Summer Travel 2016 – Hong Kong, The Philippines, and Thailand

Well. So much for getting the blog up and running. Nevertheless, since I still have one, this seems like a good place to review what I did over the summer. I have pictures, too, but the phone I used to take them is dead and doesn't want to recharge at the moment. When I get it fixed, I will update the post.

It’s been a few weeks since my trip to the South Pacific ended, and I’m finally starting to feel like I am readjusting back to the US. It has been a great trip, and I’m very thankful for everyone who contributed to the trip, either by donating time, resources, or just moral and spiritual support. God has done wonderful things for both me and those I’ve been working with this summer, and I wanted to share what went on with everyone.

Phase 1 – Arrival and Arrival

My initial trip to Hong Kong in May was rather short – only a few days – before I continued on to the Philippines with Linda Smyth. Linda was nice enough to host me for the entire summer, and it was great getting to travel with her in the Philippines at the start of my trip. Upon arrival in the Philippines, we met Cody and Marie, who escorted us to Pastor Randy’s church in Arwas. Cody and Marie had scheduled an Insight Seminar at the church, and we arrived several days early to prepare. 

Once we got to the church, I led a short review/discussion session with Cody, Marie, Randy, and Linda. The session lasted for two days, and gave everyone a chance to refresh their familiarity with the seminar material, as well as discuss new insights into the ideas and theories underlying the program’s teaching and activities. Everyone had something to add to the discussion, but Cody, in particular, contributed a lot to the discussion, with many interesting and helpful ideas and insights that will help us develop better programs for future seminars. 

After the introduction session, the delegates began to arrive for the main program. We had around a dozen Christian leaders in attendance. Many were from the local area, but several traveled many hours to attend the seminar. Almost all of them were active pastors who were interested in learning how to better teach and minister to their churches and communities. They were an intelligent and excited bunch, and it was a pleasure to meet and interact with them throughout the seminar. Cody led the Insight training, and Marie focused on the IBS (Inductive Bible Study) program. (Cody and Marie ran both programs during the seminar, at the participants’ request). Unfortunately, I can’t say too much about the discussions that took place during the seminar itself, as the entire program was conducted in Tagalog (and, occasionally, local dialects), which I am unfamiliar with. My discussions with Cody and the participants, however, helped me see how they were learning and developing their understanding and relationships. 

In the Insight Seminars, we focus on these two main interrelated points. In order to build strong, positive relationships with God, ourselves, other people (Christians and otherwise), and our environment, we need to have the best understanding possible of the parties involved. Thus, the seminar focuses first on how we can gain understanding and discernment, and applies these ideas to the development of various relationships in the participants’ lives. Our immediate focus in on understanding ourselves (what Leonard, our Mozambican director, calls our “first environment”). If we don’t understand and relate well to ourselves, we are hindered in every other relationship, because every other relationship we have depends, in some way, on us. Controlling ourselves and taking responsibility for our actions is the first step in building strong, lasting relationships with others.

Of course, focusing purely on the self is detrimental, since life consists of far more than just “me.” During the seminar, Cody led discussions on our relationship with God, with the Church, and with others in our community. There was a lot of enthusiasm for the ideas being presented in the seminar, and more than one participant commented later that, until they attended the seminar, they had not thought about their work in terms of relationships, but more in terms of actions and procedures. They were delighted to learn how they could further develop their ministries through communicating an understanding of what a good relationship (with God or men) really means. 

As the program came to a close, everyone expressed satisfaction with their experience. The participants praised God and celebrated a better understanding of Him and His creation, and our presenters were blessed to not only help others learn, but to learn from their participants. Many of the discussions during the week were truly group discussions, with Cody and Marie facilitating, but not dominating, the conversation. I think, all in all, everyone left with new lessons and ideas. It was a fantastic trip, and I want to thank Cody and Marie for organizing the seminar, and Pastor Randy for hosting everyone.

Phase 2 – Hong Kong

When we got back to Hong Kong, I was asked to help Linda’s son, Scott, present a seminar for his church in Fairview Park. Scott had previously attended a seminar Al and I put on in the Philippines, and had worked with Al and I on subsequent training projects in Hong Kong since then. I met with Scott both before the seminar, and we had weekly reviews of the progress of the program during the 10-week seminar. Since Scott would be presenting the material each Sunday afternoon, Sunday became an extremely busy day for him. In order to give himself some breathing room, he asked me to cover preaching at his church while I was around so he could focus on the seminar training. The best way to learn is to teach, but “best” rarely equals “easiest.” I was happy to pick up the preaching to give Scott a chance to focus on the training. 

 The sessions went well. Attendance started very strong, which is good, but did fall off towards the end. This is expected in long-running free programs. The seminars are often taxing and can be frustrating, as learning new ways to look at ideas can be quite stressful. We often experience fatigue after several weeks of programs, which is one reason we prefer shorter intensive programs with long-term follow-up. Fortunately, Scott is well placed to provide such follow-up, and I have confidence he will continue to work with his church members to help them develop both individually and as a body. The participants themselves expressed interest in the material, though some expressed a desire to see more immediate application of some of our concepts. This kind of feedback is helpful, as it allows us to see where the seminars are strong or need a change in focus. Often details like this will vary from culture to culture, as different people require different approaches or points of emphasis. 

Both my sermons and the seminars were recorded, and can be viewed on the Fairview Park Christian Church’s YouTube channel [insert link to YouTube channel].

In addition to working with Scott, I was also able to meet with some local church leaders to talk about using the seminars as part of leadership training/discipling programs. These discussions are very preliminary, but the people we talked with were interested in finding new ways to help their church members understand more about themselves and God, and I am hopeful that we will be able to continue our discussions in the future.

