Thinking and reflection
Thinking makes it possible to understand what is happening, form explanations, find solutions and picture possibilities. Yet every way of thinking has assumptions, habitual categories and areas of applicability. These can be investigated and revised.
In ∆, metaintelligence is used as a general name for the capacity to notice, evaluate and transform one's own ways of thinking. The term implies no single mandatory model, hidden levels or final classification of abilities.
Content and way of thinking
When discussing a problem, one can investigate not only the answer but also how the question is posed. Why did we consider certain options available? What information was left out? What picture of causality are we assuming? Which categories are we using without checking them?
Such work can reveal the limits of an explanation, but it does not guarantee freedom from error. Observing one's thinking itself rests on habits and may need criticism.
Reflection
Reflection means turning attention to one's own actions, reasoning, motives and grounds in order to understand them better. It can happen alone or in conversation with others.
It helps to distinguish:
- describing what a person thinks;
- investigating the causes and conditions under which a thought arose;
- checking arguments and evidence;
- evaluating the consequences of a belief;
- changing the way a question is posed.
These actions can be combined, but they need not follow one another.
Critical and systemic examination
Critical thinking involves checking grounds and being ready to change conclusions when better arguments appear. An analytical approach helps divide a complex task into parts. Systemic examination makes it possible to see relations and consequences that are lost in isolated analysis.
No single way is universal. Sometimes a detail needs refining; sometimes it is more useful to revise the overall frame. The choice depends on the task.
Deconstruction and reconstruction
Taking an idea apart into its assumptions is useful when it seems self-evident. After criticism a separate task arises: what to do with the conclusions reached? One can keep the previous model in a refined form, replace it, combine several approaches or admit a lack of knowledge.
Deconstruction without further investigation can turn into a habit of rejecting any grounds. That is why ∆ also values careful construction and testing of new explanations.
Working with uncertainty
Some questions do not yet have a convincing answer. Admitting this means marking the limits of knowledge correctly. Confidence is best matched to the quality of the evidence. Disagreement is useful when participants can distinguish fact, interpretation, assumption and value judgement.
Discussion practice
When examining a contested claim, one can ask: what does it mean; what data is it based on; what alternative explanations exist; what would change our assessment; what practical consequences do different conclusions have?
These questions apply to the positions of ∆ as well. The name of the direction does not make its theses better grounded.
Related topics: methodology, principles, terms.