‘Boxes’, Timeliness & Thinking Styles

I guess, that this is about what ‘box’ you choose to define the limits of your thinking and that, though this choice limits your experiencing, it is yet limited by your experiencing and that this preserves the integrity of ‘your box’.

To declare my bias, my experiencing is comprised of skirmishes with chemistry, technical sales, electronic circuit design, running small companies, property development, personal therapy/coaching and ‘learning to learn’ techniques.   So I’m, very much, ‘a Jack’ rather than ‘the master’ but the various ‘trades’ have changed the nature of ‘my box’.   I hope that in engaging with this project, your feedback challenges and further changes my box.

My feeling is that, in today’s changing environment, there is a growing tendency to have, tighter and more detail ‘boxes’ and that, often, are ever shorter lived.

When I was at school, seventy-odd years ago we learnt maths, starting with arithmetic and only later, progressing to geometry and then algebra.   It was years, before the three became integrated, into a single ‘box’ (along with yet other elements, again, taught in isolation).

However, this site is (supposed to be) about ‘fundamentals’ and the foregoing, though it, hopefully, illustrates deviating from them, is surface detail !

In an attempt to start at the beginning, I am taking inspiration from (a slight misrepresentation of) the ‘Johari Window’

From a global perspective, although we experience system of constantly expanding knowledge.   At any instant, the total of global knowledge exists in sector 1.   Though, respecting history, there would likely be wide acceptance of the existence of sector 4 and that there are things yet to be known of.

Differing societies/cultures, though contributing to the global total, will have a similar profile though with greater confidence, that sector 4 exists and that by enquiring of other cultures (with suspicions of specific solutions being in sector 3) they may each be able to add value to ‘their’ sector 1.

An extreme personal perspective (such as of ‘The Ultimate ‘Expert’ in my earlier article, (who lives in a hypothetically unchanging world) would attempt to mirror that of their society.

This would be aided by dividing knowledge into ‘disciplines’.   The sum resulting from the assembly of such, disciplines – ‘expertise’ would/should equal that of the societal perspective.

The perspective of such a, hypothetical, ‘extreme expert’ would, though embarrassed, be aware of sector 3 but probably (attempt to) avoid recognition of a zone of ‘non- consciousness’.   Sector 4 would be of no interest.   Ideally, knowledge outside of one’s specific discipline would also be of no interest.   In order to cope with life, one would merely need awareness of the existence of other disciplines and how to make contact with relevant ‘experts’.

In order to represent this, we would need a composite of separate layers of Johari windows, one for each expertise.   This should mirror the profile of that society.

For all these perspectives, the equal and symmetrical representation of the four sectors is clearly inadequate.   For more realistic presentation and though its content would vary widely between ‘expert’ (and to a lesser degree ‘cultural’) perspectives, sector 1 should predominate as below.

More ‘reasonable’ personal perspectives:

• I guess that many could agree that “the more we learn the more we realise there is more to learn”.    Thus sector 3, likely, seems larger than sector 1.   From my personal perspective, as I presume not to be aware of most knowledge in use, I thus categorise this as being in sector 3
• Also, experiencing ideas coming to us which we were, previously, unable to recover from memory, demonstrates that we have learnings in sector 2 and further that we can maybe learn subliminally?
• A glance at history perhaps suggests that all previous advances have come from sector 4, which has, in the past, always predominated.    Is that not still so?
• Could sector 1 be the smallest?
• We each have an individual bias of interests and could probably present variations of our basic perspectives.
• In order to define the four sectors, each has boundaries, which enclose them as ‘boxes’.
• The boundaries to sector 4 seem fairly firm
• Those between sector1 and sectors 2 and 3 may be less impermeable
• ‘The Window’ itself is contained by a boundary which encloses the whole, again as a ‘box’.
• Societies, in attempting to distribute knowledge by ‘teaching, commonly create separate ‘disciplines’.   For each of which could be an individual ‘Johari window’.
• If ‘thinking’ is the manipulation of knowledge, which ‘box’ (of numerous) do you choose to contain your thinking?
• Social compliance encourages a choice of one sector (?), though maybe, permitting some ‘fuzziness’ of its boundaries.
• This modelling is too complex, as it requires a stack of planar representations – most of which are redundant to any specific case, though none can be ignored without compromising rigour.
• Planar representation is inadequate, since a layered stack of nearly nine billion personal Johari windows would need to be aggregated.
• Would it help to attempt a 3D modelling?   Could that be simpler?

The Next Step?