Phase 3 – Thailand

Finally, I spent a week in Thailand attending a graduate course as part of my PhD program. For those who aren’t familiar with U.S. PhD programs, there are usually about two years of classes before work on the PhD dissertation/research starts in earnest. I chose this course in part because of the tuition discount – in general, the discount on tuition was equal to or greater than the cost of travel, making it both an economical choice, as well as a great opportunity to work more closely with students from non-western cultures. The differences in perspectives and history, as well as the students’ willingness to share their experiences and ideas made the course entirely worth the trip. 

The class investigated the characteristics of various cultural value systems: guilt/innocence, shame/honor, purity/impurity, etc. These cultural values have a significant impact on how different people view and understand the world, and understanding them helps tremendously in seeing how intercultural communication – including communication of the Gospel – must be conducted carefully and with deliberation. This is not to say that all communications must be slow, only that we must always pay attention to both what we are saying, and what the people we communicate with are understanding. Of course, this is true in any communication, and the more you know about the people you are talking to, the better you can communicate.

Insight Into: Education & Conceptualization Part 3

In the last article, I provided a brief discussion of why simply acquiring data is insufficient for education. A student must be able to understand the data you are communicating. I noted that this requires a style of thinking that focuses on concepts and ideas instead of rote memorization. This type of thinking, however, is a learned skill, not a natural talent.

In IRI's work with developing communities, we have determined that teaching someone how to think conceptually requires at least the following learning cycle:

1. Introduce ideas
2. Prompt the learner to think about (analyze) the data provided in 1
3. Encourage the learner to synthesize concepts (their own take on the data) based on their understanding and perception
4. Prompt the learner to analyze the new concepts
1. Prompt the learner to compare the concepts to the other ideas they have
2. Promote learner-driven identification of inconsistencies and errors in the ideas
3. Do not correct the learner - the self-identification of errors is critical
5. Encourage the learner to synthesize concepts based on their analysis
6. Repeat as necessary (many, many, many times) to develop the habit of reflection, analysis, synthesis, and self-correction

This is a gross oversimplification of the system, but it is sufficient to point out one of the key points of conflict between teaching people how to think (promoting analysis and understanding), and simply teaching them what to think (providing data). The crux of the difficulty lies in point 4.3 - emphasizing self-correction over instructional correction.

As I mentioned in the first article of this series, the goal of education is, in part, to make sure the learner has correct information. To that end, error is the enemy, and must be corrected so that the student doesn't learn bad information. Yet in order to think in a way that promotes understanding, students must be able to think through issues without correction, and, from a traditional educational perspective, this is unnerving. The tendency of a teacher to correct error is, in many cases, nearly automatic. Thus, a tension arises between the need to impart correct data, and the need to train students in ways of processing that data. It can be extremely hard, in a classroom context, to find a way to balance the two. In some disciplines (often literature or philosophy), the emphasis gets placed on developing understanding, but many times lacks a sense that some things may be correct or incorrect. Other disciplines (medicine, the previously mentioned nuclear power plant management) take a very dim view of errors, as these can cost lives. Yet all disciplines need both elements of education to flourish, because without both, you can't have students who understand new information. Without that balance, you either get students who can play with ideas, yet divorce them from operations in reality (pure analysis), or you get students who are locked into calcified systems of understanding that they can't innovate on (pure data).* To truly be effective, education must include both of these elements, yet they seem mutually exclusive (good thinking = tolerating error, good data = eliminating error).

Next article, I will look into some ways to, perhaps, reconcile these two systems so that students can both be good thinkers, and learn good information.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

*I am comparing extremes here for emphasis. Most people have some degree of both elements in their thinking, though these elements may still be imbalanced. That said, I have personally met examples of both extremes, so I can say with confidence that they really do exist. This is a real thing.

Insight Into: Education & Conceptualization Part 2

In my last article, I proposed that one of the main reasons for education is to keep people from doing "stupid things." If you have not read the article, please have a look to get up to speed. Today, I want to continue looking at how conceptualization impacts education. Let's get back to the discussion.

The Core Issue Part 2:

