Insight Into: Education & Conceptualization Part 4

In my last article, I talked about the potential conflict between traditional educational techniques and conceptual development. For those who want the TL/DR version:

1. Traditional education focuses on imparting information and eliminating error
2. Conceptual education focuses on developing ways of processing information and utilizing them effectively through constant re-examination.
1. Part of this re-examination requires brainstorming ideas and new perspectives
2. These ideas and perspectives will almost certainly include errors
3. Self-identification and correction of these errors are part of the conceptual development process

The key term in part three is "self-". To develop good thinking skills, the learner must be able to work through errors on their own. This makes the actual acquisition of correct data much slower than the traditional process wherein the student is corrected by a knowledgeable source. In fact, it is possible for a student to never properly identify certain errors, leading to long-term misconceptions. It is the risk inherent in thinking for yourself.

Clearly, both forms of education are important. Both having access to correct information and the ability to process, analyze, and innovate said information are both critical to long-term development. Unfortunately, the techniques which effectively impart correct information (and include external correction) create thinking habits that can be counter to good conceptual thinking and development - in particular, dependence on external correction and the tendency to "learn for the test" instead of understanding the content of the material.

I think that this can be addressed in a number of ways. In all cases, it is important to remember that understanding is more than mere knowledge and thus, the conceptual development is necessary for genuine educational development. Thus, we need a combination of methods - on one had, disseminating valuable information accurately and, on the other hand, providing the mental tools to understand and build on that information. I think there are a number of ways we can do this. Keep in mind that the list below is a simple overview, and not intended to be exhaustive, either as a description of the methods, nor as a complete list of possible methods. These are just ideas for discussion.

Method 1: Include conceptual development exercises in traditional education

This method involves taking the currently existing classes and curriculum and introducing exercises designed to force students to interact with the information in ways outside of those they have already been taught. This may include brainstorming new ideas or connections to ideas, as well as proposing various ways the information may be used in unusual circumstances.

Strengths:

• Minimum amount of change to overall educational structures (i.e. no new classes needed)
• Can be added to existing material
• No new teachers needed

Weaknesses:

• Teachers will experience some loss of control over the material as students innovate
• Some teachers may need to be retrained to work with these new approaches
• This will extend the time it takes to cover any particular subject
• Some students may not learn the information or be able to think conceptually as easily as others - there is a danger of students being left behind the rest of the class

Method 2: Student-directed learning

This method gives students much more control over their material, allowing them to learn at their own pace. These methods have been effective in several private schools.

Strengths:

• Self-directed teaching means that all students are able to learn at their own pace, ensuring maximum understanding for each student
• Teachers have less to work on in terms of material, as the students are actively involved in determining what they learn and how

Weaknesses:

• Teachers lose a substantial amount of control over the material
• Self-directed curriculum usually includes material to guide the development, such material can act create the same "learn for the test" behavior that is found in more traditional education
• The role of teachers can change dramatically - from "teaching" to "supervising"
• There is a substantial change in the structure of the educational institution at this point

Method 3: Dual-track curriculum

In this method, the regular classes progress as normal, but an additional "interdisciplinary" course is added that focuses on integrating the ideas from the other courses and prompting students to think about the whole of their education in new and creative ways.

Strengths:

• Existing classes would experience minimal changes, with the exception of having more cognitively engaged students
• The separate course not only serves as a way to promote conceptual thinking, but also helps integrate and provide relevance for many of the other classes the student takes
• One teacher can specialize in conceptual development, leaving other teachers to their specialties

Weaknesses:

• This requires changing the overall structure of the school's classes, as well as the addition of new teachers for the new classes
• Existing teachers will need to make some adjustments, in order to keep discouraging students at the kind of creative thinking the new class encourages them to do
• There is a real danger that the existing courses could be viewed by some as supplementary to the new conceptual course, especially from the perspective of the students (for whom the interdisciplinary, conceptual course provides relevance for some of the other courses' topics).

