Strategic Thinking Stages: the world isn’t black and white; learning to think in 3D multicolour surround sound
/By Duncan Anderson and Alistair Harkness. To see all blogs click here.
Reading time: 7 mins
Summary: The best solutions are a result of recognising how the best parts of different ideas can apply to different areas. To do this, we need to recognise that all ideas aren’t either good or bad. The peaks in life are painted by the colours between black and white.
“I care not what you think, I care how you think.”
Most of the secondary education system by necessity has a ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ answer as you need to grade people on a standardised exam. However, for many of the most important questions in life there is often no black and white ‘right / wrong’ answer. Eg (probably THE most important question) how to make the best coffee? How to spend your sunday? What does it mean to live a good life? What is the common good? How do I do a good job at work...
Most politicians say there is a ‘right policy’ and a ‘wrong policy’. However most of the time IMO this is far too simplistic. Eg what is the right education policy? I don’t think it’s possible to know. Eg what is the optimum minimum wage? I don’t think it’s possible to know.
Unfortunately IMO we are indoctrinated into a binary right / wrong or good / bad level of thinking. IMO the world is normally far more complex than this so thinking at a right / wrong black and white level is often counterproductive.
IMO almost everything helps some, but hinders some. Almost everything works somewhere, almost nothing works everywhere.
Jingle: thinking things are either right or wrong… is wrong not right!
Indoctrination = world is binary right / wrong or black / white
In-dunc-trination = world is complicated, grey and great. While the devil might be in the detail, be an angel and come help us figure out the complications!
Strategic Thinking Stages… AKA strategically thinking about thinking
The Stages / Levels:
L1: Idea 1 is good / bad or right / wrong (black and white)
L2: Idea 1 is eg 75% good : 25% bad (shades of grey)
L3: Idea 1 in Area A is 75% good : 25% bad… but in Area B is 25% good : 75% bad (multi colour)
L4: (3D multi colour)
Comparing and contrasting ideas for an area.
for Area A, Idea 1 is 75% good: 25% bad but Idea 2 is 50% good : 50% bad.
L5: combining the best bits of 2 ideas in one area for a better overall outcome. Ie by combining Idea 1 and Idea 2 intelligently you can get the best of both ideas and avoid much of the bad. (3D multi colour with sound)
L6: combining 3+ ideas together for a positive sum outcome (3D multi colour with surround sound)
Comment
IMO when responding to an idea ‘low level thinkers’ will respond with ‘it’s good or bad’ when eg they should be ‘it’s 75% good : 25% bad in Area A’ as an example.
When people can start to ‘metatag’ ideas in this way I find a far more productive and energising conversation can happen. Metacognition is the ultimate skill :)
++++++++++++++++
Details and examples
Straw man vs steel man arguments
Straw man = having the impression of refuting an argument, meanwhile the proper idea of argument under discussion was not addressed or properly refuted
Straw man DA explanation =
You have identified a problem space and are trying to build a solution that gives a better outcome than currently exists.
For this example let’s say the problem space has 2 areas and 2 ideas for each area.
Aside: most areas are complex and you should be trying to layer together 2-5x ideas (more than that is too complicated, 1 is normally over simplified to the point of being counter productive)
A straw man argument is picking one idea and in one area of the problem space where the idea is 25% good : 75% bad and then extrapolating this ‘bad spot’ to say the entire solution is poor and we shouldn’t go ahead with it (eg build a product).
Steel man = earnestly attempting to understanding the underlying reasons for an argument and then considering its merits with an open mind and (if arguing against it) arguing against the underlying reasons rather than handpicking examples
Comment:
IMO the point that the idea is bad for that particular area of the problem space is a valid point.
IMO the point that the entire solution is therefore invalid because of one area being problematic is an invalid point.
This is reasoning at a “L2: Idea 1 is eg 75% good : 25% bad” when one should be reasoning at L3+.
