A two-dimensional thinker sees the world as a polarized place. Who you are and what you believe becomes categorical. It is either one way or the other. These individuals can see facts, but truth eludes them because the facts are generally considered without context.
The problem with two dimensional thinkers is that they skew, or misinterpret, facts in order force them into a two dimensional framework. As a result, they frequently have “the facts”, but do not know, or are misrepresenting, the truth. This is how marketers sell their ideas, products or services. They build context around a set of facts so that the listener’s interpretation is guided to the desired conclusion. As you watch and listen to the world around you, see if you can see this take place. How much of what you hear is fact and how much is context? Does the context pass the reality test?
Context defines truth by giving facts relevance. Conflict between people is generally the result of two dimensional thinking. This is demonstrated by the win/lose attitude of the conflicting parties. Both sides bend contextual information to fit their argument. Resolution can usually be gained by getting to a win/win attitude, which is based upon the understanding that there is an alternate solution to the conflict that the win/lose mentality cannot see. The alternate solution is typically based upon a more honest contextual framework.
All of this makes two dimensional thinkers less effective in problem resolution, listening and leadership. These areas of human thought require the ability to see things from differing perspectives. The “why” of a situation is just as important as the “What”, and the “why” is generally contextual in nature, not categorical.
Moving beyond two dimensional thinking involves accepting that most words and events in our lives have meanings that are subject to interpretation. We call this perspective. You have heard the saying, “One man’s trash is another man’s treasure.” The world looks different from different perspectives.
Seeing the world from different perspectives involves tying facts to context that may be separate from your own reality. One of the best ways to accomplish this is by listening. Stephen Covey stated it nicely by saying we must “seek first to understand, then to be understood.” Understanding is a continuous process, not a categorical one. Try, sometime, to truly listen to someone. Your ears, eyes and mind are open, but your mouth is shut. Allow yourself to evaluate alternate perspectives for the purpose of understanding. This is not about losing your own perspective or replacing it, although that may happen. It is simply a matter of seeking to see a situation through someone else’s eyes.
Six Sigma, based solely upon statistics, is two dimensional in nature. It tells us the “what” but not the “why”. When contextual information is paired with statistical results, the “why” becomes a part of the dialog. By understanding contextual information, we are able tie causality to defects and improve processes. This way the human element is part of the picture.
This is so true, Ask 5 eye winesses seperatlely who had seen the same accident from different perspectives, (and probably view) ; you will get 5 different reasons of why the accident happened. Put them together to discuss the angles or perspectives, add in the statics with data gathered from the accident, You will see several changes in individual realities.(only if someone is listening)
Pingback: Two-dimensional thinking, and the limitations of human cognition | The Secular Jurist
Thanks. Do you mind if I take your comment and make it a post. Full credit to you.
No problem. Thanks for asking.