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

Conclusion:

While I have my preferences in methods (which I may get into at another time), the point here is not so much finding a solution as it is understanding that solutions are available. What is not optional, in my opinion, is to sacrifice conceptual/analytical understanding for the sake of imparting more and more data. It is also important to note that it is surprisingly easy to undermine conceptual development, as the "Common Core" curriculum in the U.S. has demonstrated. In my investigation of Common Core, I have found the principles it is intended to promote to be very positive, with a strong emphasis on conceptual development. Unfortunately, the application of the curriculum has, from all accounts I am hearing, resulted in less critical and conceptual thinking by its students. I think this is, in part, because the application of the curriculum is at odds with the intent and perhaps even the content of the curriculum. Unfortunately, this issue is bigger than my article here has time for, but suffice to say I think there is a solution, if we are willing to change not just the content of our material, but the style we use to teach. Thinking is a action, and actions are guided by habits. We need to instill not just the idea of conceptual thinking, but the habit in our students.

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

Checking in With A Thought

It seems I'm pretty busy this week. I'm still working on finding work to support my work, so that's keeping things exciting. I'm also working on a newsletter article for this month, and making sure I don't miss any birthdays (apparently, I know a LOT of people who were born in July). I've also been working on follow-up for the last few Incoming Insights articles, which may still take a little while.

In the meantime, I want to make sure that I'm clear about the reason we are looking in to the nature of human cognition, the effects of suppression, and the impact these things have on education and development. Ultimately, it is about building relationships. Not just relationships between ourselves and the people we work with, but how they relate with each other and other (often more aggressive and powerful) cultures around them. It is about identifying what goes wrong in relationships, and how to change things to make it right. All too often, organization or individuals will attempt to intervene in what is clearly a bad situation, only to find that their intervention has had its own set of negative consequences. Sometimes, the overall situation will still be improved, but occasionally, the intervention sets off a series of cultural events that ultimately makes things worse. There has been a lot of work that has gone into understanding what has happened in these cases, and more work focused on how to prevent similar issues in the future. We are focused on the latter. IRI wants to help people understand themselves and the world they live in so that they can build relationships and initiate works that are appropriate to their context. Our goal is to bring clarity and self-development to all areas of life: personal, social, economic, spiritual, educational, and whatever else may be affected. Much of what we have seen tells us that most people want to do good and be good people, but they often have disconnects about what is really good for themselves, their communities, and their environments. Our goal is not to correct them, but to give them the tools to figure out for themselves how to deal with their relationships.

That's all for now.

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.

Insight Into Identity

So when we last left our discussion of cognitive theory, I had given an overview a review of direct and indirect understanding. This model seems to apply to all the ideas we hold. That is, for any idea we can think of, our understanding is either direct, indirect, or some blend of the two. My understanding of computers, for example, is blended - some things I understand directly (basic ideas about computer operation and function), and some I understand indirectly (router functions, networking, and how my computer interacts with my ISP).


Now one particular bit of understanding that is a major component of how we function is our understanding of ourselves - our self-concept, or self-identity. Like any other idea, we can understand ourselves directly or indirectly. Initially, we learn a lot about ourselves indirectly through our parents, friends, and general environment. Over time, however, we usually begin to form our own ideas about ourselves which are to some degree independent of our environment. These new self-concepts are understood directly - they are our ideas about ourselves, we own them, and we determine how they change. For the sake of simplicity, I will call ideas we hold about ourselves directly our direct identity, and ideas about ourselves we get from others our indirect identity.

For most of our lives, we have a blend of direct and indirect identity. We often feel it most keenly in adolescence, when we really start trying to assert a more direct identity over the indirect identity provided by our families and general culture. We never fully gain a completely direct identity, however, and for good reason - we are often wrong about ourselves. I may believe myself to be an eloquent writer or brilliant singer, only to have others contradict my understanding. At that point, I need to assess whether or not I am right about my understanding of myself - perhaps I really don't sing as well as I think I do. On the other hand, maybe those critics are just jealous of my incredible talent. It is sometimes hard to determine which understanding most closely matches up with reality, and we spend much of our lives trying to figure that out.