So it turns out that simply transferring data to a student does not, in fact, mean the student understands the data. In fact, students often only focus on remembering enough data to pass the tests, as, in the educational context, it is the tests that really matter (more on that in a later article). Now to understand why this is an important distinction, consider two warehouse employees, Jake and Janet.
Jake and Janet both work for Dr. Rebar* organizing items in a warehouse. In the back of the warehouse, there is a door. Dr. Rebar has repeatedly told both Jake and Janet that they should never open the door. Being good employees, Jake and Janet both listen to Dr. Rebar, and avoid opening the door, even when it seems convenient to do so, which is really quite often. After a while, Janet starts to wonder why the door needs to stay shut, even though there are many times during the day where life would be easier if they just used the door. Jake tells her that it isn't important why Dr. Rebar wants the door shut, the doctor is the boss, and if the boss says don't open the door, then you don't open the door. Janet, however, is unsatisfied with this. One day, she asks Dr. Rebar why you don't open the door. The doctor explains that the door is quite heavy, and, at some point, the hinges broke. If you open the door, the door will actually fall out of the frame, and a lot of extra effort will be needed to put the door back. In short, until the door is fixed, opening the door is more trouble than it's worth. This sounds reasonable to Janet, and she goes about her business.
Now, at this point, you have two employees, each of which are doing what they're instructed, and preforming their jobs as they should. Both know that the door should not be opened, but while Jake has just accepted this as a basic fact, Janet understands why the door should not be opened. From a performance perspective, there is no difference between the two, and, for the most part, Janet's understanding seems superfluous.
Then, one day, a fire breaks out in the warehouse, and Jake and Janet get stuck in the back of the warehouse. The only way out is the door, or a skylight, which can only be reached by a dangerous climb up to the top of the warehouse (a climb that might just end with the climber dropping two stories into a rapidly-spreading fire). Jake, not wanting to open the door-that-should-not-be-opened, opts to try the incredibly risky climb. Janet, on the other hand, realizes that, in the face of a fire, a broken door is a minor inconvenience, and simply opens the back door and leaves. Janet makes it out and, because this story is supposed to have a moral, Jake slips and falls and dies a terrible fally-fiery death.
So the point? Just acquiring data is fine, as long as all you need is that data. Unfortunately, when problems arise, they are almost always the result of something unexpected happening, which requires some creative thinking to resolve. This creative thinking, however, is impossible for someone who is simply acting based on their instruction, instead of acting based on their understanding of the ideas (concepts) the instruction is trying to convey.
Does this seem obvious? Yet we see variations of "I just couldn't figure out [fill in the blank with an incredibly simple issue]" as a reason for why someone failed at something all the time. At IRI, we have learned that one of the main reasons for this is not that people don't have the necessary data to solve the problem, but that they aren't thinking in a way that allows them to conceptualize the problem and identify solutions. In IRI parlance, their cognitive system is centered around concrete data (B), not concepts and analysis (A). It turns out that conceptualization is a learned skill, and must be taught as vigorously as any other type of educational information. The difference is, with conceptual thinking, you aren't talking about teaching data. You're talking about teaching people how to process data - that is, how to think." In our next article, I'll look at the necessary steps for teaching conceptualization, and examine how this intersects with (and conflicts with) our traditional style of education.

Next Week: Teaching People How to Think

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*I am going to assume Dr. Rebar has a degree that is consistent with a PhD graduate who gets a job as a warehouse manager. I imagine it is a degree in something like interpretative dance.

Insight Into: Education & Conceptualization

This begins a series on the difficulties with deliberate development of conceptual thinking in education. My goal is to 1) identify key issues in education and educational systems as they relate to developing conceptual thinking, 2) identify patterns in current educational processes that hinder conceptual thinking, and 3) propose solutions to improve conceptual thinking.

Before I begin, I think it is important to establish how I use certain terms, so here's a short list (I may expand on this later):

• Ideas: our thoughts about things
• Concepts: ideas we hold, where holding an idea connotes ownership and the ability to adapt said idea based on new information
• Definitions: ideas communicated to us via a 2nd person or medium
• Information/Data: ideas we receive through perception or formulate through analysis
• Conceptualization: The process of identifying, reviewing, analyzing, organizing, and generally thinking about concepts
• A, B, C aspects of thinking: refer to previous articles (link provided below)

To begin:

The Core Issue Part 1 (Education)

As I understand it, there is one primary area of conflict in education that tends to drive a wedge between teaching people "how to think" (that is, how to conceptualize and respond to ideas) and teaching "what to think" (i.e. teaching people specific instructional data they need to follow). This conflict stems from one of the primary reasons for education: to make sure people don't do stupid things, where "stupid things" include spending unnecessary effort to relearn ideas humanity has already investigated. 

For example, we have spent decades developing computer technology and programming and it would be incredibly wasteful to make anyone who wanted to work on computers have to figure out basic circuits and logic systems on their own, when we can simply impart known information to them. This way, they can add to the current body of understanding based on our previous research. In addition, we are absolutely sure we want to educate people who manage nuclear reactors on how to manage nuclear reactors - it has proven very bad when those people misunderstood their jobs, or got something wrong.

The need to impart existing information has two central areas of focus: to transfer said data to the student, and to make sure the student accurately understands this data. In short, we are interested in accurate transfer of data. This means, among other things, that error is one of our primary enemies. Let's face it - you don't want errors showing up in nuclear power management, or surgery, or waste disposal. That's really bad. Thus, we structure our education around transfer and accuracy, testing students to make sure they have acquired the data we give them as we intend them to receive it. If they pass the tests, all is well, and we can assume they understand the information.

Except that last sentence has proven to be wrong. Passing tests, it turns out, does not guarantee understanding of an idea. This is because understanding requires conceptualization. That is, the data we provide (in the form of definitions) must be converted into concepts. (I discussed this previously in my articles on direct and indirect understanding; see the link below to the relevant articles). This means that students, to successfully understand the information we are giving them, must be able to conceptualize the information they receive (i.e. transform them into concepts). This is where we run into our core issue, and to understand that issue we need to investigate what we need to do to teach people to conceptualize.

Next time: The Core Issue (Part 2: Conceptualization)

Link to articles on ABC thinking: http://incominginsight.blogspot.com/2015/03/a-review-of-reviewing-thinking.html

Insight Into Suppression - Stage 5: Recovery (?)

Previous Article - Stage 4: Rebellion

Stage 5:

Freedom!!! The Culture has achieved freedom from The Suppressor, and is now back to managing its own affairs. Now the recovery can begin...or can it? As you may have noticed, the illustration for Stage 4 and Stage 5 is identical. The problem with habits is that they are stubborn. They are born not of reason, but of action, and like it or not, the actions of The Culture for a long time now have been actions of suppression. Thus, the habits of The Culture, conscious or unconscious, physical of mental, are still habits of suppression. While The Culture is free, they remain suppressed. This creates an incredible tension in The Culture. The expectation is freedom, but it doesn't take long for The Culture to realize that suppression is still ongoing. Since The Culture still has habits of suppression, it still feels suppressed, which may feed the resentment for The Suppressor that is already (justifiably) feels. Thus, one of the most frequent outcomes of ending suppression is...more suppression, as The Culture proceeds to suppress The Suppressor, out of feelings of anger, resentment, vengeance, and the lingering sense of suppression felt by The Culture.

