Open Thinkering

Menu

TB871: Block 3 People stream references

Posted on by Doug Belshaw

Note: this is a post reflecting on one of the modules of my MSc in Systems Thinking in Practice. You can see all of the related posts in this category. 

A quick post to share the books, articles, and other material referenced in the Block 3 People stream that I might want to come back and explore at some point in the future (Open University, 2020)

Atewologun, D., Cornish, T. and Tresh, F. (2018) Unconscious bias training: an assessment of the evidence for effectiveness. Available at: https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/research-report-113-unconcious-bais-training-an-assessment-of-the-evidence-for-effectiveness-pdf.pdf (Accessed: 24 March 2020).

Bezrukova, K., Spell, C. S., Perry, J. L. and Jehn, K. A. (2016) ‘A meta-analytical integration of over 40 years of research on diversity training evaluation’, Psychological Bulletin, 142(11), p. 1227.

Damasio, A. (1994) Descartes’ error: emotion, reason and the human brain. London: Vintage Books.

De Bono, E. (1970) Lateral thinking: a textbook of creativity.. Reprint. London: Pelican, 1977.

De Bono, E. (1981) Atlas of management thinking. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.

Diamond, J. (2005) Collapse: how societies choose to fail or survive. London: Allen Lane.

Diamond, J. (2012) The world until yesterday: what can we learn from traditional societies? New York: Viking Penguin.

Evans, J. and Frankish, K. (eds.) (2009) In two minds: dual processes and beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Everett, D. (2008) Don’t sleep, there are snakes: life and language in the Amazon jungle. London: Profile Books Ltd.

Girod, S., Fassiotto, M. and Grewal, D. (2016) ‘Reducing implicit gender leadership bias in academic medicine with an educational intervention’, Academic Medicine. 2016(31), pp. 1143-1150.

Goleman, D. (1996) Emotional intelligence: why it can matter more than IQ. London: Bloomsbury.

Henrich, J., Heine, S.J. and Norenzayan, A. (2010) The weirdest people in the world? Working Paper No. 139, RatSWD Working Paper Series. Germany: German Data Forum.

Hoffman, D. (2019) The case against reality: how evolution hid the truth from our eyes. London: Allen Lane.

Hoffman, D. (2019) ‘Do we see reality?’, New Scientist, 3 August, pp. 34-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0262-4079(19)31434-4.

James, W. (1890) The principles of psychology, (2 vols). New York: Henry Holt and Company.

Janis, I.L. (1982) Groupthink: psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Janis, I.L. (1971) Groupthink. Reprinted from Psychology Today. Available at https://web.archive.org/web/20100401033524/http://apps.olin.wustl.edu/faculty/macdonald/GroupThink.pdf (Accessed: 26 March 2020).

Kahneman, D. (2011) Thinking, fast and slow. London: Penguin Books.

Kelly, G. (1955) The psychology of personal constructs, (2 vols). New York: Norton.

Marks, P. (2009) ‘NASA criticised for sticking to imperial units’, New Scientist, 22 June. Available at: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17350-nasa-criticised-for-sticking-to-imperial-units (Accessed 14 May 2020).

Richardson, J.T.E., (2004) ‘The origins of inkblots’, The Psychologist, 17(6), pp. 334–335.

Richter, I.A., (ed.) (1998) The notebooks of Leonardo da Vinci: selections. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Simons, D.J., and Chabris, C.F. (1999) ‘Gorillas in our midst: sustained inattentional blindness for dynamic events’, Perception, 28(9), pp. 1059–1074.

Syer, J., and Connolly, C. (1987) Sporting body, sporting mind: an athlete’s guide to mental training. London: Simon & Schuster.

Thomas, M.S.C. (2019a) ‘The brain doesn’t like to abstract unless you make it’, in How the brain works. Available at: http://howthebrainworks.science/how_the_brain_works_/the_brain_doesnt_like_to_abstract_unless_you_make_it (Accessed: 26 February 2020).

Thomas, M.S.C. (2019b) ‘Humans apart’, in How the brain works. Available at: http://howthebrainworks.science/humans_apart (Accessed: 26 February 2020).

von Glasersfeld, E. (1995) Radical constructivism: a way of knowing and learning. London: Falmer Press.

Wilson, T., Lisle, D., Schooler, J., Hodges, S., Klaaren, K. and LaFleur, S. (1993) ‘Introspecting about reasons can reduce post-choice satisfaction’, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19(3), pp. 331–339. doi: 10.1177/0146167293193010.

