Please accept my apologies in advance for this being a long post. Don't be put off. This is a massively important issue.
How we think is important. It changes our perspective on the world. In this post, I suggest that the crisis we are in is the consequence of inadequate linear thinking. We need nonlinear thinking to change the world. But, will we get it when linear thinkers in government don't even understand what it is?
For the second time in a couple of days, I feel it necessary to write a blog post in response to a comment that has been made here with regard to neurodivergence, but most especially, with regard to the way in which people think.
This post is made in response to an offering from the person who comments here as Pilgrim Slight Return, or PSR as he is usually known. The real identity of this person is known to me, and he is the most regular commentator this blog has ever had, with the exception of odd periods when I think he needs to take time away.
I am not going to comment in depth on what PSR had to say, nor will I try to summarise it. You can read it here, and I suggest doing so.
Instead, what I'm really interested in is ways of thinking, and what PSR‘s comment made me think about. I suggest that one of the things that PSR has described in his comment is the difference between people who think in a linear fashion and those who think in a non-linear fashion, which, it appears to me, he does.
I am aware that I have thought in a non-linear fashion for decades. I have always considered this to be a considerable advantage. Most certainly, when I was selling accountancy and consulting advice, it provided me with an unambiguous competitive advantage that was frequently commented upon by my clients, and was the basis for their recommendation of my services to other people.
I could spend hours summarising what linear and non-linear thinking are, or I could ask ChatGPT to offer summaries of this, and I have opted for the second route, whilst ensuring that I agree with what is offered.
Non-linear thinking might be summarised in this way:
Linear thinking is a cognitive approach that involves progressing in a straight, sequential manner from one point to the next. It's based on logical reasoning and cause-and-effect relationships, often used to solve problems where the steps are clear and follow a predictable path.
Major Attributes of Linear Thinking:
Sequential Process:
Thoughts progress step-by-step, like moving through a checklist.
Each step leads logically to the next.
Cause-and-Effect Focus:
Emphasis on understanding direct relationships between actions and outcomes.
Analytical Orientation:
Breaks down problems into smaller components for examination.
Tends to rely on data, rules, or established procedures.
Predictability:
Outcomes are often anticipated because the process follows a structured pattern.
Objective and Fact-Based:
Prioritizes logic and factual information over emotions or intuition.
Goal-Oriented:
Driven by clear objectives, often with a single correct answer or path.
Benefits of Linear Thinking:
Efficiency in Problem-Solving:
Effective for problems that have a known solution or standard process (e.g., math, logistics).
Clarity and Structure:
Helps avoid confusion by organizing ideas in a straightforward manner.
Ease of Communication:
Ideas are presented in a logical sequence, making them easier to explain and understand.
Reduces Ambiguity:
Emphasizes clarity, reducing room for misinterpretation or uncertainty.
Strong in Routine or Technical Tasks:
Ideal for fields like engineering, accounting, or programming, where structured thinking is critical.
Good for Planning and Execution:
Supports project planning, timelines, and step-by-step task management.
While linear thinking is highly effective for structured tasks, it can be limited in situations that require creativity, innovation, or adaptability—where non-linear or lateral thinking may be more appropriate. Let me know if you want to compare these approaches.
I took ChatGPT up on that last offer, and this is what it had to say on what I call non-linear thinking. The two questions were posed identically, otherwise:
Non-linear thinking is a way of processing information that moves beyond traditional, step-by-step (linear) logic. Instead of following a straight path from point A to point B, non-linear thinking involves making connections between seemingly unrelated ideas, approaching problems from multiple angles, and often jumping between concepts to generate insights or creative solutions.
Major Attributes of Non-Linear Thinking
Holistic Perspective
Sees the “big picture” and how parts interconnect.
Emphasizes patterns, relationships, and systems over sequences.
Intuition-Driven
Relies on instinct, gut feelings, and subconscious associations.
Often precedes logical justification.
Associative Thinking
Connects ideas that are not logically or obviously linked.
Encourages metaphor, analogy, and lateral associations.
Creative and Innovative
Breaks traditional thought patterns.
Tends to generate novel, unconventional ideas or solutions.
Flexibility and Openness
Comfortable with ambiguity and uncertainty.
Welcomes alternative viewpoints and unusual methods.
Multi-dimensional Problem Solving
Tackles complex or ambiguous problems from multiple angles.
