There are two kinds of people in the United States.

Non-Contextual Thinkers

And

Contextual Thinkers.

They are ALWAYS at odds.

Interestingly, the split between the two is just about equal.

Here’s an example situation:

A man is on the ground and three policemen are beating him until he submits to handcuffs.

Half of the American public would rise to defend the man being subdued. “No person should be beaten by police! Those police are bad. The man is being illegally treated!

The other half of the American public would want to know why this was happening, what’s the context?

The first group are non–contextual reasoners. The second group are contextualreasoners.

Maybe the non-contextual reasoners are right: No one ever “should” be beaten by the police.

The contextual reasoners look into it a little deeper before judging. The man had just murdered his ex wife and three small children with a carving knife and escaped on foot, stabbing a police officer on the way out.

Here’s another example:

A man is kicking a large dog, literally to death. There is blood, everywhere.

Half of the American public would rise to defend the dog being kicked. “No dog should be beaten by its owner! That man is  bad. The dog is being badly treated!

The other half of the American public would want to know why this was happening, what’s the context?

The non-contextual thinkers call the police on the man, and when the police arrive they shoot the dog ten times.

The contextual thinkers look into the situation further BEFORE judging the man and the police before taking to Social Media bashing the police and the owner.

The Rottweiler had killed the man’s two year old daughter and run off with her head in his mouth. The man was not the owner. When the man cornered the dog he intended to kill it on behalf of everyone who might also lose a loved one to the Rottweiler. The police apparently agreed.

And so you can see that the non-contextual reasoners are not wrong, except that they do not consider the context in which certain behaviors and events occur.

Contextual reasoning forces the thinker to consider the facts and truth around an experience or event.

These are two articles that follow, written by psychologists in the field who study the seven different ways. Humans reason. Two major sub categories of contextual and non-contextual reasoning.

Darwin Lo

When you are faced with a situation, you have to decide upon the next step to take. There are two ways to go about deciding what the next step should be.

Contextual reasoning. This means understanding the situation specifically, along with how it fits in the overall system. The current situation may have features that are similar to situations you have encountered before, but the underlying forces may be different, so what you did last time may not work this time. This is also known as “reasoning from first principles.”

Non-contextual reasoning. This means choosing a next step without taking into account the underlying forces. This can take on several forms.

For example, you can choose the next step based on what has worked before in similar situations you have experienced in the past. I call this applying a “rule of thumb.” Others call it “pattern matching.” You may also have a “bag of tricks” that you like to make your way through, because they have served you well in the past. And if you are an expert in the field, you have knowledge of the “tricks of the trade.” What is common between these is that you are behaving out of habit as opposed to a specific understanding of what you are currently facing.

You can also choose the next step logically but nonetheless without context by simply continuing in the direction you were going.

If we could always reason contextually, we should. But it is not always possible. Perhaps we don’t have enough understanding. Perhaps we need to perform some amount of non-contextual reasoning before we can reason contextually. Or it would take too much effort, and a suboptimal result would actually be adequate.

If you are on a strict timeline and you cannot afford to get it wrong, use contextual reasoning to choose your next step.

If you can afford to make mistakes and contextual reasoning would be too much work, use non-contextual reasoning to choose your next step.

If you have been using non-contextual reasoning and arrive at a dead end, use contextual reasoning to identify a more promising path to follow.

Addendum: First-order vs. higher-order thought

Contextual thinking isn’t higher-order thought, but it is achieved through higher-order thought.

Non-contextual thinking is achieved through first-order thought and making first-order observations.

Non-contextual thinking is what drives incremental work, such as in science. Contextual thinking is what drives changes in direction. There is a trap we should all be aware of. Incremental work can give its practitioners a sense of flow, while a change in direction feels uncomfortable and often involves skirmishes with people who feel invested in the current direction.

First-order and higher-order thought actually work well together. Conversation is a good way to flesh out first-order thoughts and observations, which can serve as initial inputs to higher-order thought processes that are performed separately. This is a lot like relational logic in which you can construct a transitive closure on an initial set of facts.

Addendum: Defining vs. incidental properties

I call characteristics that directly relate to the underlying forces that actually govern phenomena its defining properties.

The first-order characteristics, those which can be observed directly, that merely appear frequently alongside the defining properties, are incidental properties. Incidental properties can be useful, but they are unreliable. On our way toward attaining truth, some of them may be mistaken for defining properties.

Addendum: Pacman

The below contrasts a contextual approach to beating Pacman with the more typical non-contextual approach.

In 1999, Billy Mitchell of Hollywood, Florida became the first person to obtain a perfect score of 3,333,360 at Pac-Man, eating every possible dot, energizer, ghost, and bonus on every level without losing a single life in the process.

But perhaps what is most amazing is the fact he can play without using any memorized routines widely known as “patterns”.

Instead, he relies on his familiarity with how each ghost behaves as it moves through the maze, using that knowledge to keep Pac-Man one step ahead of his enemies at all times.

Unlike Mitchell, most players are only able to rack up high scores with the aid of multiple patterns that take advantage of the game’s deterministic nature.

These patterns require perfect memorization and recall to be of any real use — a single hesitation or wrong turn during execution can make the remainder of a pattern useless.

Not surprisingly, an over-reliance on these routines leaves many a player clueless as to how to effectively avoid the ghosts and finish off the remaining dots in the higher levels once a mistake occurs.

