Two Ways with One Goal

Two Ways - One Goal

Over the past several months I've been digging deeply into the roots of Design Thinking in an effort to not only understand what it is, but how and why it works so well. Along the way I've explored many facets of its methods and tools, theories of thinking and learning, neuroscience and biology.

Both of the individuals depicted above are seeking knowledge. Both have a philosophy of their internal and external worlds. I have come to believe that the fundamental differences in their approaches lay along at least two axes related to time and distance that are the natural result of the way our brains work when we experience the stress associated with ambiguity and risk.

Fight - Flight

Human response to stress is considered in the context of both emotional and cognitive elements:

In the context of the fight - flight response, it is generated in parts of the brain at the beginning of the signal path to the cerebral cortex - which are also the parts of the brain associated with feeling.

The intensity of the emotional response influences the nature and intensity of the behavioral response. Individuals with higher levels of emotional reactivity may be prone to anxiety and aggression.

Cognitive elements include content specificity, perception of control and social information processing.

Perception of control relates to an individual's thoughts and feelings about their ability to influence situations and events. Perceived control is different than actual control because an individual's beliefs about their abilities may not reflect their actual abilities. Over or underestimation of perceived control can lead to anxiety and aggression.

The social information processing model proposes a variety of factors that determine behavior in the context of social situations and preexisting thoughts. The attribution of hostility, especially in ambiguous situations, seems to be one of the most important cognitive factors associated with the fight or flight response because of its implications regarding the perception of the presence of aggression.

The components of cognitions in the fight or flight response seem to be largely negative in the context of creativity. They include; over weighting the importance of negative stimuli, the perception of ambiguous situations as threatening and recalling previous failures. There also may be specific negative thoughts associated with past emotions.

Freeze - Fawn

There are two other possible responses to ambiguity which aren't discussed much; Freezing and Fawning. In the context of creativity and problem solving both are very useful once it has been determined the there is no immediate risk of actual harm.

The freeze response can be useful because it allows the opportunity to observe at a distance. This creates the opportunity for the rest of the brain to catch up with the primitive brain, move out of the immediate present and consider future possibilities.

Fawn is when we begin to embrace the ambiguity and explore the possibilities. This is where the real creative work begins. Questions are asked, experiments are conducted, alternatives are explored, results are evaluated and weighed and informed decision making can occur.

In the context of World Views (POV) where someone naturally falls on this continuum of Fight to Fawn has a huge impact on which problem solving tools they are comfortable with. What is somewhat peculiar about this is that both the Scientific/Rational and Religious/Faith paths have noteworthy limitations that can both bring the process to a grinding and immediate halt.

Consider the following process flow;

The Scientific Method

It's called the Scientific Method and represents the distillation of the best of "modern" problem solving. This is what kids are being taught in school today.

You can enter the cycle at any point. Design and Evaluate occur in the internal world of ideas and imagination. Create and Investigate occur in the external world of experience. Going thru the bigger cycle we simultaneously move back and forth between ideas (theory) and experience (practice), learning and applying what we've learned to refine the results.  At least, that's the theory.

As a practical matter, what actually occurs is often somewhat different, largely due to the fact that other people - and the effects of their ideas and feelings - are involved in the process too. The neurological dance that goes on in al our heads and the effect that has on behavior can lead to spectacular results, from disasterous to sublime.

Paris Under Siege

Which brings us back to the deeper, more fundamental question; Awash in a hormonal sea that influences our most fundamental thought processes, depending on how threatened we feel, and limited by the accuracy and precision of our measuring tools, both mental and physical, in what do we place our trust? Where can we turn to ease the anxiety and keep us open to the learning which must occur to resolve life's wickedest of problems; the ones that live at the intersection of living and inanimate objects?