Uses non-sequential methods to explore solutions.
Non-Sequential Process
Thoughts do not follow a fixed order.
Ideas may appear out of order or spontaneously.
Benefits of Non-Linear Thinking
Enhanced Creativity
Fosters out-of-the-box ideas and innovative approaches.
Useful in fields like design, marketing, writing, and entrepreneurship.
Effective Problem Solving
Helps resolve complex or ill-defined problems that lack a clear path.
Encourages alternate routes when traditional methods fail.
Strategic Insight
Enables strategic foresight by seeing connections others might miss.
Helps anticipate outcomes and think long-term.
Adaptability in Uncertainty
Suits environments with rapid change or limited information.
Enhances resilience by allowing flexible thought shifts.
Collaboration and Empathy
Opens space for diverse perspectives and interdisciplinary thinking.
Improves communication with others who think differently.
Innovation in Business and Technology
Drives disruptive technologies and market shifts.
Essential for visionary leadership and future-oriented thinking.
Examples of Non-Linear Thinkers:
Albert Einstein (theory of relativity emerged from thought experiments)
Steve Jobs (linked design, tech, and human emotion)
Leonardo da Vinci (blended art, science, and anatomy)
There are major differences between linear and nonlinear thinkers, in my opinion.
One of those is that linear thinkers find it exceptionally difficult to understand how non-linear thinkers can come up with their ideas, or reach their conclusions, whereas, if required to do so, non-linear thinkers can force themselves to think in a linear away because it is a process that can not only be trained, but is usually trained as the basis of most modern education.
The difference between these two ways of thinking could be explained in a book, or I can try to offer an example or two. One such example relates to how these two types of thinkers look at data. The data could relate to anything. It could be the supposed result of an experiment. It could be a claimed fact. It could even be a stated opinion. It makes very little difference.
The linear thinker will react to data by, almost invariably, seeking evidence to support the claim made. Their working assumption will be that if something has been stated to be true by someone in a position of authority, then it probably is, and what they need to do is substantiate what they have been presented with as a fact. The process is, therefore, confirmatory, compliant and reinforcing. Most particularly, if some evidence is found to support the claimed fact, then the linear thinker will conclude that the fact is correct, without usually seeking alternative explanations.
By starting from an assumption of fact, the linear thinker is likely to end up confirming to their own satisfaction that the fact is, as they first thought, or (as importantly) as was suggested to them, true. Some supporting evidence is assumed to be sufficient. Correlation will, too often, be taken to indicate causation. Questioning is limited. Challenges to the status quo, hierarchies of power, or prevailing methods of thinking do not happen. Even the reason for the information having been presented is rarely questioned. Almost all education requires this method of working if the participant is to succeed.
In contrast, the non-linear thinker will assume that the information supplied to them is inherently subjective, conjectural, and may be wrong. They will proceed on the basis of that assumption and examine the claim made in that light, assuming nothing unless the context, above all else, supports the claim made, and even then, presuming that any conclusion reached is provisional, at best.
Understanding this point is absolutely vital. The fundamental contrast between linear and non-linear thinking is that the former assumes that initial claims are right and seeks to confirm that fact, whereas non-linear thinking presumes that a claim might be wrong. What is more, non-linear thinking presumes that finding a fact is wrong has at least as much value as proving that it is right. Knowledge has value in itself in other words, even if it proves a negative. That is not true in linear thinking, where negatives are rarely reported, which fact is, for example, the curse of medical research literature that almost invariably only reports confirmatory and not negative findings.
Linear thinking, then, assumes that knowledge exists within a system where everything is effectively already known, and the risk of error that exists only does so because of the fault of the thinker who has not, as yet, established what is actually happening.
In contrast, non-linear thinking assumes that we exist in a state of uncertainty where a great deal might be unknown, and any claim might be incorrect. As a result, establishing what might, on the balance of probabilities, be appropriate to believe is the objective of any thought non-linear process. Linear thinking does, of course, do almost the exact opposite.
Linear thinking does, of course, describe the processes implicit in the assumptions of neoliberal economics, and so neoliberal political thinking, where it is assumed that perfect knowledge exists, and the only purpose of inquiry is to check how deviations from a perfect model of behaviour might be corrected. Extraordinarily, almost everything that supposedly passes for macroeconomic research these days does, for example, conform to this pattern. The neoliberal researcher assumes that there is a risk, which they will then assume is quantifiable, and all that they need to do is work out how to eliminate that risk to achieve the previously assumed optimal outcome that the neoliberal model prescribes as desirable.
