Understanding Differences as a Sign of Intelligent and Scientific Thinking

The ability to understand differences between similar objects has always been a sign of intelligence. Science itself is based on the idea of investigating the differences and similarities of objects to create a full picture of a phenomenon. When done well, we can create hypotheses, models and theories that help to explain and predict our environment. Our adaptation and full development as a person is based on recognizing and appreciating differences.

Simplicity and definiteness make for great followers but hardly constitutes leadership. Intelligent people look deeper at issues to see if they can find differences or similarities that help them understand and create working models to use in other places. Persons who lack the will to put forward effort, or the faculty of intelligence, to understand complex ideas jump to quick conclusions.

The issue of categorization is a significant problem. Broad categories are simple and easy to use. Examples of simplicity include discrimination, racism, bigotry, etc. that cannot differentiate between members of a general category. They are not able to understand that sometimes the general category doesn’t represent anything but what is going on in the perceivers head.

Intelligent people rarely say, “All people are like this….” or “Those people all do this….). Then have the insight and intellectual faculty to see differences between people and events by looking beyond the obvious. They are not easily fooled into believing false information or opinion without some proof to back up the claims. They are societies intellectuals and thinkers.

Maslow and Rogers described the fully functioning person as extensional. Rogers wrote in his paper Towards a Theory of Creativity, “The creative person, instead of perceiving in predetermined categories is aware of the existential moment as it is, and therefore he is alive to many experiences that fall outside the usual categories (As cited in Hayakawa, 1958, pp. 62).”

In essence, intelligent people are more scientific in their thoughts and avoid putting items into quick heuristic categories. They think about differences, view the multiple ways in which a thing or event can be categorized, and then are open to the possibility they are wrong. Beliefs and rules are adjustable based upon new information.

Such people are aware that the world around them is not so simple, and they become accustomed to ambiguity and using their cognitive fluidity to adjust their understandings. As a fully developed individual, they can use science as an enhancement to discriminate among different elements in their environment while understanding that scientific findings are always in flux. What we believe today may be different than what we think tomorrow.

The next time you are SURE you know something…..consider re-evaluating the facts from a different perspective. Jumping to conclusions is almost never beneficial as simplicity of thought limits what we see in any particular situation.

Hayakawa, S. (1958) Symbol, Status and Personality. pp. 62 New York:HBJ

Scientific Learning Fosters Strategic Decision-Making Skills

Permission to Use D.S.

Socio-scientific answers are rarely specific enough to concrete. The complexity of making determinations in this field helps in highlighting which methods of strategic decision-making people are using. Research by Eggert & Bogeholz delves into the complex processes students use to make socio-scientific decisions based upon competing information and ambiguous direction (2010). Their results show that scientific thinking improves complexity of thought and strategy making.

The process of making decisions that border between scientific research and sociological concepts is difficult. In scientific research it is necessary to answer ambiguous and specific questions like the potential societal benefits of research or the exact measurements used in instrumentation. It is hard for people to make cognitive models that can handle such widely dispersed information effectively. 

Understanding science requires the ability to look at data, be open to new data, and understand its implications on people. It is a higher skill set that not everyone can develop and those who do have spend years learning. It uses analytical thinking, creativity, systematic approaches, and sociological perspectives all meshed together to come to conclusions. 

 Science can enhance skills in argumentation, decision-making, and problem-solving.  Strategy can be developed when people learn about trade-offs which is seen as the ability to weigh and balance certain factors. Where a loss occurs in one set of options there can be gain in another set of options. Most people are limited to only a few factors and simply cut off the rest. As intelligence and knowledge increases more factors can be incorporated into the systematic thinking process without having to automatically limit oneself to a few simple possibilities.

In science it is possible to make decisions on key pieces of data. Each one has their own weight of influence. To come to better conclusions a level of meta-reflection on the decision making process is necessary to ensure that thinking patterns are appropriate and not biasing the outcome. To do this well requires the integration of multiple pieces of information, seeing how they interact, determining trade-offs of different factors, and reflecting on the whole process. 

Complexity of thinking ranges from spontaneous thinking with no reflection to high levels of tradeoffs with meta-reflection. Intermediate thinkers use both cut offs and tradeoffs with some level of reflection on the thinking process. The highest level scientific thinkers use tradeoffs with relative weighting to think through possibilities.  The far majority of people use cut-offs because it is easier to work with limited data.

The researchers Eggert & Bogeholz used the Rasch partial credit model to determine the competencies German science students were using to make decisions. A total of 436 students were engaged within the study and assessed based upon their decision-making skills. Their work helps highlight that even with a scientific education the skill can be increased but is not developed by everyone. 

The results showed that science education raised non-compensatory decision-making strategies to mixed strategies and then to tradeoff strategies as people developed. Participants had difficulty weighing many different criteria to make appropriate decisions. Meta-reflection changed thinking from a content specific analysis to a strategic analysis that is based on an analysis of multiple options. 

The majority of participants used the cut off method that focused on looking at a single or few aspects of the overall problem. They had difficulty weighing and balancing a greater amount of information, points, and criteria to get a more concrete picture. Yet as a person’s education rises from six to twelve years their ability to manage more pieces of information grew tremendously. 

The cognitive structure and complexity of thought are important aspects of making decisions and developing a strategy. It is a skill that increases as one spends more time in school or learning about science. Generally, the more one is capable of balancing multiple pieces of information the more able they are to build progressive strategies that achieve goals. Seeing information through varying possibilities and weighing and balancing the likelihood of each outcome is a higher order skill. Quickly discarding options without thorough analysis limits how well one can respond to environmental challenges. The report helps to show how leaders decision-making ability can be enhanced by focusing on evidence based strategic management and then reflecting on those decisions to ensure they are accurate. 

Effert, S. & Bogeholz, S. (2010). Student’s use of decision-making strategies with regard to socioscientific issues: an application of Rasch partial credit model. Science Education, 94 (2)