Source: The Pac-Man Dossier

Addendum: Examples

Incidental to thinking contextually is understanding where you are and that your next step doesn’t have to follow from it. It’s also understanding that some decisions don’t matter, because they don’t change the outcome. Yul Kwon demonstrated these very well when he competed on Survivor.

Non-contextual thinking:

• Projecting yourself onto someone else
• Responding to the select words of what someone else has said instead of responding to their main train of thought

Elsewhere; Not Dr Lo:

Non-contextual reasoning refers to conclusions drawn without considering the relevant context or circumstances. Examples include making assumptions based solely on general rules without accounting for exceptions, such as saying “All birds can fly” without recognizing that some birds, like ostriches, cannot.

Understanding Non-Contextual Reasoning

Non-contextual reasoning refers to conclusions drawn without considering the relevant context or circumstances. This can lead to flawed arguments or misunderstandings. Here are some common examples:

Types of Non-Contextual Reasoning

Identifying Non-Contextual Reasoning

• Irrelevance: The conclusion does not relate to the premises.
• Oversimplification: Complex issues are reduced to overly simplistic choices.
• Misrepresentation: The original argument is distorted to make it easier to refute.

Recognizing these patterns can help improve critical thinking and argumentation skills.

Understanding Non-Contextual Reasoning

Non-contextual reasoning refers to the cognitive process where individuals solve problems or make decisions based on fixed principles or abstract rules, without considering the surrounding context or specific details of a situation. This approach often leads to a rigid way of thinking that may overlook nuances and the complexity of real-life scenarios.

—

Examples of Non-Contextual Reasoning

1. **Mathematical Problem Solving**
When solving mathematical equations, a student might apply formulas or algorithms without considering the practical implications or context of the problem. For instance, if asked to calculate the area of land, they might use the formula without considering whether the measurement units match the context (e.g., meters vs. feet).

2. **Legal Judgments**
In legal systems, judges may rely strictly on written laws and precedents without considering the unique circumstances of a case. A rigid application of the law might ignore individual circumstances, leading to unjust outcomes. For example, a mandatory minimum sentence might be applied without regard to mitigating factors in a defendant’s life.

3. **Classroom Learning**
In educational settings, students may be taught to memorize facts or concepts without understanding their real-world relevance. This could result in a situation where a student can recite historical dates but cannot connect those events to broader social contexts or implications.

—

Devaluing Critical Thinking and Self-Expression

Impact on Critical Thinking

Non-contextual reasoning undermines critical thinking by promoting a simplistic, one-dimensional approach to problem-solving. It discourages individuals from questioning assumptions, evaluating alternative perspectives, and exploring the complexities of issues. This can lead to superficial understanding and hinder the development of analytical skills necessary for deeper comprehension.

Impact on Self-Expression

When individuals are conditioned to think non-contextually, their ability to express themselves genuinely is compromised. They may feel pressured to conform to established norms and rules rather than articulate their unique perspectives. This leads to homogenized viewpoints where personal insights are devalued, stifling creativity and hindering authentic dialogue.

—

In summary, non-contextual reasoning limits our ability to engage with complex realities and diminishes our critical thinking skills and self-expression. Adopting a more context-aware approach enhances understanding and promotes richer interactions and solutions.

https://medium.com/@darwinlo/contextual-vs-non-contextual-reasoning-16280b3aeaae

Non-Contextual Reasoning Among American Liberals and Their Critique of the President

—

Oversimplification of Political Issues

Reacting to Personalities, Not Policies

Many liberals may focus on the president’s personality traits or public persona rather than his policies or the complexities surrounding them. This can lead to a view where all actions taken by the president are seen as negative, without considering the context of the decisions or the potential benefits of certain policies.

Example

For instance, a liberal might criticize the president’s communication style or personal behavior, ignoring how specific policies (such as economic strategies or healthcare reforms) could impact citizens positively or negatively.

—

Groupthink and Echo Chambers

Disregarding Diverse Perspectives

In liberal circles, there may be a tendency to engage in groupthink, where dissenting opinions are dismissed, resulting in a unified but narrow viewpoint. This can hinder critical analysis of the president’s actions, leading to a broad-brushed hatred that overlooks valid arguments or accomplishments.

Example

Social media platforms and certain news outlets may amplify negative views of the president, fostering environments where opposing perspectives are rarely discussed. This creates a feedback loop that strengthens non-contextual beliefs.

—

Emotional Reactions Over Analytical Engagement

Prioritizing Emotions

Strong emotional responses can often overshadow rational discussions. In their frustration with the president, some liberals might express hatred fueled by feelings rather than a nuanced understanding of the political landscape.

Example

Rather than engaging in constructive criticism of a policy or action, some may resort to derogatory language or personal attacks, which detracts from a meaningful dialogue about the implications of the president’s decisions.

—

Consequences of Non-Contextual Reasoning

Polarization

This blind hatred can contribute to further polarization in American politics. When liberals focus on negative perceptions rather than seeking common ground, it can create an adversarial environment that stifles productive conversation.

Missed Opportunities for Change

By focusing on blind hatred, liberals may overlook opportunities to engage in meaningful advocacy or policy reform that can address the real issues affecting their constituents.

—

In conclusion, while many liberals strive for contextual understanding, non-contextual reasoning can emerge in their critiques of the president, driven by oversimplification, groupthink, and emotional reactions. Recognizing these patterns may aid in fostering more productive dialogue and reflection on political beliefs.