One aspect of identity that concerns the work we do with IRI is the relationship direct and indirect identity has to control. If you remember from last time, if I have a direct understanding of something, I am in control of that idea - the idea is mine. I can change, modify, and adapt it as I see fit in order to bring it into alignment with everything else I understand about the world (ideally, this brings it into better alignment with reality, but sometimes we get really, really confused). An indirect
understanding, however, leaves control of the idea to whoever is teaching me. I can't do any more with computer repair, for example, than what the IT specialist tells me. The IT specialist has a direct understanding, but my understanding is only indirect. Thus - and this is critical - direct understanding allows me to control an idea, while indirect understanding leaves control in the hands of others. Now, apply this principle to direct and indirect identity, and what do we get?

What we end up with is a direct correlation between direct and indirect identity and personal agency. The degree to which I have a direct identity (I understand myself directly), is the degree to which I have control over my life (barring, of course, aspects of our environment we cannot control - no matter how direct my identity, getting hit by a tornado will end badly for me). To the extent I have an indirect identity, someone else (the entity which gives me my identity) has control over my life. This is, again, exemplified well in adolescence, where teenagers struggle to not only define themselves, but also escape from their parent's control. In short, my sense of identity (direct or indirect) directly impacts my sense of agency, and the associated sense of responsibility. If I have control over something (like myself), I have a responsibility to properly manage that thing. If I do not have control over something, then I am not actually responsible for it.*

Since our goal at IRI is to help people take control of their lives so that they can improve their situation, we are constantly working to bring people from an indirect to a direct identity. This work has led us to some interesting theories about why many cultures are suffering socially and economically right now, where the problem comes from, and how it can be fixed. That's going to be quite a heavy load to cover, however, so it will have to wait for next time.
 
------------------------------------------
* As a side note, this is one reason why mismatching authority and responsibility in business is both demoralizing and dangerous. If I am given responsibility without the power to change the situation I am responsible for, I become nothing more than a scapegoat. If I am given power with no responsibility, I become a monster. Neither situation is really beneficial to anyone involved.

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 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

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.

BAC Thinking: A Theoretical Cognitive System

Let's finish off our B-prioritized systems. Where BCA is a very commonplace system, however, BAC represents one of the (as far as we know) purely theoretical thinking styles. That is, we haven't encountered any cultures which seem to evidence a priority on concrete particulars, followed by abstract reasoning, and then taking the emotional/mystical into consideration. With that caveat, allow me to take a moment to speculate wildly.



Since B, as we mentioned before, is strongly grounded in concrete reality (the physical world and things we do in it), and tends toward habituation and past experience for decision-making, we would expect that a BAC culture (or individual) would show evidence of the same traditionalism and attention to detail as a BCA culture. The main difference, however, would be an emphasis on conceptualization over the emotional/mystical. In cultural terms, this might also mean a lower prioritization of social and/or religious ties that we see in many BCA cultures, such as African tribes. Note that this does not mean family or social bonds are necessarily weak – just that “good” decision making takes into account tradition first, then analysis, then emotional, mystical, or social implications. Such a society might look very traditional in its operation, but have substantial areas of innovation and development that occur according to socially-ingrained protocols or procedures. On the other hand, strong social traditions are often a result of social pressure (motivated by C), which is weaker in this type of thinking structure. Perhaps a strong state which sets broad parameters within which individuals can innovate and conceptualize, but doesn't have a strong relational aspect to it? That may resemble some fictional dystopia, but most totalitarian regimes tend to substantially suppress their people, which appears to result in a “survival mode” BCA mindset.




This style is one of two that Dr. Cook described as mathematically possible, but non-cultural. That is, the math works out such that the system could exist, but the structure of human society and human nature don't really allow it to be the case. On the other hand, it may just be that we are looking for the wrong cues for this type of thinking, and there is, in fact, a person or culture that does embody this kind of thinking. If so, finding such a person or group would be tremendously helpful in advancing our understanding of human cognition.