Note that The Culture feels suppressed because, in terms of habits (mental and perhaps physical) it still is suppressed. This does not mean The Suppressor is still suppressing The Culture - it may still be doing so (after all, The Suppressor will have gained habits of being a suppressor as The Culture gained habits of being suppressed), but that isn't required. The Suppressor may want The Culture to develop - but no matter what they do, The Suppressor and The Culture seem to quickly fall back into old patterns. Thus, the two groups find reconciliation and a true end to the cycle of suppression incredibly hard to find. The truth is, they are both trapped, and the chances of escape are minimal until the underlying habits of suppression (for both sides) are addressed. Only then can each side reestablish an identity free from suppression and begin to live at peace - both with each other, and with themselves.

This change, however, is not easy - habits are often hard to identify as such, especially mental habits, and even harder to change. In order for The Culture (and The Suppressor, for that matter) to truly find its way out of suppression, it must first regain its ability to think through and understand its situation (A). Unfortunately, at this point, The Culture's thinking has become strongly based on action (traditions, for example) and established relationships (BC), and comprehension (A) has nearly been lost (they are currently BC...a, as noted previously). To overcome the legacy of suppression, then, The Culture must recover its understanding (A), and apply that understanding to its situation in a way that allows old habits to be discovered and addressed, and new habits to be built not on suppression, but freedom and understanding, without resentment or old pain clouding their judgement.

This is how IRI attempts to help people - by providing that (A) that allows them to recover their identity and understanding, and create a new habit of life free from the old habits of suppression, fear, and pain. We do this because it is needed - the world cannot become a better place is people are stuck in destructive habits. We do it because we believe God wants people to become the best they can, and desires servants who understand what they are doing instead of following blindly. Most of all, though, we do it because it is the right thing to do.

Insight Into Suppression - Stage 4: Rebellion

Previous Article - Stage 3: The Culture of Dependence

Stage 4:

Well, it seems The Culture is finally fed up with being suppressed. Can't blame them - being suppressed is really bad for you (as is suppressing others, but that's a different discussion). Thus, The Culture rebels, driving The Suppressor out, and taking back their culture/city/homeland/etc. In most cases, remnants of The Suppressor are, themselves, suppressed (which is bad - more on that next time), and control of The Culture is rightly placed back in the hands of The Culture. Unfortunately, habits being what they are, The Culture has not escaped unscathed. With the exception of throwing off obedience, it still has all the habits that were introduced while under suppression, including the surrender of its identity. The Suppressor, however, is no longer there to provide the ceded identity and understanding, so The Culture now has no identity to speak of - it is adrift, and no longer understands its place in the world. In response, The Culture is likely to fall back to known traditions and relationships within the culture, even while its understanding continues to dwindle (BC...a).

Next Up - Stage 5: Recovery (?)

Insight Into Suppression - Stage 3: The Culture of Dependence

Previous Article - Stage 2: Establishing a Culture of Suppression

Stage 3:

At this point, the suppression of The Culture is complete. Obedience to The Suppressor has become habit, and The Culture is now dependent on The Suppressor for its identity, purpose, and direction. This is true even if The Culture hates The Suppressor and everything The Suppressor is doing. Habits are not reasonable - they do not require justification, only repetition, to establish. The repeated pattern of (forced) obedience creates a tendency toward obedience, even while The Culture seethes with resentment over the treatment it is receiving. This is a nasty situation, and one that eventually will blow up for The Suppressor. In the meantime, however, The Culture has, intentionally or not, ceded its understanding and identity to The Suppressor, and is now running mostly on obedience, tradition, and relationships (BCa).

Next Up - Stage 4: Rebellion

Insight Into Suppression - Stage 2: Establishing a Culture of Suppression

Previous Article: Insight Into Suppression

Stage 2:

Now the suppression of The Culture is truly underway. With local resistance and troublesome traditions (at least temporarily) eliminated, The Suppressor now controls the understanding and the actions of The Culture. At this point, the only internally initiated actions taken by The Culture are some of the surviving traditions (if The Suppressor didn't wipe out all of them), and the relationships within The Culture. At this point, The Culture is resigned to suppression - it may not be good, but it is just how life is. The Culture begins to lose its understanding of itself, as this is being overshadowed by The Suppressor's culture and understanding. Thus, The Culture's cognition slips from ABC to BaC, with the commands and requirements of The Suppressor coming first, and reason only being used to justify the commands. This stage is transitory, however, as acceptance quickly turns into habit.

Next Up: The Culture of Dependence

Insight Into Suppression: The TLDR Version

So my last post on suppression was a rather long story. While I enjoyed writing it, I wanted to make a more illustrated explanation of the impact of suppression, as we at IRI currently understand it. To make this a bit easier to digest, I am going to spread the illustrations out over the course of this week - one post a day, Monday-Friday. Since I also have a pre-suppression stage, today will be a double-long post.

Stage 0: Pre-Suppression

This is the culture before it is suppressed. In this case, we will assume the culture is a conceptually advanced, independent, self-directing culture. It's a healthy community that is growing and developing and perfectly capable of managing itself. It has a direct connection between what it understands about itself and it's activities and relationships. Good stuff.

Stage 1: Introduction of Suppression

Now we have a new player enter the picture. This group (which I will call The Suppressor from now on) takes over the general operation (including education) of the suppressed group (which I will call The Culture henceforward). The Culture still retains its old understanding of itself, but is now forced to comply with the wishes of The Suppressor. This means The Culture's identity will also be impacted, since part of that identity has changed from an independent culture to a subordinate one. The Suppressor may initiate additional changes to The Culture's identity, since The Suppressor is now in charge of The Culture's education to a large degree.

