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

The Phony anti-Israeli Gaza Outrage

by Ali-Asad

I’m sick of the phony anti-Israeli outrage that’s become quite popular and fashionable amongst most news-watchers and the media. This outrage is particularly indefensible in the Arab media, which is taking an active side in the conflict rather than conducting professional journalism. No one likes to see civilians killed by aerial bombardment or artillery shelling in urban areas. But the focus of the current outrage is superficial at best and ignores the deeper undercurrents that created the current conflict.


This conflict follows a ceasefire between Hamas and Israel that neither side really kept. So, both sides were angling for a new ceasefire on more favorable terms. Hamas thought that rocket attacks would give it more leverage. Israel decided to change the game completely. But this conflict has even deeper roots. Hamas does not recognize Israel’s right to exist. No matter how principled this position may be, it ignores a fundamental reality in the international political arena; Israel is here to stay. Now, Hamas can use this recognition issue as a huge bargaining chip – if Hamas recognized Israel’s right to exist, Israel would be willing to swallow other major concessions in a final peace deal. Unfortunately, Hamas continues to stick to their guns, literally. Therefore, Hamas’s position can only be defended if you think Israel doesn’t have a right to exist and Israel can somehow be made extinct – the former may be defensible, the latter is an absolutely ludicrous fantasy. And supporting an organization that tries to kill innocent civilians makes no sense.

Popular outrage and the (Arab) media have focused on the death and destruction caused by Israel’s Operation Cast Lead. Anthems in favor of Hamas, and bodies of dead children occupy the news coverage. But Israel’s action in no way justifies this support of Hamas; the actions of the two are very different. Israel’s purpose is to stop rocket attacks on its civilians. Hamas launches rockets with the express intention of killing innocent civilians and creating fear within the Israeli population. There is no moral equivalency. How people, especially Arabs and Muslims, can defend Hamas and be outraged at Israel is a mystery to me. Intending to kill innocent civilians cannot be defended and is far greater crime than causing the death of innocents when defending your own country or when trying to dismantle a terrorist infrastructure. The outrage over the unintentional killing of civilians in Gaza has provoked more outrage than the Mumbai terrorist attacks and the numerous suicide attacks in Iraq over the past year combined. This fact is appalling. Surely Shia militias killing innocent Sunnis or Sunni insurgents bombing a Shia mosque are far worse crimes than Israel’s current actions. An Arab or Muslim life is not worth more than any other life. 200 innocent people were intentionally killed in the Mumbai attacks in the name of Islam and Muslims. Yet few Muslims or Arabs care. That’s the real outrage.

The current predicament in Gaza is the culmination of various complex political and historical currents. Phony outrage and media emotionalism will help no one, and only serves to promote hatred and distrust on both sides. But trust and mutual respect are the only way out of this conflict because this conflict has no military solution. Only diplomacy based on compromise and mutual respect will work. Phony outrage and media bias make a final resolution that much harder.

And that's jus' the tip.