The non-linear thinker does, instead, assume that we live in a state of uncertainty. Uncertainty is, as those familiar with mathematics will know, fundamentally different from risk. A probability can be assigned to risk because all known possibilities have been identified, and the only question left to answer is which of the available possibilities might actually happen. In contrast, uncertainty presumes that not only do we do not know all the outcomes of actions, but that some of them might be unknowable, and that, in addition, we do not have all the information that we need to appraise the unknown range of options that are available to us, and despite that fact we have to still make decisions, accepting the possibility that we might be wrong.
It has always been my opinion that risk appraisal of the type used by linear thinkers can rarely, if ever, be of use in any human decision-making process. Except in the most trifling of cases, we do not know all the options that are available to us. Nor, even if we do, can we be sure of the probabilities to attach to each outcome. Therefore, decisions almost invariably take place in conditions of uncertainty.
What this means is that linear thinking is almost invariably unsuited to any major decision-making process, precisely because the assumptions inherent within it cannot match the needs that the human condition presents. Only non-linear decision-making processes are, in fact, of use for such decisions.
The unfortunate fact is that not only are our politicians apparently only trained in linear thinking processes, but most of them are unaware of non-linear thinking, and, even more importantly, are quite unable to do it.
What can be concluded, before this post becomes even longer than it already is?
The first thing to say is that precisely because non-linear thinking is so alien to the understanding of the linear thinker, they seek to reject it. They do so by, for example, denying the possibility that it exists or by refusing to accept that it can lead to useful decision outcomes. Alternatively, they suggest that it is irrational and that, as a consequence, it must not be relied upon. All these claims have, of course, been made by neoliberal economists who rely almost solely upon mathematical model-making to undertake their work, even though the assumptions that underpin those models bear no relationship with reality.
The linear thinker will also, perversely, always make an appeal to emotion when addressing this issue, by demanding that emotion should be taken out of any process. They will claim that we should “stick to the facts“. The fact that there are, in most situations, no facts, but there are instead only opinions about which interpretations might differ, is inconsequential to them. They will, quite perversely, appeal to emotion to imply that they are higher-order beings, when in practice their thinking processes are deficient by failing to recognise that higher-order thinking necessarily requires the recognition of uncertainty, rather than risk.
The consequence is that simple goals are prioritised, rather than complex ones. Mathematical models prefer simplicity: the maths gets hard when anything else is dealt with. In addition, when looking at the human condition, the maths becomes impossible, because not only can the variables under consideration not be defined, but the number of variables to consider is itself unknown, as is the data that might relate to each of them.
There is another consequence. That is that when emotion is eliminated from decision-making and supposed rationality is substituted, those things that can be measured are prioritised. In our society, the consequence has been that everything that relates to the accumulation of wealth, expressed in monetary form, is given preference over anything else. Most especially, anything related to empathic concern is taken out of consideration because value cannot be attributed to it.
It is all too easy to see how our politics has been degraded as a consequence. If decision-making processes are as deficient as I suggest, it is inevitable that the decisions made by those using them will not meet the needs of our society. The consequence that we now see all around us is that a great many people are responding by rejecting the politics that has promoted this form of decision-making.
One of the paradoxes of this is that those who have promoted the decision-making that has now been rejected are probably the least well-equipped in our society to understand the rejection that they are suffering. They can only look on with bafflement as their supposed rationality is rejected by those who can see the consequences of the failure that it has promoted in their own lives, and of those around them. This fact explains the almost total bewilderment of Labour and other neoliberal political parties in the face of the far-right onslaught that is now challenging them.
My suggestion is that unless and until priority is given to non-linear thinking within our national and political decision-making processes, we cannot find a solution to the problems that we face. Creating another spreadsheet, or balancing another budget, or accumulating yet more wealth, might appear to be rational, but it has never solved a problem, and never will now that the harm that these goals have created is readily apparent.