Winnicott, D.W. (1971) Playing and reality. New York: Tavistock Publications.

References to references

TB871: Lateral Thinking, Transitional Objects, and Metaphors

Posted on by Doug Belshaw

Note: this is a post reflecting on one of the modules of my MSc in Systems Thinking in Practice. You can see all of the related posts in this category. 

On the desk of my home office I have a set of Brian Eno’s ‘Oblique Strategies‘ cards. Every so often, I’ll pull out a card at random as a prompt to generate a creative solution to a knotty problem. Each card provides a unique prompt which is designed to shift your perspective and inspire new ways of thinking, for example, “Accretion” or “Who should be doing this job? How would they do it?”.

Although I didn’t know it a decade ago when I bought the cards, this technique aligns well with the principles of systems thinking and the use of ‘transitional objects,’ offering a pathway to explore complex situations in innovative ways.

Transitional objects

In systems thinking, the concept of ‘rich pictures’ is used to capture and express the complexity of perceptions within a particular situation. I used this approach in my previous MSc module, TB872. These pictures provide a creative outlet for individuals to project their understanding and emotions about a scenario, encompassing both positive and negative aspects.

This method is an example of using ‘transitional objects,’ a concept introduced by the psychoanalyst Donald Winnicott. These objects, which exist simultaneously in the realms of reality and imagination, serve as tools for individuals to navigate the boundaries between fantasy and fact, internal and external realities, and creativity and perception (Winnicott, 1971).

In the context of systems thinking, rich pictures function as transitional objects by enabling participants to externalise and communicate their internal thoughts and feelings about a situation. This process of externalisation is important for understanding and addressing the nuances inherent in any system. As I explored in a recent post, situations are fundamentally ambiguous, and we are all subject to cognitive biases.

The use of rich pictures and other transitional objects in systems thinking can provide several benefits:

  1. Creative expression: represent perceptions and emotions creatively can lead to a more comprehensive understanding of the situation.
  2. Intricacy management: visually mapping out the various elements and their interconnections can help show and manage the intricacies of systems.
  3. Enhanced communication: a visual approach can serve as a ‘common language’ to help facilitate communication among stakeholders with diverse perspectives.
  4. Emotional engagement: the process of creating and discussing transitional objects can engage participants emotionally, leading to deeper involvement and commitment.
  5. Problem identification: transitional objects can help identify underlying problems and issues that may not be immediately obvious.

Lateral thinking

Edward de Bono‘s concept of lateral thinking complements the use of transitional objects in systems thinking. De Bono emphasised the importance of encouraging the brain to break free from familiar patterns to produce creative and novel solutions. He likened this process to the way humour works, where a sudden shift in perspective leads to a new understanding. I’ve used his six thinking hats successfully with students, for example, to help them think through situations from different points of view.

Line drawing of a rectangle balanced in an unstable way on its bottom right-hand corner
Cropped from an image used in The Open University (2020)

Lateral thinking involves provocation and the use of unusual scenarios to stimulate new ways of thinking. In his Atlas of Management Thinking, de Bono illustrated this with a block improbably balanced on one corner, which symbolises the unexpected and the need to think differently about familiar objects. By integrating lateral thinking techniques, systems thinking practitioners can further enhance their ability to explore intricate situations.

As illustrated in the image, provocation is a key process in lateral thinking. It involves deliberately creating an unstable idea or situation to break away from conventional patterns of thought. This method encourages looking at the ‘what if…’ and ‘suppose…’ scenarios, thus encouraging a shift in perspective that can lead to innovative solutions.

Using metaphors

I’m a big fan of using metaphors in both my professional and personal life. I find that they help ‘unlock’ thinking that would otherwise not be available to me. So, when thinking about my area of practice and system of interest (“a system to promote lifelong learning” in a library context) I could think about the library as metaphorically being a ‘laboratory,’ a ‘seed vault,’ or a ‘constellation map.’

If we go a bit further with the latter of these, then a library can be viewed as a map of the night sky, where each book or resource is a star that helps navigate the vast expanse of human knowledge. Connecting these stars forms constellations, representing interconnected ideas and concepts. Just as navigators have historically used constellations to find their way, learners may use the library to chart their course through the ‘sea’ of information. This metaphor emphasises the interconnectedness of knowledge and the guidance that a library provides if we consider lifelong learning a ‘journey.’

