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 and Dr. Stuart Cook

Before I go any farther in my overview, I feel compelled to note that these theories are not mine. They were developed by Dr. Stuart Cook, a missionary and anthropologist who worked in South Africa for over 30 years. The IRI website has his books available, if you want his explanation of these theories. Most of the information in this series is based on his book The Thought That Counts.

You can get it here: http://www.insightagentsofchange.com under the Media tab.

The summary I have here is my take on his work, and may not match all his original ideas exactly. Like any good ideas, they serve as the foundation for additional work and development.

Day Delay

Due to various factors, there is a delay of a day on the next post. Tomorrow, look for an overview and examples of BCA thinking. Sorry for the delay.

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