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.

Q A (Question Answered - there's only the one)

During my last splurge of Incoming Insight posts, someone sent me a question about the potential benefits of suppression. Discounting the (in my opinion short-sighted) view that there are several benefits for the oppressor, it does leave an interesting question about when and where enforcement of will is appropriate. Superficially, law enforcement "suppresses" criminals, by refusing to allow them to do bad things to other people (and occasionally themselves). Likewise, parents could be said to "suppress" children, by disallowing certain activities - or only permitting them under special circumstances or after certain criteria have been met.

I think, however, there are two distinctions between these examples and the example I gave of cultural suppression. The first is intent: the intent of the suppressor in my examples was to keep themselves in power and the suppressed population...well, suppressed. In the case of my illustration, the intent was the acquisition and maintenance of power--at the expense of the suppressed culture. In the examples above, you have two very different motivations, namely protection (in the case of law enforcement) and protection/education (in the case of parents). I think many cases of abuse of power by these groups is often identified, in no small part, by their intent. If the cop pulls you over because you were speeding, that's keeping people safe, and (while annoying) a general good. If the cop pulls you over to shake you down, however, that's utilizing power to promote the officer at your expense, and that is suppression. Thus, intent has a substantial role in identifying cases of systematic suppression and their possible impact.

Of course, as the saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The fact that you want to protect/help people is only marginally useful as a defense if what you have actually been doing is inflicting various degrees of psychological/social/economic trauma on them. the second difference between suppression and these other examples is proper application of power. Namely, that those who hold power are diligent in analyzing the impact of their actions, and willing and able to change their approach in the event that the results do not match with their intent. (Someone is always going to hold power, by the way - we don't get to actually live in a "balanced" or power-neutral world.)

The area of intent is where you get your "moral monsters" - those who walk over other people or cultures to get what they want. They are the obvious examples of terrible things, and everyone can name at least one Terrible Person who has willfully harmed others to advance themselves. The area of application, however, is where I think the most harm actually gets done. We like to feel good about ourselves, and often make the mistake of believing that because we have good ideas or intentions, that we are helping others. As a friend of mine says, we front-load our help, looking at how our plans should benefit people, without taking a hard look at what those actions are really doing. One example I have heard personal testimony about are the education of Native American tribes. While, ostensibly, the goal was to help the tribes "get up to speed" with Western culture,* the actual effect of much of this education was to separate the tribal culture from their language and heritage, causing substantial fractures in their identity and sense of ability. The government may have thought it was doing good, but the actually effect was really quite terrible.

So to sum up, I do believe that controlling persons or groups is necessary for social order and development, but it has to be done very carefully. With this in mind, allow me to clarify my concept of cultural suppression. Cultural suppression is the control of one culture by another culture in such a way as to suppress the identity and ability of the controlled culture, resulting in fractured identity, loss of perceived ability and worth, and dependence on the suppressing culture. This does not necessarily overlap with other definitions of suppression (suppressing fire, suppression of crime, fire suppression, etc.). Yes, this is a complicated concept, but since when was life actually simple? As noted, our drive for simplistic explanations and actions are part of the reason we see so much damage in our global society today.

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 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.

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.

Things We Have Learned: Terms & Concepts

One of the things we are learning in our work is just how different learning terms is from learning concepts. When learning any language, the former is required to speak or write, but the latter is required to understand. We have also learned how easy it is to learn terms without actually learning concepts. This results in a dangerous situation where a person thinks they know the language, but is actually severely restricted in what they can communicate or comprehend.

To ensure good communication, we need to make sure we know what the terms we are using mean. We usually do this by defining the terms – we use other terms to describe the new term. This allows us to expand our vocabulary and thus the scope of things we can easily discuss. Unfortunately, this method makes the assumption that the terms we are using in our definition are already understood. As we have learned in Africa, this is not always the case.