References

TB871: Ambiguity and cognitive biases

Posted on by Doug Belshaw

Note: this is a post reflecting on one of the modules of my MSc in Systems Thinking in Practice. You can see all of the related posts in this category. 

You may have watched this video which was referenced by the brilliant Cathy Davidson in her book Now You See It. But perhaps you haven’t seen, as I hadn’t, a related one called The Door Study. TL;DR: it was one of the first confirmations outside of a laboratory setting of ‘change blindness’. What we perceive is usually what we’ve been primed to pay attention to, rather than simply us sensing data from our environment.

It’s a good reminder that, phenomenologically-speaking, much of what we experience about the external world, such as colour, doesn’t actually ‘exist’ in an objectively-meaningful way. We construct our observation of the environment; everything is a projection. As the module materials quote Heinz von Foerster as saying: “Objectivity is the delusion that observations could be made without an observer” (The Open University, 2020a).

When it comes to systems thinking, this is a key reason why the idea of ‘perspective’ is so important: the world is different depending on our point of view, and we can struggle to see it as being even possible to observe it differently. A good example of this, other than the familiar rabbit-duck illusion is the Necker cube (The Open University, 2020b):

A series of lines that look like a 3D cube

This is literally a flat pattern of 12 lines, so the fact that most of us see it automatically as a 3D object is due to our brains modelling it as such. However, our brains aren’t sure whether we should see the underside of the bottom face of the cube, or the upper side of the top face. As with the rabbit-duck illusion, our brains can see one of these, but not both at the same time.

Going further, we can take the ink blot below, taken from the module materials (The Open University, 2020c):

Using this diagnostically is usually referred to as a Rorschach test which many people think is pseudo-scientific. However, it is interesting as a parlour trick to show how people think about the world. For example, I see two people with their hands behind their backs, kissing. I’m not sure what that says about me, if anything!

Spending a bit more time with the ink blot, I began to see it as a kind of eye covering that one might wear at a masked ball. Switching between these two is relatively easy, as the primary focus for each is on a different part of the image.

There are similar approaches to the above, for example the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) created by Henry A. Murray and Christiana D. Morgan at Harvard University, which presents subjects with an ambiguous image (e.g. a photograph) and asks them to explain what is going on.

The rationale behind the technique is that people tend to interpret ambiguous situations in accordance with their own past experiences and current motivations, which may be conscious or unconscious. Murray reasoned that by asking people to tell a story about a picture, their defenses to the examiner would be lowered as they would not realize the sensitive personal information they were divulging by creating the story.

(Wikipedia)

These approaches show how much we construct our understanding of the world rather than just experience it as somehow objectively it is ‘out there’. There’s a wonderful image created by JM3 based on some synthesis by Buster Benson which I had on the wall of my old home office (and will do in my new one when it’s constructed!) which groups the various cognitive biases to which we humans are susceptible:

Diagram titled "Cognitive Bias Codex, 2016" showing different cognitive biases organized around a central brain image into four categories: "Too Much Information," "Need To Act Fast," "Not Enough Meaning," and "What Should We Remember?".

As you can see, these are boiled down to:

  • What should we remember?
  • Too much information
  • Not enough meaning
  • Need to act fast

Here are some of the most common ten biases we are prone to:

  1. Confirmation bias: Favouring information that confirms pre-existing beliefs while discounting contrary information, often seeking validation rather than refutation.
  2. Fundamental attribution error: Overemphasising personality-based explanations for others’ behaviours and underestimating situational influences, particularly noted in Western cultures.
  3. Bias blind spot: Believing oneself to be less biased than others, exemplifying a self-serving bias.
  4. Self-serving bias: Attributing successes to oneself and failures to external factors, motivated by the desire to maintain a positive self-image.
  5. Anchoring effect: Relying too heavily on the first piece of information encountered (the anchor) when making decisions, influencing both automatic and deliberate thinking.
  6. Representative heuristic: Estimating event likelihood based on how closely it matches an existing mental prototype, often leading to misjudgment of risks.
  7. Projection bias: Assuming others think and feel the same way as oneself, failing to recognize differing perspectives.
  8. Priming bias: Being influenced by recent information or experiences, leading to preconceived ideas and expectations.
  9. Affinity bias: Showing preference for people who are similar to oneself, often unconsciously and based on subtle cues.
  10. Belief bias: Letting personal beliefs influence the assessment of logical arguments, leading to biased evaluations based on the perceived truth of the conclusion.

Of course, just having these on one’s wall, or being able to name them, doesn’t make us any less likely to fall prey to them!

References

css.php