1. Isn't all thinking pretty much the same?
Psychologists have many ways of looking at how we think. One way is too look at the response that the thinking generates. A response can be fixed, for instance, where it's a repeatable reaction to a known situation. A response can fluid, where it's a one-time response to a unique situation. Sometimes a fixed response is thought of as a conserving response because it conserves or keeps the situation much as it's always been, while a fluid response is thought of as a transformative response because it transforms or changes the situation by coming up with something new.
Of course, there exists a certain way of thinking that produces each response. Fixed responses require thinking that is more convergent, more directive, and more conscious. Convergent in the sense that we move towards a pattern that's worked before, directive in that we have a clear goal, and conscious in that we are aware of what we are doing. On the other hand, fluid responses require thinking that is more divergent, more associative, and more unconscious. Divergent in the sense that we are searching amongst many possible patterns, associative in that we follow a thread instead of a goal, and unconscious in that we are largely unaware of what we are doing. Essentially, the fixed thinker selects from choices that are deep, they're very similar, and comes up with a choice that is right. The fluid thinker selects from choices that are broad, they're more dissimilar, and comes up with a choice that is appropriate.
2. Why is it necessary to be a fluid thinker as well as a fixed thinker?
Think about the large number of responses you exhibit each day. By far the greater number are fixed responses -- you have coffee, talk to your boss, and go about your work tasks, all pretty much the same way everyday. But there are a certain number of responses that may be entirely new -- a new person come into the office, someone from a culture and field completely different than yours, and you have to work with that person. In that case, you have to come up with a response that you've never enacted before. There is nothing in your mind that matches, so you have to look at ideas that are farther afield -- say a trip to Italy, a conversation with your teenage son, a golf outing with strangers. From these thoughts and others you develop some combination that marks a new response that hopefully fits the situation.
What would our day be like if it were all fixed responses? Safe and predictable, yes, but at some point a little boring. And if it were all fluid responses? Adventurous and unpredictable, to be sure, but hectic and exhausting too. Clearly we're designed to exhibit both fixed and fluid responses, but with a preponderance towards the fixed. Having a set of fixed responses allows us to handle the world in ways that give us a sense of control and stability. But we are also creatures that either through internal dispositions -- we crave novelty -- or through external circumstances -- new situations are thrust upon us -- we must also be ready to become fluid thinkers who can come up with new, useful responses. Some novelty we can seek, some we just have to deal with.
3. Aren't my best actions really my most disciplined and well thought out ones?
We all live in groups, and all groups are defined by a culture. We live in a culture that sees the fixed response as the best response -- it's scientific, rational, enlightened. By contrast, our culture sees the fluid response as second fiddle -- it comes either from the "artsy" crowd or, what's worse, the Freudian underworld of the deep and the dark. Our culture shapes us, giving us a subtle but definitive push to favor the fixed over the fluid.
These arguments have been rebutted: science does not solve everything; the unconscious is neither dark nor sunny, it just is; and being creative is not just the province of artist and certainly has nothing to do with the New Agers. But we can look at this from a more practical level. How often does the scientific approach help you with a rebellious teenager, a dying parent, or a group of competing co-workers? Clearly in these situations you must come up with non-scientific responses that are new and unique to the situation. And in the end these responses may be every bit as "enlightened" as the more deliberative ones.
4. How does all this square with what we know of the brain?
We tend to think of the brain as a unit, with a processor, much like a computer, that allows us to sort through information. It's not at all like that. Rather, it's a group of units, all with discrete functions, that are somehow tied together in a way that works. What the pieces do are wildly different; we don't think of them in that way because what they produce, a conscious sense of things, appears as one piece. We look out the widow and see the cars going by -- the scene seems pretty clear. But we actually see more than just the cars, and we hear things too, and we also hold up our head in a certain way, and we sit on the chair in a certain way too. Most of this we are unaware of: how we're sitting, how we hold our heads up, the sounds of the kids playing, the people in the scene walking a on its; edges, our uncomfortableness that later manifests itself in a need to take a walk because we've been cooped up inside too long.
What does all this mean for us? Well, since our brain is not one unit but a number of parts, it stands to reason that some of us have better parts than others. Or at least a combination of parts that may be better or more unique than others. Jonathan Haidt calls this the "cortical lottery" -- it's what we get at birth. Secondly, we've had a set of experiences in life that has allowed us to activate and cultivate our cortical combination in ways that have allowed us to develop in our own special way. Together these forces have allowed us to develop a fixed and fluid way of thinking that is unique to us. Chance are good, based on the culture we live in, we've spent more money cultivating the fixed than the fluid.
5. Can I learn to be a fluid thinker in the same way I learned to be a fixed thinker?
Since we use different parts of our brain to do different things, it follows that we train and operate those parts differently. After all, they do different things -- langauging, drawing, numbering, for instance. But more so, there's a profound difference between the provinces of conscious learning and non conscious learning. How can we learn something, for instance, that we're unaware of. A fundamental problem. So the logical learning looks like this: we gather information, we analyze the information, and we put it into a compartment, neatly besides what's already there in a kind of additive capacity.
Our non conscious thinking, however, goes something like this: we get a sense of things and that orients us, we experience something based on the orientation, and we then integrate that information into what we already know. But in this case, it may not be such a nice fit. It may depend on the nuances of the situation; we may make it contingent on many factors; and we may have to make a lot of room to make it fit. All this occurs, mostly, in ways that we are unawares of -- it's on our fringes. That's where the complexity lies, and that's where the creativity lies.