst the components of an entity. Typical results might be a flowchart, process diagram, organizational chart or decision tree. Depiction using the Atomistic paradigm acknowledges autonomy without penetrating to reveal individuality. There is an expectation of standard practices or behavioral patterns based on things like self-interest, status hierarchies, conventions.

Antagonism Details

Systems thinkers in the UR quadrant, naturally ridicule the simplistic thinking of the UL quadrant, but they also object to the simplifications demanded by mechanistic thinkers in the LL quadrant. The human element may be considered in machine models, but never in its actual variety and too little attention is given to the environment. Mechanistic thinkers, including most scientists, respond by viewing systems thinking as far too complicated and essentially unusable by most people. As a result, transdisciplinary systems sciences have struggled to get established in academia.

---

Because highly intelligent people can work in any of the quadrants. The paradigm determines their choices, not their intelligence. Intelligence is recruited to serve the paradigm.

That is why after the disaster people ask "what were they thinking?". It is why many often feel that they could do a far better job than the highly paid politicians or bureaucrats who oversee social fiascos and human disasters.

---

Now that the nature of thinking is appreciated, we can consider how the inevitable mistakes and failures are dealt with.

• Handling mistakes and failures.

Originally posted: 30-Jun-2024.