Induce the Past, Deduce the Future (continued)

Inductive (Analysis) Pattern:


Deductive (Design) Pattern:


This assumes a top left, row by row, to bottom right path. As you can see, induction (analysis) instead of being relegated to a single phase is a methodology in its own right.  Also it should be recognized that Induction is a bottom up process, while Deduction is top down.


Induce the Past, Deduce the Future

The title of this post is a variation on a motto of Edward de Bono: “Analyze the Past, Design the Future.” In my work so far on Structured Thinking Language (STL), I have been focusing on the design side of the Equation. This has given us the graphic I have been using regularly:


However, while working on hexad reasoning, I produced the following table based on James Moffett’s Universe of Discourse:


If we follow this table from top left row by row to bottom right we are performing analysis of a system. We are reversing the Six Hats, Six Coats design pattern. In this way we can Induce the Past and Deduce the Future using the Structured Thinking Language.

Analytical Verbs:

  1. ATTEND: Accept Scheduling
  2. EMBODY: Follow Affordances
  3. RECORD: Expand Physics
  4. REPORT: Amplify Logic
  5. INDUCE: Generalize
  6. REVISE: Adapt Meaning

Design Verbs:

  1. DEVISE: Adopt Meaning
  2. DEDUCE: Specialize
  3. REFINE: Condense Logic
  4. REDUCE: Contract Physics
  5. INTUIT: Direct Affordances
  6. ENGAGE: Manage Scheduling

I will keep tinkering with the verbs until I am fully satisfied with them.



Since I created the Six Hats, Six Coats metaphor I have made several modifications to the language used. It has lead me to come up with what I call the Structured Thinking Language (STL). I am working on the syntax and will discuss this in later posts. The one term I want to draw attention to in this post is in the left column, the new verb “INTUIT”.

I have chosen the verb “INTUIT” first, because of Edward de Bono’s inspiring six thinking hats, second because I do not like the verb “develop”. To intuit is in part to provide the materials and know how to build the system based on the result of the REDUCE statement. The other part is consideration of the origins, physical and cultural development, biological characteristics, social customs and beliefs of the users to create affordances. The use of the term “affordance” is much broader than and includes Donald A. Norman’s usage in The Design of Everyday Things. In STL an “affordance” is synonymous to the Zachman Framework’s “focus”. A complete system is composed of motivational, spatial, formal, functional, personal and temporal affordances which are complete intuitively designed subsystems including the appropriate intuitive cues. I want to use a word that implies not only developing, but developing with the REDUCE result and the intuition of persons who interact with the system as primary considerations.