Examples of Cognitive Systems: BCA Thinking

Mathematically, there are only six ways that A, B, and C can be prioritized: ABC, ACB, BAC, BCA, CAB, and CBA. Each of these different systems of prioritization produce very different ways of thinking. They don't just determine what we think about, but also what we consider “normal” thinking. (Note that we do not necessarily always equate “normal” with “good,” but that is a discussion for later.) The point here is that, no matter what our prioritization, we tend to assume that everyone else thinks the same way we do, and we can be shocked or frustrated when we encounter thinkers of a different sort.

These cognitive systems both shape and are shaped by culture. As such, we can talk about “ABC culture,” or a specific person being an “ABC thinker.” It is important, however, to remember that generalizations are generally true. It is entirely possible to have BCA thinkers who come from an ABC culture, or ABC thinkers who come from a CBA culture. These system designations aren't intended to be a substitute for personality profiles or other psychological or anthropological models of human behavior – just a new perspective that may shed light on past and future observations and interactions.

I'll be looking at each of the six possible combinations separately. Some of these systems have been observed in specific cultural settings, while others remain largely theoretical. That is, we are pretty sure some people are BCA thinkers, but we have not encountered anyone we would really call a BAC thinker, yet. I will note how much real interaction we have had with each system.

Let's begin.

BCA – Materialistic Mysticism

We start with the BCA system because it is one of the most common cognitive systems we have encountered. It is found in many cultures around the world, and is, therefore, a rather common way of thinking. This system focuses on the particular, concrete aspects of reality, with a strong emphasis on emotional connections. Reflection and analysis are not emphasized, and, in some cases, are nearly absent. This system was dubbed “materialistic mysticism” by Dr. Cook. BCA thinking does not mean people cannot analyze or reflect on their experiences, only that such reflection is of secondary importance to the traditions and habits of their daily lives. In a BCA culture, the primary reason for doing is thing is simply because that is what you do.

We have encountered BCA thinking primarily in “survival” oriented contexts – situations in which, usually out of necessity, people need to focus primarily on day-to-day survival. Subsistence cultures, like many we have worked with in Mozambique, are a common example.^* I know of a westerner in Mozambique who asked one of the locals why they performed a certain task in a particular way. The response was: “because that is how we do it.” To the westerner, this sounded evasive – we typically expect an analysis of the reasons for undertaking an action, and failing to give those reasons when asked is seen as giving an incomplete or inadequate answer. For the Mozambican, however, this was a perfectly reasonable answer. You do what you do because you do it. Tradition and habit are the primary means of decision-making.



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

* I am not claiming that all Mozambican tribal people think this way, just that we have frequently encountered this way of thinking among tribes in Mozambique. Generalizations are generally true.

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

There are two primary considerations to keep in mind when talking about how the different aspects of our thinking relate to each other. The first is the relative strength of each aspect – some people are more emotional (C) than others, while others are relatively emotionally distant. There are highly rational (A) people who are good at problem-solving, while others find analytic work taxing or tedious. Some people have great attention to detail (B), while others don't attend to the particulars of their environment. Each person has different strengths.

The second consideration is the priority we place on each aspect in relation to the others. Depending on people's backgrounds, they can prioritize different aspects of their thinking process. This is not simply having a strong aspect as noted above, but more a matter of which aspect you trust more. That is, when someone accuses you of “thinking poorly,” which aspect of thinking can they use to correct you?

If A has the highest priority, you would expect to be corrected by reason and analysis – asking questions like “why?” and “how?” to determine if you are making the best decision. For A priority people or cultures, “good thinking” is conceptual/analytic thinking.

If B is highest, then you would expect to be corrected based on prior experience – what are the rules? What does tradition dictate? What are our customs? For high B, adherence to custom or tradition can override a conceptual or analytic argument, even if that argument is logical and appears to be true.