Next Up - Stage 2: Establishing a Culture of Suppression

Insight Into Identity, Agency, and The Impact of Suppression

In previous posts, I have discussed the difference between direct and indirect identity, the impact it has on our understanding, sense of agency, and associated responsibilities. To sum up: the more directly I understand myself (as opposed to understanding through outside sources), the greater my overall sense of agency, control, and associated responsibility. This is one reason why socially or economically struggling peoples tend to have lower levels of perceived agency and responsibility. What I want to look at today is how the process of suppression (in particular, cultural suppression) contributes to the dissolution of agency, direct identity, and sense of responsibility. At IRI, we have found that this is very widespread (going far beyond even the more obvious manifestations of cultural or personal suppression), and the harm it has caused cannot be understated.

So, let's take a look at an example culture to see how this process works. I will refer to these fictional people as "Targetians" - please note that as far as I know, the Targetians have no direct real-world analogue, though you may see some substantial similarities between them and various cultures you may have encountered. I want to illustrate this phenomenon without getting to personal for anyone who is from such a culture - it can be rough to relive if you have experienced it.

We'll start the Targetians off as a fairly stable, solid, creative culture. They have a strong direct identity, with a strong sense of self-understanding, agency, and responsibility. They have a stable civilization that is comfortably advanced and are generally satisfied with how things are progressing in their society. This is a best-case scenario, as most cultures have some general level of internal dissatisfaction, but this is a fictional example, and the Targetians will serve their purpose by being one of those annoyingly ideal civilizations.

Now the Targetians encounter another civilization we will call the "Largeese." This civilization is substantially larger than the Targetians, with superior economic and military might. They come into the Targetians lands and proceed to set up shop. This, the Largeese decide, requires the Targetians to surrender their territory, resources, and general autonomy to the Largeese. Being bigger, richer, and stronger, it isn't hard for the Largeese to take over. The Targetians are now a second-class people in their own homeland.

In this situation, the Targetians agency is, to a large degree, damaged by the Largeese. This loss of agency is at odds with the Targetians direct identity and it's strong expectations of agency. There are a number of responses from the local population. First, there are those who resist the loss of agency. These are the rebels - whether violent insurgents or non-violent protesters, they attempt to regain their agency from the Largeese. Second, there are the traumatized. These Targetians are unable to reconcile their expectations with the imposed loss of agency, and this tension manifests itself in mental instabilities of various kinds (depression, anxiety, delusion, etc.). The third group Gives in and accepts the Largeesian rule. Real life is much more complex, of course, and there is a lot of overlatp between these groups, but this will suffice for our illustration. The main point here is that, over time, this situation changes the Targetian society.

The first group, who rebel, ultimately end up getting knocked down. The Largeese will have nothing to do with such opposition, and simply squashed this group to the best of its ability. Thus, those who have held on to their identity most strongly get removed from the society. The group that experiences cognitive tension will receive help to work through their problems (it turns out the Largeese, while not interested in accommodating rebels, will help those with mental trauma), but since the Largeese control the therapy, this group will ultimately be "helped" by being encouraged to conform to their new social situation. The last group will get by fairly well, but their cognitive habits will change dramatically, and that's where I want to focus here.

Without the rebels, the two remaining groups must adjust their cognitive system to adapt to the change in agency afforded by the Largeese. In this new system, independent thinking and reasoning (A), which might lead back to a direct identity is strongly discouraged. It either creates more rebels, or mental trauma, and so is seen as negative - at first by the Largeese, but eventually it may be seen negatively by the Targetians as well, since such people would be, as a rule, a disruptive force in an otherwise "normal" society.  It isn't that the Targetians that remain LIKE their second-class status, in fact, many strongly resent it, but why dwell on things you can't change? Instead, the focus becomes daily survival and social obedience (i.e. "not rocking the boat"), which emphasizes the B aspect of cognition. In addition, social cohesion and interdependence will probably increase (C) since "the only ones we can count on are each other. Thus, the Targetians move from an ABC cognitive pattern with an associated direct identity, to a BCA cognitive pattern, where their identity comes from their status as a second class people, given to them by the Largeese (an indirect identity).

Now two important things have happened. First, the Targetians have lost their direct identity. Since the Largeese are now the source of their identity, the Targetians will tend to see the Largeese as the ones responsible for the Targetians lives. Thus, responsibility gets shifted tot he Largeese, and the Targetians lose their sense of agency and responsibility, as well as their identity. Second, since A has been deprioritized, the tool which the Targetians would use to rediscover their identity, agency, and responsibility has atrophied significantly.

This suppression by the Largeese, however, can only last for so long, and eventually (after several generations), the Targetians rise up and push the Largeese out of their homeland. Now the Targetians must start the process of rebuilding. Unfortunately, for generations, the critical, analytic, conceptual part of their thinking has been suppressed by both the Largeese, but also by the Targetians themselves. Thus, the toolset needed to recover the Targetians identity and agency is extremely rusty - and rusty tools often break. As a result, the Targetians find, to their dismay, that they are unable to recover their civilization even to the level of their ancestors, and they can't figure out why. After all, they have preserved all the cultural traditions (B) they could, and they understand that they should stick together (C), so why can't they pull things together? Are they really as dumb and ineffective as the Largeese claimed? Are they really failures?

