Six Hats, Six Coats: The Structured Thinking System

Thought I would take a moment to briefly review how far we have come.

First, we looked at a variety of tetrads.

Here is James Moffett’s Universe of Discourse:

We concluded that human systems are hexads and we arrived at the Six Hat, Six Coat Framework:

Next, we will look at the Entities, Relationships, Attributes and Constraints within the framework.

Defining the Six Hat, Six Coat Entities has been very much like defining a periodic table. I have had to suspend my own biases many times to align myself with the concepts the Cartesian product were revealing to me.

I have stated that the relationships between entities are one to many left to right and one to many top to bottom. John Zachman believes the structure is like a table with movable columns. I do not. I believe the framework and the entities are fixed in a hierarchy implicitly. However, explicit relationships can exist contrary to this fundamental structure.

We have also explored the attributes for each of the entities and their constraints/freedoms. I provided an alternate set of names: Morality (cause), Compatibility (observer), Reliability (energy), Fidelity (matter), Accessibility (space)  and Availability (time).

I will be coming back to the Structured Thinking Language and experiment further.

Related Posts:

Systema: Seven Hats, Seven Links

Advertisements

Stephen Pinker: The Stuff of Thought

stephen_pinker.jpg

I find this video from TED.com of Stephen Pinker to be an interesting discussion as I battle to find the most suitable terms for forming the Structured Thinking Language and Structured Thinking System.

Structured Thinking System: Attributes R0.2

I was thinking about what values the entity attributes could be assigned based on my earlier post and I thought I would provide a portrayal of the six values in a different visual context. Each attribute value can be portrayed as a ratio and the goal in each case (and not necessarily intuitively) is to be “high and to the right”.

six-matrices-01.jpg

Structured Thinking System: Entities R0.2

bob_dobbs.jpg

Just when I thought I was in a comfort zone I had an interesting discussion with Bob Dobbs, former archivist for Marshall McLuhan. Bob challenged some of my perspectives and in responding it became apparent to me that I could still abstract the Structured Thinking Framework further.

Here is the Hats and Coats Framework:

sts-framework.jpg

  1. REVISE: Create. Conceptualize. Capability.
  2. RELATE: Associate. Contextualize. Portability.
  3. REPORT: Attribute. Logicalize. Reliability.
  4. RECORD: Constrain. Physicalize. Profitability.
  5. REPOSE: Entrust. Localize. Accessibility.
  6. REFER: Coincide. Synchronize. Availability.
  1. CAUSE: Motive. Conscience. Moral Law.
  2. OBSERVER: Person. Governance. Command.
  3. ENERGY: Method. Profession. Discipline.
  4. MATTER: Object. Education. Training.
  5. SPACE: Locale. Residence. Terrain.
  6. TIME: Moment. Existence. Climate.

And here is the new release of the Structured Thinking System entities:

sts-entities-02.jpg

I like this because it drops all references to computer systems and object oriented languages. The system is considerably more generic.

Fundamental Freedoms

I’ve been working on understanding where the attributes and constraints are taking me and I today was thinking about motives.

Reality: Freedom of Conscience. Congregation. Conviction. Religion.
Unity: Freedom of Government. Assembly. Election. Candidacy. Vote.
Quality: Freedom of Profession. Incorporation. Commerce. Production. Trade. Service.
Quantity: Freedom of Education. Association. Communication. Speech. Information. Media.
Safety: Freedom of Residence. Family. Posession. Property. Privacy. Mobility.
Remedy: Freedom of Existence. Life. Liberty. Pursuit of Happiness.

For every state a Structured Thinking System entity has, one of these six motives in effect.

Structured Thinking System: Attributes and Constraints

A wise man will make more opportunities than he finds.
Sir Francis Bacon

One of my regular readers has asked me to put Lao-Tzu aside and tighten up my language. Since he is a Director of Emergency Management for a metropolitian area, I can understand his requirement for clarity and brevity. So I will put away my gong and see what I can do regarding what he says. He also asked me if I intend to use this concept and I want to make it clear that I will be the first to use it and I will use it until it works smoothly before putting anyone else at risk.

Another question that has come up is my continual tinkering with the terminology. I am doing so because the semantics are crucial to understanding this concept. I have found so far that wrestling with the terms reveals new layers of the concept I hadn’t seen before. For example, I have to distinguish between induction and deduction using a consistent terminology. This is not always obvious at first and requires several interations of refinement. I also wish to create a set of terms that are easy to remember. For example, I have been attempting to find a six letter word that starts with “RE” and means “trust”. Quite accidentally I came upon the term “REPOSE” and will be incorporating it into the vocabulary.

Anyone who has been following the full thread of this blog has probably discovered one of the underlying conclusions I have reached regarding the variety of Hexads I have created and explored. That conclusion is that the Six Hats, Six Coats Framework is a Cartesian Square. I also believe that the Structured Thinking System Entities are a Cartesian square. And now I am faced with the challenge of using the verb REPORT to create the attributes for the thirty-six Structured Thinking System entities.

Here is the latest version of the Structured Thinking System Entities:

sts-entities-01.jpg

I have already concluded the REPORT verb works with only six attributes:

  1. Motive
  2. Person
  3. Method
  4. Object
  5. Locale
  6. Moment

The RECORD verb is constrained to only six values per attribute:

  1. Motive: Reality, Unity, Quality, Quantity, Safety, Remedy
  2. Person: Creator, Leader, Master, Novice, Guide, Contact
  3. Method: Revise, Relate, Report, Record, Repose, Replace
  4. Object: Motive, Person, Method, Object, Locale, Moment
  5. Locale: Universal, Global, Official, Collegial, Habitual, Physical
  6. Moment: Year, Month, Day, Hour, Minute, Second

One of each of these attribute values are captured by the RECORD verb to define a Structured Thinking System entity’s state. The Structured Thinking System relationships define which of the states can be assigned according to the hierarchy.

Related Posts:

Systema: Seven Hats, Seven Links

Structured Thinking System: Relationships

In the last post, Structured Thinking System: Entities, I laid out the the thirty-six fundamental entities of the Structured Thinking System. In this post I will discuss the relationships between these entities.

sts-entities.jpg

The relationships in the Structured Thinking System are a recursive hierarchy both vertically and horizontally. What I mean by this is each column is a series of one to many relationships proceeding down the column and the bottom most entity has a one to many relationship to the top most entity in the column. The same applies to the rows. Each row is a series of one to many relationships proceeding from left to right across the row and the rightmost entity has a one to many relationship to the left most entity in the row. For example, in the Green Coat (motive) column one Verity has many Unities, one Unity has many Qualities, one Quality has many Quantities, one Quantity has many Safeties, one Safety has many Reliefs and one Relief has many Verities. In the same way, one Verity has many Creators, on Creator has many Motives, one Motive has many Creates, one Create has many Universes, one Universe has many Years and one Year has many Verities.

The reason for such a structure is due to the nature of “centrisism” in system design. Although the Structured Thinking System always starts with Verity as the central concept of the system’s design it is possible for other centrisms to exist. It is equally possible for a Leader centric design, an Object centric design or a Moment centric design. Note how the center can move not only horizontally, but vertically, however the direction of the one to many hierarchical relationships remain the same.