In our discussion with Mozambican nationals, we discovered several terms that are not well understood. That is, the English-speaking nationals may know the terms, but the concept that the term represents is still largely unknown. For example, in our seminar, one of the areas of development we discuss is relationship-building. After the seminar, however, we discovered that some of the nationals did not grasp the concept of a relationship—which reduced the effectiveness of the session quite a bit. The important thing to understand is they know of the term “relationship,” and could use it in common conversation, but they did not possess a working concept of relationship.

We encounter a similar issue in the west—a prime example would probably be corporate jargon.[i] If you have worked in a corporate environment, you have probably encountered this situation: a boss/manager/employee/etc. will use a particular term such as “leveraging”, “diversification“, “asset management”, etc. but clearly does not understand what the term actually means. That is, they know of the term but do not understand the underlying concept. They use the term for a number of reasons: to keep from sounding ignorant, to fit into the corporate culture, or even to impress others who do not understand the concept. The problem, of course, is that when a person uses a term whose concept they do not understand, they quite literally do not know what they are talking about. This can lead to a very unfortunate situation when they are speaking to someone who does understand the concept, and therefore expects a certain set of actions from the speaker. In this case, use of such jargon results in a negative effect for the person who used it, even though they were trying to use it to help themselves.

Anyone familiar with a corporate environment is probably familiar with the illustration above, yet we often assume that this is not the case when working with other cultures. This is especially true of cultures with whom we share a common language—we forget that it is the culture that determines what terms map onto what concepts. In forgetting this important truth, it is very easy for us to make mistakes in communication; most of the time, these mistakes are relatively benign, but when you are working as an educator[ii] (which many charity and social development programs are beginning to focus on), the consequences of failing to understand the difference between terms and concepts can have dire consequences. This is exacerbated when there is also a language, not just a cultural, barrier.

The final lesson? While knowing the national language of a group you are working with is important, it is much more important to make sure you are communicating concepts, not just terminology. When communicating cross-culturally, you cannot just assume you know what you are saying—always seek confirmation that your message was received correctly. That is, assume you aren’t communicating well until demonstrated otherwise. This way is slower (and usually more frustrating), but generally results in much clearer communication.[iii]

---

[i] For the purposes of this article, “jargon” refers to a term used without knowledge of the concept it connects to in the context you are using it. This is a bit different from the dictionary definition of “jargon” so I wanted to clarify.

[ii] I include translators in this category

[iii] Just to give you an idea of how close to home this principle can get, consider that men and women, in most cultures, have vastly different social roles, expectations, and experiences—effectively different subcultures. In the U.S., the same can be said for many racial groups, religious groups, and even political groups. As it turns out, good communication is hard. 

Seminar in Review: June, 2012 – Chimoio, Mozambique

The Insight Seminar here in Chimoio is wrapping up, which gives me an opportunity to reflect on what’s happened, good and bad. This is the third seminar we have held in Mozambique and the second Portuguese seminar. It is the first seminar in which I did not act as presenter—instead, Leonard Chetechsi took on the role of presenter. I acted as assistant and coach during and after the seminars. My main rule this time was to coach Leonard on seminar presentation and debrief with him after each session. Leonard is one of our co-workers in Mozambique and was the interpreter for last year’s Portuguese seminar. When I leave, he will be responsible for organizing and leading seminars for the next year.

So how has Leonard been doing? Overall, he’s doing a fantastic job—he’s a natural presenter, and will be invaluable in helping Mozambicans understand the new concepts we are introducing. But generalities are only worth so much, so let’s get into seminar details, what they mean, and why they’re important. For ease of reading, I will break this down by point of interest (this will probably take several blog entries to completely cover):

Point One: Schedule

 We originally were planning for me to present/oversee four to five seminars while I was here. Unfortunately, due to limited funds delaying my departure and car trouble, we ended up with three and a half weeks in Mozambique instead of our original three month plan. This left us with enough time for one seminar. In keeping with our theme of “new scheduling plans”, we decided to implement an experimental seminar schedule—instead of holding the seminar for five eight-hour days, we thought we would try weeknights and weekends. This would give participants time to work during the day. This meant we had to extend the total time of the seminar to two weeks, but we thought it was a fair trade-off.