Well, no. The problem is that the Targetians have lost the conceptual/analytical aspect of their thinking to a large enough degree that they don't realize any more what they have lost. Other, more conceptual, outsiders look at them and see a "primitive" or "traditional" people, and assume that because they have been this way for generations, it is simply how their culture works. Not wanting to interfere with the Targetians any more, the outsiders refrain from interacting with them too much. While noble, this means that the aspect of the Targetian culture that is lacking and needs to be restored (A) will be long in coming, since rebuilding an entire history of philosophy, reason, and analysis is much harder than it sounds. Learning programs, by and large, focus on facts and specific operational training (B), not restoring conceptual/analytic faculties (A). In fact, education programs that assume A, but don't focus on teaching it (like many western teaching programs) will probably not only fail, but only serve to reinforce the existing thinking pattern of BCA, since the program assumes A, but uses B to teach. This means that any cultural recovery for the Targetians will be a long, uphill struggle, especially if critical thinking and reasoning (A) is seen as a Largeese cultural trait - in that case, critical thinking may even be demonized, as it is seen as a cultural artifact of the enemy.

So yeah, this is a terrible situation. Cultural recovery can only occur through internal development, which can only occur through conceptual redevelopment (A), but the tool needed for such redevelopment has been lost and perhaps even demonized because of prior misuse by the suppressing culture. This is what IRI has been working to remedy. Through our programs, we seek to reintroduce A elements of thinking with a minimum of cultural baggage (there cannot be no baggage - it simply isn't possible to think or act without any reference to your native culture). We focus on developing conceptual/analytical tools, and encouraging nationals to engage with and develop their own direct identity. We have found that with a recovery of direct identity, there is a corresponding recovery of agency and responsibility. We do not need to initiate social programs in the places we work - the nationals do that, once they start to recover their identity and the A-aspect of their thinking.

Once the nationals take back the initiative in their development, then we can come in and help - if they need our help (often, they need less help than they previously thought they did - frequently, they don't need any help at all, other than to have a level playing field to develop on). My co-worker Al frequently tells people that "I work for the nationals" - which is, in the case of the work we are now doing in Mozambique, literally true. It is amazing and wonderful to behold - seeing people groups we were told were "lazy" or "ignorant" accomplishing projects and programs themselves that outside organizations have failed to achieve for decades.

This is what I do, and I love doing it.

A Review of Reviewing Thinking

For the last year or so, I have been posting articles about some of the ideas and theories behind our work at IRI. I have recently had people point out that these articles are mixed in with many other articles and posts, and can be hard to find. I was asked to provide a way to review all the posts relating to our ideas, and so I went back to find all the posts. In the process I discovered two important things:

1) I'm terrible at keeping a consistent posting schedule

2) I am starting to repeat myself in my posts

These are things I will be working on. In the meantime, here are all the posts that are related to our theories, in order. You can click on the address of each to go to the relevant page. I hope this is helpful.

THINGS I HAVE SAID (Volume 1)

What Do the Seminars Do? 

http://incominginsight.blogspot.com/2011/09/what-do-seminars-do.html

Things We Have Learned: Terms & Concepts

http://incominginsight.blogspot.com/2012/08/things-we-have-learned-terms-concepts.html

Away Longer Than I Thought 

(includes a Discussion of Direct and Indirect Learning)

http://incominginsight.blogspot.com/2014/01/away-longer-than-i-thought.html

Incoming Insights: Direct and Indirect Identity

http://incominginsight.blogspot.com/2014/03/incoming-insights-direct-and-indirect.html

What Is ABC Thinking?

http://incominginsight.blogspot.com/2014/09/what-is-abc-thinking.html

What is ABC Thinking (2): Three Components of Thought

http://incominginsight.blogspot.com/2014/09/what-is-abc-thinking-2-three-components.html

ABC Thinking (3): Putting Thoughts Together - How A, B, and C Relate

http://incominginsight.blogspot.com/2014/09/abc-thinking-3-putting-thoughts.html

ABC Thinking and Dr. Stuart Cook

http://incominginsight.blogspot.com/2014/09/abc-thinking-and-dr-stuart-cook.html

Examples of Cognitive Systems: BCA Thinking

http://incominginsight.blogspot.com/2014/09/examples-of-cognitive-systems-bca.html

BAC Thinking: A Theoretical Cognitive System

http://incominginsight.blogspot.com/2014/09/bac-thinking-theoretical-cognitive.html

Thinking About CAB: Conceptualized Mysticism

http://incominginsight.blogspot.com/2014/10/thinking-about-cab-conceptualized.html

Thinking about CBA: Mystical Materialism

http://incominginsight.blogspot.com/2014/10/thinking-about-cba-mystical-materialism.html

Thinking About ACB: Mystical Conceptualization

http://incominginsight.blogspot.com/2014/11/thinking-about-acb-mystical.html

Thinking About ABC

http://incominginsight.blogspot.com/2014/12/thinking-about-abc.html

Insight Into Cognitive Systems: Extra Thoughts

http://incominginsight.blogspot.com/2014/12/insight-into-cognitive-systems-extra.html

Insight Into Thinking: Comprehension 

(here is where I start repeating myself a bit - consider it a review)

http://incominginsight.blogspot.com/2015/02/insight-into-thinking-comprehension.html

Insight Into Thinking: Comprehension

It's been a while since I talked about the theories behind the work we do at IRI, and I think it's about time to resume. Previously, I reviewed different thinking styles people use to interact with the world. Now clearly, given IRI's focus on ABC thinking, we have a preference when it comes to which style we promote, but before I get into the details of why, I want to take a moment to discuss a closely related issue—the way we learn and understand ideas. In the work we do, discussions in this area usually produce the most positive feedback and results, and I cannot understate how important it is to our work.

Onward, then.

