Induction, Deduction and Eight States of Change

Elizabeth Kübler-Ross

For many years, people with terminal illnesses were an embarrassment for doctors. Someone who could not be cured was evidence of the doctors’ fallibility, and as a result the doctors regularly shunned the dying with the excuse that there was nothing more that could be done (and that there was plenty of other demand on the doctors’ time).

Elizabeth Kübler-Ross was a doctor in Switzerland who railed against this unkindness and spent a lot of time with dying people, both comforting and studying them. She wrote a book, called ‘On Death and Dying’ which included a cycle of emotional states that is often referred to (but not exclusively called) the Grief Cycle.

In the ensuing years, it was noticed that this emotional cycle was not exclusive just to the terminally ill, but also other people who were affected by bad news, such as losing their jobs or otherwise being negatively affected by change. The important factor is not that the change is good or bad, but that they perceive it as a significantly negative event.

The Grief Cycle

The Grief Cycle can be shown as in the chart below, indicating the roller-coaster ride of activity and passivity as the person wriggles and turns in their desperate efforts to avoid the change.

The initial state before the cycle is received is stable, at least in terms of the subsequent reaction on hearing the bad news. Compared with the ups and downs to come, even if there is some variation, this is indeed a stable state.

And then, into the calm of this relative paradise, a bombshell bursts…

The Induction/Deduction Change Cycle

I think that the grieving processs is considerably more universal than it first appears.  The grieving process is in reality the way we deal with any change psychologically, social-psychologically or sociologically on a micro, meso or macro scale.  And depending on the scale, the seven stages can occur over minutes, over years, even centuries.

In the list I have below I compare the resistance or friction to change with the action of change:

  • Occurrence – Recept State – Singularity – Exception occurs – Contacts
  • Shock or Disbelief – Cord State- Attempt to maintain current schedule (events) – Factums
  • Denial – Port State- Attempt to maintain current tools (location) – Factories
  • Anger – Record State – Attempt to maintain current domains (products) Factities
  • Bargaining – Report State – Attempt to maintain current attributions (services) – Factors
  • Depression – Accord State – Attempt to maintain current organization (contacts) – Factotums
  • Testing – Apport State – Attempt to maintain current motives (goals) – Factuals
  • Hope – Accept State – Pluralarity – Attempt to maintain existence (reality) – Facts

As you can see the fit with the Systema model is quite good and my “Fact” vocabulary fits well, too.  The process is inductive, you can call it the death cycle.  It works its way through the system structure, be it a person, group or hierarchy.  It also reveals something else, how each level of the organism will react.  Followed by induction, the tearing down of a belief system, we deal with deduction, which is building up a new belief system, the deductive lifecycle.

inducededuce.jpg

At the midpoints of the cycle exist singularities or infinity points.  At the top and bottom of the cycle exist pluralarities or zero points.

The OODA Loop

Colonel John Boyd, understood how to use induction and deduction against the enemy.  He knew that if you could disrupt the timing of your opponent you could disrupt everything else.  If your opponent lost his timing he would be in the wrong location with the wrong product for providing the wrong service to the wrong contact with the wrong goal.  Accelerate your cycle’s timing and your opponent is overwhelmed.

Incompetence

Norman Dixon, in his book, On the Psychology of Military Incompetence, provides a broad range of definitions of military incompetence, however Elizabeth Kübler-Ross boils it down to two phenomna with regard to change:

Getting Stuck

A common problem with the above cycle is that people get stuck in one phase. Thus a person may become stuck in denial, never moving on from the position of not accepting the inevitable future. When it happens, they still keep on denying it, such as the person who has lost their job still going into the city only to sit on a park bench all day.

Getting stuck in denial is common in ‘cool’ cultures (such as in Britain, particularly Southern England) where expressing anger is not acceptable. The person may feel that anger, but may then repress it, bottling it up inside.

Likewise, a person may be stuck in permanent anger (which is itself a form of flight from reality) or repeated bargaining. It is more difficult to get stuck in active states than in passivity, and getting stuck in depression is perhaps a more common ailment.

Going in Circles

Another trap is that when a person moves on to the next phase, they have not completed an earlier phase and so move backwards in cyclic loops that repeat previous emotion and actions. Thus, for example, a person that finds bargaining not to be working, may go back into anger or denial.

Circling is itself a form of avoidance of the inevitable, and going backwards in time may seem to be a way of extending the time before the perceived bad thing happens.

Related Posts:

Advertisements

STL: Structured Thinking Language (remix)

It’s been a short time coming, but I have hammered out another iteration of the vocabulary for the Structured Thinking Language (STL).

stl03.jpg

REVISE: Conceptualize. Expand Meaning. What are you enhancing or making right? Creativity.

RELATE: Contextualize. Focus on Uniqueness. What is your mantra? Relativity.

REPORT: Logicalize. Maximize Value. What are you normalizing to the limit? Optimicity.

RECORD: Physicalize. Minimize Cost. What is your business model? Pessimicity.

REFINE: Personalize. Humanize Interaction. How do you lower the barriers to adoption? Anthropicity.

REPEAT: Synchronize. Increase Availability. How do you make yourself convenient? Synchronicity.

MOTIVE: Why? Concepts affected.

LOCALE: Where? Contexts affected.

OBJECT: What? Logics affected.

METHOD: How? Physics affected.

PERSON: Who? Humans affected.

MOMENT: When? Synchrons affected.

From here on in there are only six verbs, irregardless of whether you are Inducting (Analyzing) or Deducting (Designing) or (something new) Producting (Developing) or Conducting (Operating). It is the order in which you are performing the verbs which is important.

lifecycle.jpg

I love this. I’m going to invent more words than Shakespeare.

stl structured thinking language remix stl structured thinking language remix stl structured thinking language remix

Induce the Past, Deduce the Future (continued)

Inductive (Analysis) Pattern:

stlinduction.jpg

Deductive (Design) Pattern:

stldeduction.jpg

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:

stl02.jpg

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

moffetthexad02.jpg

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.

STL: The INTUIT Verb

stl02.jpg

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.