Having ‘squeezed as much as I can from misrepresenting ‘Johari’:

How about having sectors 1,2 and 3, as interconnected solid spheres ‘floating in a ‘sea’ of sector 4? 

• Please note that in this planar representation of a solid model where the three interlocked spheres float in the sea of ‘sector 4’, the boundary drawn around it, is merely for convenience, for to place any such boundary implies the denial of the potential for knowledge beyond it. Also, that the other three sectors are drawn of equal size, purely for convenience.
• Where there is interaction between the first three, their boundaries could be considered ‘fuzzy’, though their boundaries with sector 4 surrounding them could not be presumed to be so, save for the exceptional transfer from sector 4 to an individual‘s sector 1.
• The system assumes the first three sectors to be dynamic, allowing for changes of priority and orientation.
• So, information can flow in either direction between sector 1 and 2 or 3 but only in one direction from sector 4 to a particular individual’s sector 1.
• Though this, planar representation may permit a more flexible analysis and representation of the distribution of knowledge, I cannot see how, practically, it can be used to exploit potential..

A Change of Direction?

*The better part of thirty years ago, I presented an MA course module at Exeter University.    This was in response to a, perceived, need for an “out of the box” course – It wasn’t, of course – just in a different ‘box’.

My prerequisite for running the course, was that participants should self-assess, against personal terms of reference that they should individually substantiate.

I, and two mentors, could see no problem with the proposal but participants (and the University, when they realised it) had difficulty.

Stan Lester suggested the following matrix, which proved helpful in solving the problem.

In this model, rather than putting ‘knowledge’ in boxes (as Johari) the boxes here are for the categorising and strategic handling of ‘knowledge’ or ‘thinking styles’.

This matrix developed over a year or so and provided a means of communication and resolution to the problem of categorising and evaluating knowledge in context:

It allows for alternative perspectives to be taken.

• An ‘academic’ mindset enters at the top left corner.
• The point of entry for practical survival, as it requires justification of purpose, is diametrically opposed.

1996 Version

These were different times.   Mobile phones were novel and one of the first ‘smart’ versions failed to sell (Who wants a camera on their phone?).   Internet and e-mailing were by dial-up and artificial intelligence was not talked of.

Returning to this interest after a twenty-odd year sabbatical, I present this matrix differently by removing apologetic aspects of legending and inverting the orientation.

Before looking at the revised matrix, I invite you to consider the effect of currently available Artificial Intelligence services and which ‘boxes’, both within the matrix and (distorted) Johari representation might be serviced by them – even at this, its early stage of development.

2024 Version

While it may encourage individuals to provide solutions, a society can only pass judgement on the effectiveness of those solutions.   Such judgements are referenced to and constrained by, existing, ‘benchmark’ standards.

For an individual to provide an effective solution, they must select a purpose, with best alignment to the  current needs of their society.

In order to make such response they must:

• Prioritise the best purpose they can divine that is relevant to a societal need (be ‘timely’).
• Devise/select a strategy best suited to furthering that purpose.
• Obtain knowledge adequate to delivery.
• Execution of the process is iterative.
• If they succeed, they have maximised the employment of their ‘wisdom’
• Once they have adequate success or their iterative process suggests abandonment, they need to return to prioritising the next stage of their purpose.

This is probably the point at which I should ‘summarise’ or ‘conclude’ but logically, I have a dilemma (I love dilemmas!).

Both options are essentially putting things in ‘boxes’ – ‘answers’.   They (can) arrest further questioning.   Conventional, ‘exclusive’ thinking demands ‘boxes’.

I am reminded that ‘boxes’, are solid structures with ‘boundaries’ and that it is much easier to place a ‘boundary’, than to remove one.

I’m not a ‘box’ enthusiast!

But – if I am to try to guide and be guided by my purpose:

• It has to remain fit.
• And
• I have to be aware when its time is up.
• Or
• I am doing the ‘unnecessary’ – and not ‘concentrating’.
• Being too ‘curious’.
• Without.
• Adding value to my ‘belief’ system
• Or ‘in summary’(?)
• Not being ‘Timely’

I have a terrible memory and some way of aggregating and associating ideas is appealing  –  but ‘boxes’?

What about a more fragile – flexible even, aggregator – a delicate bag?

A Review?

In a ‘Stable/unchanging’ environment ‘pockets’ of adequate knowledge, assigned to appropriate individuals can suffice to maintain the system.   As the system develops and grows, the scope and detail of knowledge increases and more ‘pockets are required and more specific specialisations tend to develop.