Direct Understanding

So let's say there is an idea I want (or need) to understand (we will refer to this generic idea as “I”). There are three ways I can understand this idea. First, I can understand it directly. That is, I have a fully developed concept about the idea, understand its impact on other ideas, and feel comfortable modifying my concept to adapt to new information. Direct understanding, which I will also refer to as conceptualization, can be illustrated as follows:

 

Note the arrows go both ways; I understand the idea, and I can, in turn, do things with the idea (modify it, update, or otherwise adapt it to new circumstances). In short, I understand, and can use the idea—the idea is my idea.

Indirect Understanding

Now let's look at another scenario. In this case, I don't know the idea and need to go to another person to understand it. This other person (or institution) is someone I know and rely on for information (for this illustration, it doesn't matter if I should trust my teacher, only that I do). The teacher, understanding the idea, can communicate it to me. This can be illustrated as follows:

Now, you'll notice a couple of differences in this diagram. While the teacher has a direct understanding of the material, and I have a direct connection to the teacher, the teacher is simply imparting information to me. That is, the information I have isn't something I understand directly, but indirectly through the teacher. This means that all I understand about the idea is what the teacher has given me. I am dependent on the teacher for my idea, and I cannot modify, adapt, or change the idea, since it is not mine, but my teacher's. We call this Indirect Understanding, which we sometimes refer to as definitional understanding (as definitions in the dictionary only change slowly and with much fuss). At this point, I only know what I have been taught, and I cannot deviate from my teaching.

Direct vs. Indirect

To illustrate the difference between a direct and indirect understanding, consider the difference between normal office workers using their computers and members of the Information Technology (IT) department. The office worker probably doesn't know too much about computers, overall—he or she might be able to turn them on and make them run the required programs, but if something goes wrong, the worker is stuck and has to call IT. In the best case (let's be optimistic here), the IT worker listens to the problem, diagnoses the situation, and instructs the office worker on how to make the computer start working again. At this point, the office worker can fix the problem, but probably still doesn't understand the problem. The office worker has an indirect understanding of what to do—he or she only knows what IT said to do, and does what IT says to make things work. IT, by contrast, has a direct understanding of the computer's operations, and can identify the problem, formulate a solution specific to that problem, and instruct the office worker on how to fix it (again, best case scenario here). Direct understanding allows us to problem solve and adapt—we gain new ways of thinking; indirect understanding just gives us new things to think about. The difference between the two is the difference between how to think and what to think.

Wrapping Up

Clearly, a direct understanding of an idea is superior to an indirect understanding in terms of utility and development. Initially, we all learn about ideas indirectly—someone else tells us something new, and now we have more information than before. The goal then becomes to move from indirect understanding to direct understanding. We want to go from knowing data to comprehending concepts. Gaining a direct understanding should be the goal of every learner...and helping others acquire a direct understanding should be the goal of every teacher. It is critical that we keep this in mind when talking about the importance of ABC thinking. Next time, I hope to discuss how this idea of direct and indirect understanding relates to our identity and our sense of worth and ability.

Workshops Completed!

Last week's workshops are over, and they were very well received. We had six participants in the college workshop, and an average of 11 participants in the evening church group. In both cases, the participants found that the changes in thinking that come from reflecting on our concepts, then seeing how they apply in our lives made an impact on how they were approaching their work and home lives. There was also a lot of interest in the idea of direct vs indirect understanding, a topic I plan to review in more detail in a later post. There was some frustration, especially during the first few days, among both groups, but this was expected. The feedback by the end of the week was positive, if not enthusiastic. Both groups have indicated that they would like more training or follow-up to the seminar, and we are currently planning some additional workshops for the church that Al will be presenting later this month. We expect to have some additional work from the college, as well, though it would take longer to set up those (more formal) programs.

One point that is clear in both cases: we do not think about our ideas nearly as much as we believe we do. While we are a conceptual culture, in general, we are not often a reflective one, and this is where many of our weaknesses arise. It is very common for someone to explain a mistake (theirs or another's) with the phrase "he wasn't thinking," and this explanation is usually exactly right. Our ability to think about what we are doing - not just our actions but also our way of making decisions or problem solving - has a huge impact on what we are capable of accomplishing. These workshops are proving to be a great way to help people develop the ability to not just think about what they are doing, but also about what they are thinking. We have found that when you focus on how you think, life becomes a lot more managable.

The content of the feedback was very positive. Even the suggestions for changes were given more as "ways to improve" instead of "bad, and you must change." Some of the feedback we received:

• "It pushed us out of our comfort zone!"*
• "...I would like to take a longer course on this subject. I would change it to be more like a 4 hour class, rather than just 2."
•  "Brevity was good. [Good] discussion."
• "...with this class I will look at the 'why' in what I do so that I can broaden my effect on family and friends."
• "I liked the homework"

The last one was genuinely surprising (and, to be fair, not universal). We have found, though, that people do like to stretch their abilities, as long as they don't feel like failures when they run into trouble. This is, by far, the most difficult point of the workshop to get across--we aren't looking for "right" answers, we are trying to help people learn how to discern what the "right" answers may be. Once a person learns how to learn, there is very little that can stop him or her.

-------------------------------------
* Just to be clear, this comment was in response to the question: "What was your favorite part of the workshop?"

Workshops In Progress

IRI currently has two workshops underway in Casper, Wyoming. I am leading one at Casper College, for the custodial department, while Al is leading another for a local church.  This is the first time we have used our updated, shortened workshop format (8-10 hrs, down from 36+ hrs.) and it is working well. Feedback so far is positive, and the participants seem excited about the material.

