The Way We Think

Some books are just impressive. The Way We Think, by Gilles Fauconnier and Mark Turner, is one of them. Unfortunately--in one sense--it is very much a cognitive psychology production. The implications of the work by these authors are stunning, but it probably takes some unpacking (simplification, examples, and repackaging) for that to stand out to many readers. Nevertheless, sometimes the results justify the work.

In this book, the authors present a unified description for what it is about humans' thinking that makes us a unique species (cognitively at least). This is important because it presents a UNIFIED description in the same way that Darwin's theory of evolution provided a single framework for speciation that can account for the biological developments we are familiar with.

While I'm not interested in oversimplifying their whole presentation (I'll actually be leaving the best part out), they offer a functional set of rules for describing what makes one perspective better than another. Nicely, this set also points the way for improving any perspective. And essentially, this is a big part of what experts in any field of endeavor do cognitively to improve their performance. Remember, good applied psychology seems commonsensical once we see it, so this set may seem obvious, but consider how often you have actually applied all of these rules to improving your understanding of any particular topic or field. These rules also apply to presentations.

Compress what is diffuse.
Obtain global insight.
Strengthen vital relations (between significant parts).
Tell a story.
Go from Many to One.

All of these rules fit together to achieve the overarching goal of the set: achieve human scale. The authors explain what they mean by human scale.

The human scale is the level at which it is natural for us to have the impression that we have a direct, reliable, and comprehensible understanding (p323).

Just as a spellcheck applies to words, these rules apply to conceptual packaging. The fascinating thing about this concept-checking process is that it has a progressive, hermeneutic aspect. In other words, we can run the program to achieve a good fit, run the program again to achieve a better fit, include more information and run the program again, etc.

Marshall McLuhan made the important comment that humans adjust to their media of communication just as we adjust to overall environments. Along with physical media, we adjust to customs and "common" sense. Different societies present different customs as commonsensical. For example, in the interest of tolerance (one such customary perspective), cultural relativism came about. While it has been a valuable step in some ways, its time has passed. Cultural relativism supports not only cultural diversity, which will always be valuable, but also a certain diffuseness. (Compress what is diffuse.) Cultural relativism stymies progress because it suggests the inability to choose one thing as better than another. This gets us directly into denial of reality.

While cultural relativism may seem like a tangent, it provides a real example of how the hermeneutic process can work. At one (less than optimal) level of social functioning, tolerance is better than open conflict. The attitude of tolerance is not what I am arguing against, then. We want to keep tolerance but divest the perspective--and those holding the perspective--of the inherent shortcomings. In order to do so, we want to tell the story of progress. We want to strengthen the vital relation between tolerance and the potential for progress that peace affords but then also move forward. So we can look at why tolerance is valuable, we can see why cultural relativism was part of that perspective historically, and we can look at whether it is best to keep all of the parts.

If it is possible to improve from conflict to tolerance, is it possible to improve from tolerance? To this end, and because everyone I've ever met has wanted things to be better in some way, I'd add a sixth rule: make it better. This motivation is so fundamental to who we are that it often goes unrecognized. This is a motivation that has its roots far below the development of ego, but the possibilities that humans come across through and with egos, far outstrip the humble beginnings of this drive. (Amoebas follow this drive as well, but they have no need of coming up with explicit rules.) One vital relation worth strengthening is that between our imaginings and reality. Is it possible to imagine a relationship or attitude that is better than tolerance? Is there a type of relating that makes sense on a human scale that is "intuitively" and obviously better? Of course. We all want to be appreciated, we want to appreciate where we live and who we live with, and we want to feel inspired.

I propose (and claim no credit for what seems like a commonsensical proposal) that any perspective which does not support appreciation and inspiration is less than what people deserve and can achieve. Less than acceptable. I also propose a method--rather than rejecting whatever we believe in right now--that supports improvement in any perspective. Follow the rules. If it is helpful to see that we have a common conceptual heritage and cultural foundation along with a common biological inheritance, read THE WAY WE THINK. The commonality is already there.