“People who lack the cognitive skills required to perform a task typically also lack the metacognitive skills required to assess their performance. Incompetent people are at a double disadvantage, since they are not only incompetent but also likely unaware of it.” (Behavioral Scientist, April 13, 2020)
If people aren’t aware of strategic thinking stages then:
They often don’t realise they are thinking at Stage 1 when Stage 4 is optimal.
They often think that someone pushing back on their “L1: Idea 1 is good / bad or right / wrong (black and white)” is ‘evil / stupid’ when in fact they need to level up their strategic thinking.
In my opinion you should be trying to think in the following:
How are there 2+ areas to this problem space?
How are there 2+ ideas for each area of the problem space?
If I can’t articulate these then I’m likely not seeing the bigger picture and as such conceivably having a counter productive conversation.
AKA I’m likely looking at the world as black and white when its a 3D multi colour wonderland!
Model:
L1 strategic thinking leads to choosing a single idea for all areas of the problem space which will generally be suboptimal for most areas
L6 strategic thinking leads to choosing the best ideas for the appropriate areas within the problem space, so that all areas are optimised
Examples - everything works somewhere, nothing works everywhere
Example 1 Education: Direct Instruction vs Enquiry Based Learning
Direct Instruction = start with what = is a term for the explicit teaching of a skill-set using lectures or demonstrations of the material to students
Inquiry Based Learning = start with why = is a form of active learning that starts by posing questions, problems or scenarios. It contrasts with traditional education (Direct Instruction), which generally relies on the teacher presenting facts and his or her knowledge about the subject.
There is a debate in education circles about what the best approach is.
IMO “adherence too closely to any one doctrine is usually dangerous”.
Proponents of Direct Instruction will point out one area that Direct Instruction works and one area that Inquiry Based Learning doesn’t and conclude ‘Direct Instruction good, Inquiry Based Learning bad.”
Then… proponents of Inquiry Based Learning will point out one area that Inquiry Based Learning works and one area that Direct Instruction doesn’t and conclude ‘Direct Instruction bad, Inquiry Based Learning good.”
IMO this is “L1: Idea 1 is good / bad or right / wrong” and a counterproductive oversimplification of the world.
I think that both Direct Instruction AND Inquiry Based Learning have pros and cons and should be layered together in an intelligent way for better outcomes.
Here is an example of what I consider “L6: combining 3+ ideas together for a positive sum outcome” thinking.
For the purposes of this example let’s assume the definitions mean the following:
Didactic instruction = Direct instruction
Coaching = Enquiry based learning (this isn’t exactly right but enough to hopefully highlight the idea I’m going at here)
Socratic questions = Socratic method
From the indomitable Mortimer Adler.
Example 2 The economy: Supply side economics vs Demand side economics
Demand side economics = to make the economy grow the government should play a big role eg with simulus plans, build infrastructure, etc.
Supply side economics = to make the economy grow the government should play a small role eg get out of the way and cut red tape allowing individuals to innovate easier (eg new businesses start or more spending to occur).
IMO this is too simple a debate but unfortunately you’ll often hear one side of politics saying “Supply side economics is good and Demand side economics is bad” and the other side saying the opposite. Ie a “L1: Idea 1 is good / bad or right / wrong (black and white)” thinking.
IMO the world is much more complex than this.
IMO good government regulation = good. Bad government regulation = bad.
IMO good government spending = helpful. Bad government spending = waste of money.
One tangible example that isn't necessarily a view I hold.
Perhaps the government should lower taxes for companies (effectively giving companies more money) while increasing the minimum wage (effectively making costs higher for companies) and maybe this is an overall better balance than what happens now.
If you only take away one thing
The world is really really complex… and that typically makes the world endlessly fascinating with often no clear ‘right / wrong’ way of improving it.
Unfortunately much of the secondary education system and the media around politics paints the world as ‘black or white’ OR ‘right / wrong’.
I believe this is normally an oversimplification with thinking at a “L1: Idea 1 is good / bad or right / wrong” and is the right way to get yourself into the wrong place!