Happy New Year's Eve (and New Year)!

Between the holidays, and receiving some great books over said holidays, I've been a bit distracted, so I've just got a quick New Year post this week, before getting back to more substantial posts next week. Overall, I think this year has gone very well, both for me, and for IRI. We now have substantial work going on in Mozambique, with several communities and over 50 churches involved in the process of personal, spiritual, and community development. We have also had great success in the Philippines, with several new partners and plans to return next year and the year after to expand the programs. We are continuing to build relationships and a reputation in Hong Kong, both with individuals, several churches, and the educational community. Finally, I was able to spend half of last year working at LCU, and have made plans to travel around the Midwest early next year. I'm glad we have been able to do so much, and look forward to next year.

Happy New Year everyone!

Insight Into Cognitive Systems: Extra Thoughts

The last (major) post covered the last of the Cognitive systems. Before I go into more on the implications of how our cognitive systems impact our lives, I want to make a few more points that will be relevant to the discussion:

Cognitive Systems are Habits

First, these systems are not formal methods of thinking that people choose to implement. They are, rather, terms or references for a group of mental habits that, taken together, determine how we interact with reality. For most people, the ways of thinking that their cognitive systems entail are not thought of as philosophies, or world-views, or even beliefs. If they are thought of at all, they are usually thought of as common sense. You don't talk much about common sense...it is foundation on which you have other discussions. This is, I think, one reason why this level of cognition generally gets overlooked--it is too basic to be easily seen. You don't, after all, see the foundation of a house, and cognitive systems are the "foundation" for how we reason, believe, and react.

Cognitive Systems are Not the Whole of Cultures

I have been using a few cultures as examples when explaining cognitive systems. I want to make clear, however, that cognitive systems are not the whole of any culture. I tend to think of cognitive systems as a set of shared mental habits in a culture. They are certainly foundational, but there is more to a culture than just one particular cognitive system. This is (at least in part) because...

Generalizations are Generally True

When talking about cognitive systems, it is important to remember that we are talking in generalizations. Generalizations are, by nature, imperfectly reliable. While it may be true that most of group X has a certian characteristic, it is almost certianly untrue that all of a group has that characteristic, unless it is required to be in the group. For example, it is generally true that Americans are more emotionally disconnected than other cultures, but there are a LOT of exceptions to this. Any particular American may be very well balanced emotionally and socially - the generalization only applies to the group as a whole.

In addition, it is possible that a single person may evidence different cognitive styles in different contexts. A scientist, for example, may be very ABC in the lab, but as soon as she gets home, she is more BCA, because that is the home environment she was raised in. Her thinking style shifts from one to the other, and she may be completely unaware of the shift. When I talk about cognitive systems and culture or among, we are speaking generally. I do not believe that every person in a cultural group must be BCA or ABC or CAB, nor do I even think that a certain person who I note is an ABC thinker may consistently be ABC in all places at all times. The way we think can shift, because our minds are flexible. This is a good thing, especially if we take the time to identify what our habits are, and focus on improving them.

All People Have the Same Toolbox (But Not the Same Skills)

One of the implications of this cognitive theory is that, with the single possible exception of people with physical brain damage, everyone has the same basic cognitive tools. Too often in the West, we have equated conceptualization with intelligence (thus, the IQ tests). Do not misunderstand, conceptualization and analysis are critically important, but they are simply tools. Some people don't use them as much as others, or may not even understand why they are important, but the tools are still there. Not knowing that you have tools, or how to use them does not make you dumb, just ignorant. As a colleague of mine says, "Ignorance is fixable, but you can't fix stupid." This is a critical point, as throughout much of recent western history, we have assumed that if people do not utilize a high degree of analytic thinking, they must be less intelligent, which has, in the past, led to two unfortunate results.

First, many people have acquired an assumption that people who do not evidence sufficient levels of conceptual./analytic reasoning are "dumb" or otherwise mentally less than those who do. Thus, people will tell me that they are not smart enough to do this or that, when the reality is that they don't have the mental habits that make such actions easy. People will assume that because it is hard for them, but easy for me, I am "smarter" than they are, when in fact, I am just more used to thinking in a particular way. This is problematic, because it encourages stasis, because someone who is "too dumb" simply can't do a thing, so they don't bother trying. The reality is that there is no such thing as "too dumb" there are only habits that people have or have not acquired to make some tasks easier.