If C has the highest priority, you would general accept correction most often based on emotional or relational appeal. Who did this (and did he or she have the authority)? What will X (my family, neighbors, friends, etc.) think? What should we (as a group) do? What is best for us? For high C, relational or emotional considerations may trump even law or logic.


Most people will recognize that everyone, at some point, asks questions that reflect each of the A, B, and C aspects of thought. This is right and proper – all three aspects are part of our cognition. To exclude any aspect is to literally lose our mind. The differences in relative strength and prioritization of each aspect, however, can make a tremendous difference in how we approach our lives on an individual, local, and global level.

Up Next: Examples of Different Strengths and Priorities

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

When I talk about ABC thinking, I am referring to the practical application of a theory I call the ABC Theory of Cognition, originally developed by Dr. Stuart Cook in South Africa. Please do not confuse the ABC Theory of Cognition (which I am discussing here) with the ABC model of behavior. While they may have a few things in common, they are fundamentally different approaches to understanding how humans work.

The ABC Theory of Cognition if founded on the idea that the way we think (also called our cognitive process) can be broken into three discrete aspects of thought. Each of these aspects has a particular focus, and when you put them together, they make up the way we acquire, process, and react to information about the world. For simplicity, these aspects are labeled “A,” “B,” and “C” - thus, the name of the theory. These aspects of thought are ways of knowing. That is, they give us knowledge of our world, albeit in different ways. Our strength with of each of these aspects and the priority we give them is the structure and pattern of our thinking.

Aspect A: The Conceptual

The “A” aspect of our thinking has to do with concepts and abstract thought. This includes, but is not limited to, identifying concepts, categorization, analysis, synthesis, and comprehension. It is what we in the west most often call to mind when we say the word “thinking,” though other cultures might have different standards for "good" thought.  This is also the aspect of our thought that focuses on our thinking – what we call reflection or introspection.

Aspect B: The Concrete

The “B” aspect of our thinking focuses on the tangible world, and our memory of it. All our experiences are processed through the “B” aspect of our thinking first, with the exception of our internal reflections. It covers all sensory information, and our memory of those sensations, and includes our attention to detail.

Aspect C: The Emotional/Intuitive

The “C” aspect of our thinking focuses on our non-perceptual, non-rational response and connection to our environment. In particular, it includes our emotions (internal reactions to events) and our intuitions (a more complex reaction that provides input on external factors beyond our personal reaction). It also includes various kinds of “mystical” connections to our environment, as found in many religious experiences. This aspect of thinking has, traditionally, been considered suspect in the West, but does give us important information about ourselves and our environment.


Next up: Putting The Aspects Together

What is ABC Thinking?

It has occurred to me that, while I have talked about what I do from time to time, I haven't gone into a lot of detail about the underlying philosophy and theories that drive what IRI is about. That should be corrected, I think. So for the next few months, I will be discussing the basics of some of our core ideas. The first, and perhaps most critical of these is the idea of ABC Thinking.

Caveats

Before I begin, I want to make a few notes for the more scholarly minded. First, this is a basic overview, not an academic defense. The goal is to introduce ideas and help people understand what I do and why, not present a full dissertation on the topic. (Who knows? That might come later.) As such, I will be avoiding technical terms as much as my philosophy upbringing will let me. Second, This is a brief overview – I don't intend to go into every detail about the theories (though if there is interest, I may go back over some areas and dive deeper). Finally, this is a blog, so it will probably be a bit informal. You have been warned.

Also keep in mind that this is a theory that identifies problems and seeks a solution. I do not consider it the theory, or the end-all of psychology, anthropology, or whatever other discipline it may touch. This is the world as best we at IRI understand it, and our ideas should be taken as starting points for discussion, not concrete conclusions about reality.

Next Monday: Getting Started - The ABC Theory of Cognition

Incoming Insights: Direct and Indirect Identity

In the last article, I explained some of the discoveries we have made at IRI about learning. I want to expand a bit on that and talk about how the ideas of direct and indirect understanding impact self-identity. We have found this is important when helping others improve themselves.

