Thinking Skills and Problem Solving Model

At the top is the analysis process, the management of the investigation into the structure
of the situation. We gather in information, and look for significant stable elements.
These might be People, Things, Ideas or Events (P.T.I.E.). We classify/categorise them
by looking at their similarities and differences. We look at the way these things behave
and interact, their capacity to affect each other, the range and circumstantial limitations
of their capabilities, patterns of activity, trends, sequences, relationships of cause and
effect, etc. Ever mindful that we live in a sea of false assumptions, we repeatedly test
our latest understanding, taking measurements and setting up experiments to test out
ideas. We know from experience that a single viewpoint can produce a flawed and
incomplete perception, so we try to look at the situation from many different points of
view, deliberately looking for what we may have missed, particularly when we have
assumed something was obvious.

The analysed information is generalised and abstracted, and built into a Graphical
Thinking Model (centre right) that contains all our knowledge about the nature and
behaviour of all the participating elements, and the subtle nuances and limitations of the
relationships between them. Winding the handle, and exploring the emergent properties
of the model, will suggest ways in which the situation can be adjusted and transformed.

Upper centre left - we have the problem and goal framing process. What do we know
about the problems we are trying to overcome and the goals we are trying to achieve?
Whose viewpoints are we looking at it from? What is the boundary, how far are we
prepared to go to get a solution? What filters are we imposing? What aspects of the
situation are we interested in (economic, mental, spiritual, cultural, ecological,
environmental, political, marketing, PR, etc.) and what are we excluding? What
methods and practices will we accept and reject en route?

The framing of the problem can be dynamic and iterative, as it may be influenced by the
information that comes to light during analysis, or in the exploration of the
consequences of possible actions. Likewise, changes in the problem definition may
mean we need to adjust the scope and focus of the analysis.

Now we are into the problem-solving phase, winding the handle to generate a range of
options that will hopefully have the effect of getting us to our goals without creating any
more problems. The options are evaluated: what are their consequences, are they worth
the effort, do they change our understanding of the problem or the framing of our goals?

The answers may be intuitively obvious. If not, we may need to employ some
mathematical decision support tools to help us decide which of the model’s predictions
give the best solution.

Then we try the best solution(s) in the real world. Hopefully it works just as the model
predicted. Rejoice. If it doesn’t, be happy, because we have potentially got some useful
information to add to our model of reality.

The final problem is to decide when to stop. If we have worked hard but have not found
a satisfactory solution, then at some point it may be sensible to stop trying. Even if we
have found a satisfactory solution, we might find an even better one tomorrow or the
next day, if we keep trying. Deciding when to stop is not an easy judgement because it
is impossible to know how much effort it would take and how much better the improved
solution would be, if we were to find one.

Most of this activity takes place in our heads, with occasional experiments out there in
reality, to see if our predictions are accurate, and to test if our mental model is still an
accurate representation of reality. The balance between the mental and practical depends
on the nature of the problem. If you are a rocket scientist trying to get a space probe to
Mars, you do most of it in your head (with the aid of computer simulations). If you are a
sculptor trying to beat a piece of metal into an interesting shape you do most of it out
there in reality. There is a story that the Americans designed their space rocket motors
with a lot of expensive computer simulations and the Russians built theirs using a lot of
cheap trial and error, (build it, fly it, see what happens, learn). The Russian rocket
motors were much better, more efficient and cheaper to build. After the Soviet system
collapsed the Americans bought a job lot of surplus Russian rocket motors. I don’t know
if it’s true.

How Does This Dynamic Approach Contrast With The Usual Critical Thinking Models
taught in schools – if you are lucky.

Figure 4.16 A typical critical thinking model with isolated components.

This is a mind map style diagram that represents a fairly typical ‘Critical Thinking’ style
approach to thinking and problem solving. As you can see, it chops thinking into a
number of separate isolated skills. This particular map represents the ideas in a
document advising teachers to plan lessons that focus on the development of each
specific thinking skill, in isolation, such as ‘analysing’ or ‘information gathering’.

Figure 4.17 Connecting the isolated parts.

This amended version of the diagram seeks to demolish the idea of the separateness of
these skills, by identifying just some of the interconnectivity that is involved in real-
world problem solving. For example, in order to be able to analyse something into its
attributes and components, we must surely get involved in classifying, comparing,
ordering, and integration, before we can assemble the elements into a model that shows
the relationships and patterns. If I put all the obvious interconnections onto the diagram
it would become a blur.

Problems with Language

Some of our essential logical words (is, are, causes, all, some, etc.) are fundamentally
vague and commonly misunderstood.

For example:
Is (and Are)
There are problems over the exact meaning of ‘is’ and ‘are’. What do we mean when we
say, ‘this is a table’. A table (the physical object) is not exactly equal to its name ‘table’.

A thing is not its name, it is a collection of properties and relationships with the world.
If we say, ‘the table is green,’ we are only describing one of its properties, one small
aspect of its existence. If we say, ‘it is a coffee table,’ we are either describing one of its
properties, or its membership of a particular class of tables. So is does not usually mean
=, but the brain often assumes that is does mean =.

Is often becomes All

If you say, ‘X is Y’ – people very often assume that you meant that ALL Xs are Y.

Direction of Causation
We often jump to wrong assumptions about the direction of causation. This happens
when our neural networks interpret ‘X causes Y’ as ‘X and Y are associated’.
Association is a link that works in both directions, but causation only works in one
direction. So we jump to the assumption that ‘X causes Y’, also means, ‘Y causes X’.

This is much more likely to happen at the beginning of the learning curve, or in domains
where we have no personal experience of the relationship between X and Y. If you
know that sour apples cause stomach ache, you are not likely to jump to the assumption
that stomach ache causes sour apples, but if I said that the movement of masons causes
fluctuations in the strong nuclear force, you might well assume that variations in the
strong nuclear force can cause massons to move as well.
(N.B. I invented massons, as far as I know they do not exist.)

Extracts from Understanding Thinking