Second, there is a strange assumption I run into that reason, logic, and analysis are somehow Western ways of thinking - that is, that they are some kind of creation of the West. This means that people will often conflate teaching conceptual thinking with "Westernization." The truth is that conceptual thinking is a tool that all human beings can use, and the more it is used, the more people are able to "own" their personal and cultural beliefs, attitudes, and actions. Conceptual thinking isn't "Western" it is human. Unfortunately, this, combined with the first assumption (that conceptual/analytic thinking determines mental worth) has resulted in some terrible attitudes toward cultures that do not have a habit of strong conceptual/analytic thinking. This is especially true in Africa, where I have heard several westerners lament about how the Nationals are "too dumb" to handle certain tasks - tasks which require that kind of strong conceptual/analytic thinking that was suppressed in their culture during the colonial period (a period many of the African cultures have not recovered from yet). Sadly, this has caused many to give up on some groups in Africa - including members of said groups. It is both tragic and terrible, and a situation that IRI is trying to counteract.

--------

So this was a fairly long post, but I think it covers a few extra thoughts that I wanted to explicitly address before moving on. Enjoy the holidays, and check back next year for more Incoming Insights!

Technical Delays

I've been having some trouble with consistent internet connections today. I'm trying to figure out what the issue is, but I have the feeling that it is holiday bandwidth bottleneck season. I'll update with another post once I get things sorted out.

Thinking About ABC

The ABC cognitive style is one that will seem very familiar to most westerners and many non-westerners. This is, in part, because the West has largely adopted ABC thinking as a cultural ideal. This is not to say that ABC thinking is uniquely (or even particularly) “Western,” however. ABC thinking is found in many cultures, and just because the West idealizes ABC cognition does not mean it is necessarily good at it.
In ABC thinking, the strongest priority is on the abstract and analytic, which allows for a great amount of reflection over both the B and C elements of cognition. Generally, the attitude of ABC thinkers is that C is important, but unreliable as a source of truth. I may have an intuition that there is danger, but I may also have indigestion, and without reflection (A), I have difficulty deciding which is which. B, by contrast, is much more reliable, but my perceptions can deceive me, and habits come in both good and bad types. In order to distinguish accurate from inaccurate perceptions, and good from bad habits, I need to reflect and analyze what I am perceiving or doing.
As a result of this attitude, ABC cultures tend to place a strong emphasis on the rational. What is reliable, they argue, is what can be demonstrated through reason to be true. This is not to say that tradition, habit, emotions, and social connections are unimportant—simply that they should be moderated through reflection and careful consideration which is, by nature, abstract (A). In some cultures, however, this can lead to a suspicion to aspects of life that are not entirely dictated by reason. In such cases, it is the C aspect of cognition that tends to suffer most, as it is primarily reactive and, as such, not subject to much reason. This is one reason why, in American culture, reason is often seen as opposed to emotion (A vs C) instead of complimentary to it (A&C together). This is an incorrect perception, but one that has become somewhat popularized in Western culture. ABC cognitive styles, however, do not require this kind of “reason vs emotion” approach.

Delay - Sorry

Due to some recent personal events, I am running behind. The blog (which I planned to be up yesterday) will be delayed until tomorrow.

Hong Kong Report

I've been back from Hong Kong for about a week, and I am still a bit jet lagged. The trip back was a fairly uneventful 32 hours, but I fear I have not entirely recovered. My time in Hong Kong was, however, very enjoyable and fruitful. I was able to work with Al and Kitty on a variety of training projects. Al and I also got a chance to review some of our respective observations and theories as well as set up some long term plans for IRI.

As always, the people we are working with were great. Linda, our host, was a great sport about having more guests than beds (I slept on a couch while I was there). She also worked with Al on training programs at church, eventually taking over the training herself. Kitty, our HK board member, also worked with Al and me on church training programs. I think that Linda and Kitty are an excellent start on developing new trainers in Hong Kong, but we will certainly be looking for more as we go along. I was also able to work with Kitty on a number of teacher training programs for some of the local schools. Like last year, we primarily focused on SEN (special educational needs) schools, whose teachers face particular challenges which require creative and adaptable thinking. In addition, Kitty arranged for me to be a keynote speaker at an educational conference. The audience was primarily senior teachers and principals, although we had some education students and a few parents, as well. The presentation was on building relationships in educational environments, and (from what I could tell) was well received. It was a great opportunity, and I'm glad I was able to present to such a great audience.

I'm grateful for the opportunity to work in Hong Kong. It is a great place, and I love working with everyone there. Currently, our plans are to return next year - Al will be back for a short time in the Spring, and I should be back for another round of teacher training in the fall. We hope to increase our presence in educational and professional development, and to that end, I have begun looking into PhD programs to provide additional credentials for our program, and to advance my own knowledge and formal academic research on our theories and strategies for human development. I'll keep everyone posted as that plan develops.

Speaking of theories, I should finally be back to ABC thinking next week with...the ABC cognitive style.