The result was mixed. While the participants were certainly able to get more work done during the week, the cultural attitude toward time meant that each session started almost an hour late—over ten days, that drops ten hours. In addition, they participants weren’t really keen on coming over the weekend, which meant we lost additional time. Between the two, our total seminar time was cut in half. On the plus side, the participants did have extra time to think through what they were learning. In addition, the participants indicated they wanted to complete the seminar as soon as Leonard gets back from traveling with Al and I back to South Africa. Overall verdict: while the five-day schedule is inconvenient for people, it seems to provide a more complete learning experience with the fewest difficulties.  Leonard wants to conduct the next seminar using the standard schedule.

 

Next Entry: Attendance and Participation

Seminar in Review: June, 2012 – Chimoio, Mozambique (2)

[note: these seminar posts are being posted in reverse order to facilitate easier viewing on the site - this is part 2 of 3]

Point Two: Attendance

Given the radical schedule changes and the fact that our Mozambican associates really have never scheduled a seminar on their own before, our attendance was pretty much what we expected. Our first night saw around six people; over the next few days, we lost a couple of people and gained about four more. By the end of the first week, we were averaging six people a night. The second week, however, saw a decrease in attendance. Whether this was due to a certain amount of miscommunication about what to expect from the seminar or participant fatigue is hard to determine—I am planning on working with Leonard to follow up with the participants to investigate the details. In any case, by the end of the second week, we were down to three people.

While discouraging, this is not unexpected. The seminars are far more complex than many Mozambicans are used to, and it is not unusual for the stress of the material to cause some to give up. 

On the other hand, the miscommunication regarding expectations has been identified and we will be able to better communicate what the seminars are about next time. In Mozambique, many nonprofit organizations have taken to offering people food or money to attend their seminars. The offer is appreciated, of course, but it creates a situation where participants attend not to learn, but to earn.[i]  While this may sound like a nice way to provide poor nationals with money and allow them to learn, all it really does is set an expectation that “classes” equal “stuff.” Thus, seminars and other training are often valued for the prizes, not the education, provided. Once we clarified that our seminar was there to give people tools in the form of information, a few of them lost interest. Others, however, were excited to learn something they actually considered useful, and saw no need to have any other incentive.

Point Three: Participation

Of utmost importance in the seminar is participation by the attendees (which is why I usually call them participants). The seminars don’t just spit out information at the participants—it is important to us that people understand the principles we’re trying to communicate, and are able to apply them to their lives. As a result, the seminar is geared toward a lot of activities to reinforce our ideas. This is especially important in Africa, where most of the participants have never encountered these concepts before.

This, thankfully, was a great success. The participants were very engaged with what we were discussing (even those who were just there because they thought they would get food were interested and participating). There was a definite level of excitement in the group, and we noted not only a steadily increasing level of engagement from the remaining participants, but also an increasing level of excitement. Some of these activities and discussion are quite difficult and complex, and the participants were definitely rising to the challenge. This was exactly what we wanted, and we are extremely happy with the results.

Next Entry: Conclusions

---

[i] These same organizations often later wonder why there isn’t any long-term impact from their training. Here’s a tip for anyone who is interested in teaching people: if you have to pay people to attend your training, THEY ARE NOT THERE FOR YOUR TRAINING. People do not learn by infection—simply going to a training session does not guarantee participation or retention, and paying your students to attend will only get them in the seat. If anyone out there is considering or has been paying people to attend your training/seminar/workshop, please just stop (note: this does not apply to workforce training by businesses – if you want your employees to know something they don’t you should pay them to learn it). OK, footnote rant over.