The Art of Thinking

by Ali-Asad

It’s no secret that people think differently. But exactly how people differ in their thinking still eludes many of us. This mystery explains why it’s so hard to find common ground. If two people think differently and, without any appreciation of how the other person thinks, conflict and disagreements inevitably arise. But why do we think anyway? Basically, we think in order to gain knowledge of the world around us in order to deal with our environment. And it’s no secret that we all have different ways of obtaining this knowledge. The researcher C. West Churchman identified these different ways of thinking as ‘inquiry modes’ – the different assumptions and methodologies we use to obtain information. Based on important thinkers in history, Churchman theorized that there were five distinct general inquiry modes.

Firstly, there’s the Hegelian Synthesist who relies on taking conflicting ideas and integrating them based on a fundamental worldview. Synthesists are very satirical and skeptical people. They tend to come across as very deep thinkers. Their method of inquiry is the ‘dialectic’ – that is the clash between opposite ideas and thoughts in order to come to some sort of integrative conclusion – a synthesis. Synthesists rely on argument, debate and conflict more than any of the other inquiry modes simply because of one underlying assumption: a synthesists ‘knows’ you can never really know anything for sure. So, they’re always poking, prodding and challenging current ideas in a bid to change things. Key approaches: speculative and integrative.

Secondly, there’s Kant’s Idealist who relies on ideals and gains agreement through listening and consensus. Idealists focus on broad themes, values and feelings tending towards holistic thinking. They are very receptive listeners because they want to foster agreement. And so they’re very easy to come to common terms with because they naturally avoid confrontation and conflict. But they do also have a strong dislike for large amounts of facts and data. Key approaches: holistic and receptive.

Thirdly, we have Edgar A. Singer’s Pragmatist who base their method of inquiry on a ‘whatever works’, ‘whatever’s best’ approach. Pragmatists are interested only in results and so are not limited by any doctrine or theory in achieving their goals. Therefore, their thinking strategies tend to be very context specific. Simply put, they skip the debate as to whether to value objective data and facts or theories and values. This ambivalence makes this thinking the style the most open to persuasion and experimentation. Key approach: adaptive.

Fourth, we have Leibniz’s Analyst who puts absolute faith on logic and reason. For this reason, Analysts tend to be very methodical, logical and controlled people. They value logic, facts and data over everything else. They come to conclusions by obtaining as much relevant data as possible on the issue and then logically coming up with ‘the one best way’ that fits the current situation. They hate irrational or speculative conversations because, to them, it’s all pointless when you have a concrete, objective and established path towards the truth. Key approach: prescriptive logic.

Fifth, and lastly, there’s Locke’s Realist who is the quintessential ‘I’ll believe it when I see it’ type. Reality is induced from observation and experience – empirical evidence i.e. ‘facts are facts’. This approach makes Realists appear as no nonsense, down-to-earth and direct thinkers. Like Analysts, they dislike the overly speculative but they’re quite a lot more hard hitting and decisive. Key approach: corrective empiricism .

Here, I’ve tried to describe these five thinking styles as being distinct. But often there is much overlap because we all have the capacity to put on any of these ‘thinking caps’. This overlap hints at a more fundamental issue in thinking styles. What lies beneath all these inquiry modes is the debate over substantive versus functional rationality, the two basic ways of thinking. Substantive rationality is based on personal knowledge and experience of the world and relies on values and judgments – a more subjective thought process if you will. Functional rationality describes a more scientific and objective approach to thinking which is based on analysis, logic and data. Sythesists and Idealists favor the value side of rationality while Analysts and Realists value the data driven side. Interestingly, pragmatists seem to either compromise or avoid the whole question entirely.

So, there we are, some thinking about thinking. The reference below delves deeper into this subject and discusses how to better understand and adapt to different thinking styles using various strategies and changing your own 'thinking cap'.

And that’s jus’ the tip.

Reference: The Art of Thinking