You mean we can fiddle with the explicit assumptions we use with synthesis mindset?
I haven’t fully digested your framework yet. (Connecting ‘synthesis’, and these other mindsets, to experience.) I mean that, if you have explicit assumptions then:
They’re easier to examine
they can be messed with (as a way of generating hypothesis/ideas) It’s ‘random’ but constrained enough that it has better odds of hitting something useful, or figuring out why something is wrong improves your understanding.
The way to use synthesis mindset is to allow your mind to wander through free association while suspending judgment of the accuracy or relevance of the hypotheses you encounter. It also helps to deliberately remove assumptions about certain ideas, and to toy with mixing multiple ideas together.
(Emphasis added.)
I might just be describing your ‘synthesis’ concept. (Or something similar, with a more systematic focus.*)
Math examples:
If multiplication is repeated addition, then what’s repeated multiplication? Repeated powers?
What kind of space doesn’t obey the triangle inequality?
If the sum of the interior angles of a shape are always the same, then squash the shape flat to find the sum.
The obvious disadvantage of synthesis mindset is that it has little power to screen the hypotheses it finds for accuracy or relevance. Synthesis cannot learn to smoothly navigate situations, nor to compare various options, nor to judge its hypotheses against the territory. For many serious problems, synthesis is necessary but insufficient to identify an effective solution.
*These don’t seem like problems in math. (Except with untranslated or high level hypothesis. And smooth navigation takes time to build up.)
2.
replacing the goal of ‘utility’ with information
I read this:
“Conversely, compared to analysis, organization mindset may miss some points of mismatch between its maps and reality, and can fail to apply enough distinct checking to catch flaws in its plans.”
and thought if you focus on gaining information instead of some other goal, that downside might go away. Information is a funny resource, but it can be accumulated over time. And before trying to do XYZ where X, Y, and Z are simple and therefore XYZ is simple, sometimes there’s the option of first doing them individually (which should be easy because they are simple in theory).
1. Ah, now I see. Yes, removing assumptions is one good way to direct one’s use of synthesis mindset. It helps with exploring the possibilities.
2. Organization can gather information efficiently, but integrating it all and catching contradictions is normally a job more suited for analysis. It’s still possible to combine the two. That can end up forming strategy or something similar, or it could be viewed as using the mindsets separately to support each other.
1.
I haven’t fully digested your framework yet. (Connecting ‘synthesis’, and these other mindsets, to experience.) I mean that, if you have explicit assumptions then:
They’re easier to examine
they can be messed with (as a way of generating hypothesis/ideas) It’s ‘random’ but constrained enough that it has better odds of hitting something useful, or figuring out why something is wrong improves your understanding.
(Emphasis added.)
I might just be describing your ‘synthesis’ concept. (Or something similar, with a more systematic focus.*)
Math examples:
If multiplication is repeated addition, then what’s repeated multiplication? Repeated powers?
What kind of space doesn’t obey the triangle inequality?
If the sum of the interior angles of a shape are always the same, then squash the shape flat to find the sum.
*These don’t seem like problems in math. (Except with untranslated or high level hypothesis. And smooth navigation takes time to build up.)
2.
I read this:
“Conversely, compared to analysis, organization mindset may miss some points of mismatch between its maps and reality, and can fail to apply enough distinct checking to catch flaws in its plans.”
and thought if you focus on gaining information instead of some other goal, that downside might go away. Information is a funny resource, but it can be accumulated over time. And before trying to do XYZ where X, Y, and Z are simple and therefore XYZ is simple, sometimes there’s the option of first doing them individually (which should be easy because they are simple in theory).
1. Ah, now I see. Yes, removing assumptions is one good way to direct one’s use of synthesis mindset. It helps with exploring the possibilities.
2. Organization can gather information efficiently, but integrating it all and catching contradictions is normally a job more suited for analysis. It’s still possible to combine the two. That can end up forming strategy or something similar, or it could be viewed as using the mindsets separately to support each other.
Does that make sense?
Yes.