As I covered in the previous post, people tend to learn things in one of two ways – directly, through personal comprehension of an idea, or indirectly, by learning someone else’s ideas. In general, we learn indirectly at first, but our ultimate goal should be direct understanding. This is especially true when we are learning about our own personal identity.

If someone points out that we learn about ourselves from others, many of us would understand what was meant. I learn about who I am initially from my parents, my siblings, my extended family, and my friends. They tell me my name, that I am a human, what ethnic group I belong to, and other interesting things about me. Eventually, however, I start to formulate my own ideas about things: blue is a prettier color than other colors, science is more interesting than art (or vice versa), cauliflower is yucky, and so on. Over time, I understand that I am myself, and other people are not me. In a healthy environment, I also understand that I am responsible for myself. Ideally, I develop a direct self-identity; I am me, and I know who I am.

In reality, however, the final parts of this are a bit easier said than done. Most of us constantly struggle with other people’s perceptions of us. Sometimes this is good, as others can help me see things about myself that are valuable or need developing that I had missed. All too often, however, this is a negative experience, as others see me as too short, too fat, too ugly, or otherwise inferior or deficient. We struggle between understanding ourselves directly (having a strong internal sense of who I am), and understanding ourselves indirectly (seeing ourselves as others see us) for most of our lives. We want to use what we learn from others (indirectly) to form a correct direct understanding of ourselves. We don’t always succeed, but we know understand our goal.

Unfortunately, the ideal sometimes gives way to the terrible. In some situations, our ability to develop our own direct understanding of ourselves is stifled or suppressed. There are many scenarios where this can happen: abusive families, overbearing teachers or supervisors who will only accept their understanding of things, and nearly every case of slavery or broad cultural oppression. In these cases, our ability to form a direct understanding of ourselves is squashed in favor of a second person’s understanding. We are told someone else already knows everything there is to know about us (or at least everything important). Our identity is forged by proxy, and we develop an indirect identity.

This indirect identity creates a sense of dependency—I now need this second person, because it is through that person that I understand myself. I suppose this could be acceptable if the other person understood me perfectly, but that’s not possible (other people are no more perfect than I am, after all). As a result, I become dependent on this second person for my identity, and the associated sense of well-being and security that goes along with having a sense of self.

This is a dangerous situation. We have discovered that this dependent sense of self seems tied to a displaced sense of responsibility. One of the issues we have encountered among suppressed people groups is a sense that they are not in charge of their lives. Not simply that they are being controlled, but that they really aren't responsible for what happens to them. Our theory is that since their identity is tied up in their suppressor, it causes them to identify their suppressor as the one responsible for their lives. Thus, I am not responsible for what happens to me—the person I depend is responsible. This displaced sense of responsibility makes it difficult for people to act on their own behalf in areas of importance. Even more tragically, since long-term changes are out of their control, their only sense of agency tends to come from self-gratification.

Ironically, as long as the suppressor remains, this situation is livable. I can get along in life, as long as I have this second person (who is responsible for me) telling me what to do. I may not like that they are in charge, but I am accustomed to it, and have learned to live within the arrangement to the best of my ability. Once the suppressor is removed, however (whether by an external liberator, or by my own rebellion), things get tough. Now I discover that I don’t know who I am. In addition, I am accustomed to having a suppressor, and all my habits are oriented around that end. It makes a tragic sense, then, that many people from abusive relationships return to their abuser or end up in similarly abusive situations later. On a large scale, it means that a suppressed culture will have a tendency to look for a new “substitute” for their old oppressor. This is not necessarily a conscious decision—it is a consequence of habit.

This is a tragic cycle--one that is self-reinforcing once started. Impressions and repeated behavior, over time, become habits. These habits, over time, spread throughout the culture. Habits repeated throughout the culture are eventually seen as normative. Thus, the culture itself can serve to reinforce this sense of helplessness and displaced identity. The people of such a culture may lament their position, or think it perfectly acceptable, but at the end of the day, it is just the way things are.

Fortunately, these issues can be addressed. I'll discuss how we have been working to break these cycles next month.