We are hoping that this shortened format will give us more opportunities to hold workshops for other partners/supporters. In the past, the biggest hurdle for our seminar was the fact that it took an entire week's time. Now, while we still prefer a four or five day time frame, we only need around 2 hours a day, which makes it much easier for people and organizations to work into their schedule. The new format is also much more flexible, in terms of tailoring itself to its audience, than the previous seminar format. In our current case, we have one seminar focused on personnel training (the college), with no religious content, and one focused on spiritual discipleship (at the church). While it may seem difficult, it is really just a matter of focus. Both groups are learning how to think more clearly about themselves and their environment, but the former workshop focused on the practical day-to-day applications, while the latter focuses on the Biblical ties and spiritual implications of the material. It is great having a basic core that can be of benefit to all people, without losing its integrity or being dishonest about its intentions with one group or the other. We're having a blast, and hope that everyone continues to enjoy the workshops this week!

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!

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.

Thinking About ACB - Mystical Conceptualization

We're back to the ABC theory of cognition this week! I am still running all over Hong Kong doing training and meeting people, so this week's entry will be another short one. My schedule is still subject to change without notice, so time will tell if I am able to fit in the final cognitive system before I return to the U.S.

ACB is the second of the hypothetical-but-not-actual cognitive systems identified by Dr. Cook. In theory, it would be highly conceptual, with a focus on abstract development and analysis, and have an immediate focus or emphasis on the mystical/emotional. Like CAB, it would have a low priority or even skepticism about the concrete world. As far as we can tell, there isn't an actual cultural representation of this way of thinking. It would seem a logical direction for applied existentialism or postmodernism to run, but most advocates of existentialism were bigger on theory than daily living, meaning they were more likely ABC (or abC) than ACB. Postmodernism is a recent enough cultural phenomenon* for us to determine the cognitive system that it practically develops or incorporates into its worldview.

---------------------------------------------------------------
* I mean its adoption in actual living cultures instead of simply being advocated in academic circles

Continuing Adventures in Hong Kong

Yesterday, I was given the honor of working with the faculty and staff of the PLK Anita L.L. Chan (Centenary) School in Hong Kong. This is a specialized school working with primarily students with special educational needs. The students got the day off during our full-day training session. We spent an entire day investigating ABC thinking, teamwork, and personal development. The class was engaged and excited, and our responses were good, overall. There were a few issues with language, which is to be expected when your speaker (me) is English-speaking and your class is Cantonese-speaking (but English proficient). For many of the participants, this was the first time for them to exercise their English skills for some time. Fortunately, our board member Kitty Ho was also presenting, and led most of the more conversation-intensive activities. Overall, a good and productive time was had by all. Thanks again to the faculty and staff for giving me the opportunity to work with such wonderful people!

Our participants during an activity

Thinking about CBA: Mystical Materialism

Where CAB appears to arise from and lend itself to an analytical form of mysticism, CBA shares characteristics with BCA. Where BCA has a strong focus on tradition followed by emotional/mystical considerations, CBA places the greatest emphasis on relational/mystical harmony.  Because of this, spiritual harmony and the family become a substantial deciding factor in how we would understand and act in the world. As with CAB, the mystical/emotional is given the highest decision-making priority, but it is strengthened not by analysis, but by tradition and rote learning. The goal of such thinking is less to transcend the physical world, but to ensure the proper functioning of the entire world, physical and mystical. Analytic and conceptual thinking assists with this, but is not generally given a strong priority. This is not to say that CBA people or cultures are incapable of abstract thinking. In fact, one of the cultures Dr. Cook identified as predominately CBA was Japanese culture – a culture known for high levels of technological and scientific development. It is not the strength of A that is in dispute, but the priority it has on daily decision making and understanding. For CBA thinkers, relationships and tradition are often most important, while reason or logic often take on a supplementary role in their cognitive system.

As with CAB cultures, Dr. Cook's direct exposure to CBA cultures was limited. IRI has not had much interaction with these cultures, either, so much of our assessment of the implications of CBA thinking come through analysis or second-hand. This is an area we hope to correct in the future, as learning more about this style can only improve our ability to understand all cognitive systems.

Thinking About CAB: Conceptualized Mysticism

Dr. Cook originally identified CAB thinking as a cognitive style common to people groups with a history of formal discussion of spiritual matters. One of his primary examples was Hinduism in India,* which has a (very) long history of religious exploration and discussion. CAB cultures tend to emphasize the spiritual component of such discussions over the analytic/conceptual component, with a goal of transcending our human understanding. Values in this system are not particularly “earthly,” and as a result, the concrete reality is often viewed with skepticism. Instead, the focus is on mystical enlightenment to overcome the illusion of mundane life (whether that illusion is metaphorical or literal would depend on the particular belief system). In many cases, this is accomplished through understanding “higher truths” about reality, which are often organized and structured into a more formal religion or sets of principles. Thus, the mystical (C) component of thought is given the highest priority, and is strengthened through understanding (A). The tangible world and our operations in it, however (B), are not necessarily seen as particularly important, in the grand scheme of things, and attentiveness to one's physical state or environment is often devalued.

Unfortunately, Dr. Cook's contact with cultures he believed were strongly CAB was limited. We are beginning to investigate this area of cognition more with our work in South Pacific and Asian cultures; we have already had nationals identify characteristics of CAB thinking in Buddhism, for example.  I, personally, believe there may also be some evidence of this kind of thinking among some western animist practices (often lumped into the category of paganism), as well as certain ascetic traditions recorded throughout the history of the Christian Church. In any case, we look forward to further investigation into this cognitive style and its ramifications.

-----------------------------------------------------
*I feel obligated to note that generalizations are generally true. India and Hinduism contain several examples of CAB approaches to understanding, but this does not mean that all Indians or Hindu practitioners are CAB thinkers.