However, change also renders some specialisations redundant and as the rate of change increases, some ‘product lives’ shorten.

Trends for  detailed (and short-lived) ‘pockets’ of knowledge arise.

Potentially, this leads to such ‘pockets’ remaining ‘timely’ for ever shorter periods.

Recently, a driver of such change has been information technology.

However latest IT developments vastly enable the dissemination and availability of detail.

Is now a time for review, if not change of strategies?

Traditionally our approach has been constrained by ‘responsibility’, defined by ‘competence’ to comply with externally referenced conventional wisdom and a requirement to think ‘exclusively’ guided by those established and sometimes competing, external frames of reference.

I suggest that there is now, an emerging opportunity to develop a personal ‘response-ability’, guided by ‘fitness of purpose’ and directed by personal ‘wisdom’.   This requires, internally referenced, thinking to be as ‘inclusive’ as possible (including awareness of and respect for prevailing conventions) and for ‘ownership’ to be maximised.

It follows form this, that risk is fully owned.

In Summary

I guess my objective was to address our relationship with ‘knowledge’ and how strategy might change with time and circumstances so that it could maximise ‘timeliness’.

In order to do that I was inspired by the ‘Johari’ idea to attempt to profile the nature of the ownership of knowledge, without which I could not further my purpose.

To the point that it added to my comprehension of that profile, it remained ‘fit for’ a ‘fit’ purpose’.

As my use of this tool led to a point where the overview became complex, I proposed a three-dimensional approach.

This was, maybe, slightly less inelegant but added little value to that branch of the project.   Nether tool seemed ‘fit’ for the purpose beyond this point, since I could not see how I could apply them to any development of strategy.

Stan Lester’s model had been useful to me in the past.   I had seen its effectiveness in earlier years, when it was perhaps ahead of its time in the environment in which we used it.

Those were different times and it seemed relevant (fit ‘for’ and ‘of’ purpose) to outline differences between then and 2024.

A simplified and restructured version of Stan’s matrix seemed more appropriate and ‘fit for’ today’s purpose.

In Conclusion.

Charting a path through the complexities of knowledge, it may become evident that traditional societal frameworks, while offering a semblance of order, may restrict our engagement with its full spectrum.   Though this conventional adherence may simplify our understanding, it can do so at the expense of limiting our, access to and interaction with, a reservoir of accessible, detailed information, now (by virtue of modern technology) readily available at our fingertips.

However, adopting a personal and more intuitive approach to knowledge involves more than embracing freedom; it requires a fundamental shift in perspective.   A shift that moves us from being tethered to minute details and towards building a more robust foundation based upon a core, fundamental understanding of its determining, essentials.

Such a base, supports and empowers the process.   Though it requires us to accept the risks of innovation, it can, sometimes, uncover opportunities, otherwise veiled by conventional paths.

For me, this method is not merely liberating – it’s exhilarating.   Though it compels me to be hypercritical of risk it can reveal opportunity, otherwise hidden.   I have been able to engage with such opportunities with greater confidence and satisfaction than if I had followed conventionally prescribed paths.

By shifting our starting point from detailed prescriptions and towards fundamental principles, we may gain the freedom to forge impactful paths that, whilst respecting traditional frameworks, challenge and transcend them. This approach isn’t about persuading others to adopt our perspective but rather sharing a vision where the excitement and liberation of knowledge comes from an enhanced abd improving understanding of its core. This strategic pivot enhances our ability to not only navigate but maybe reshape the world around us.

Could this approach to knowledge become a tool for personal and societal development?

Please bear in mind, that this piece is essentially, ‘kite flying’ and essentially exploratory.

Though it may, hopefully, be an encouragement to contemplate potential opportunities that are offered in times of change, such times present a spectrum from extreme stability to novelty.   It is certainly bot intended as provocation to leap to a new sureality!

Such opportunity, requires and encourages, variety and personal flexibility of approach.

Though some conventions may becoming redundant, may encourage alternative contemplation, one must accept ownership of one’s divergences and the risks associated with questioning accepted external frames of reference.

Such strategy demands increased inclusivity of thinking style and greater disciplinary rigor than when following conventions.

Though it offers opportunity, it is not an invitation to extemporize without caution !

Strategies for such exploitation may differ from established practices but in many cases, those established practices, however inelegant, are the accepted norms.

It is, perhaps wise to include respect for that reality before innovating?

Again, these are merely my musings, presenting a model that I acknowledge as flawed.

While I find it useful, it falls short in addressing many of my predicaments.

Your criticism and comment are essential to furthering direction and development.