It is only by embracing the subjectivity of non-linear thinking, which permits the injection of ethically based bias into decision-making processes to ensure that outcomes suit the requirements of those most in need, that we will now find solutions to the problems that we, as a society, face. I do not, however, presume that this will be easy. Our existing decision makers cannot comprehend what is now required of them, and that, in a nutshell, is a precise definition of our national crisis.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
[…] But all that proves is that we have the wrong people in government altogether now. This is no place for the small-minded, but that is what we […]
I’ve always thought of non-linear thinking as holistic thinking, and a significant feature of dislexia; a positive attribute.
Agreed
“There is another consequence. That is that when emotion is eliminated from decision-making and supposed rationality is substituted, those things that can be measured are prioritised. In our society, the consequence has been that everything that relates to the accumulation of wealth, expressed in monetary form, is given preference over anything else. Most especially, anything related to empathic concern is taken out of consideration because value cannot be attributed to it”.
This was exactly my thought after listening to a BBC Radio Scotland interview with Tom Hunter yesterday morning. His focus on paying top money for top jobs contrasted with a Blethered podcast interview with John Swinney who focused more on the idea of public service. I don’t think we have the wrong people in government now because they are willing to consider the emotional/societal wellbeing context of decisions and have tried in small ways to make a difference eg tax rates, rent controls, child payment etc. I think when there is almost a 50/50 split in opinions on how the country should be run it is harder to make radical change if you want to bring people with you rather than furthering divisions. Could this in itself be seen as non linear thinking for stepping away from a “we won, you lost” approach?
And just imagine if Tom Hunter embraced the notion of contributing to the wellbeing, not just the wealth, of the nation and invested in common good, not solely for profit, policies to improve housing, public services or whatever. With his wealth he could choose to be an inspirational figure in building a Scotland we all want to live in, rather than standing on the side pointing out what everyone else is doing wrong
Thanks
What you’ve written gets to the heart of something many of us feel but rarely have the words to fully express — that the way decisions are made in our society just doesn’t feel right anymore. The world is unpredictable, messy, emotional, deeply human — and yet so many of our systems are rigid, mechanical, and built on the assumption that everything can be measured, calculated, and solved with the right formula. People can and do feel that disconnect every day.
We don’t live inside a spreadsheet. Most of us are juggling overlapping uncertainties — health issues, relationship breakdowns, insecure work, the climate crisis, caring responsibilities — none of which fit into neat cause-and-effect boxes. And yet the dominant political and economic models keep offering tidy, linear solutions to problems that are anything but. It’s like trying to iron the sea flat.
There’s research that shows the limits of this kind of rigid thinking. A 2023 meta-analysis in Nature Reviews Psychology found that many of our most successful decision-makers — in business, in science, in communities — tend to use what the researchers called “complexity mindset”: a way of thinking that embraces ambiguity, interconnection, and uncertainty. Not surprisingly, those people also made better long-term decisions in messy environments. Linear thinking, the study found, was often better for short-term technical problems, but not for human ones (Grotzer et al., 2023).
The problem, as you’ve identified Richard, is that our institutions are still stuck assuming the world works like a predictable machine. That kind of system rewards compliance, not curiosity. It’s how we end up with climate policies that still rely on market mechanisms to “nudge” behaviour, or economic models that assume everyone is a rational actor — even though behavioural science has been proving for decades that we’re not. And in education, where non-linear thinkers often struggle to conform, we risk marginalising the very people who might offer the new insights we desperately need.
It’s no surprise that people are tuning out, switching off, or turning to alternatives that at least feel intuitive and emotionally honest, even if they carry dangerous ideas. When mainstream politics sounds more like a PowerPoint than a conversation, of course people feel alienated. Of course they’re drawn to voices — even extreme ones — that acknowledge what they’re actually experiencing.
What we need more than anything right now isn’t another algorithm. It’s empathy, perspective-taking, and the ability to sit with complexity instead of trying to flatten it. And that requires a radical shift in how we value ways of thinking. We need more space for reflection, imagination, uncertainty — all the things linear systems are bad at, but humans are brilliant at when we’re allowed to be.
The crisis isn’t just political. It’s cognitive. And maybe the biggest challenge is this: the people best equipped to navigate the uncertainty we face — those who think sideways, intuitively, associatively — are still being told they’re irrational. That’s not just wrong. It’s a wasted resource in a time when we need every ounce of creative intelligence we can find.
Thanks
Yes yes yes yes!!!
Might a changeable contribution to our society’s foundational and harmful “cage” of linear thinking be our state education set up, especially since the 1988 Education Reform Act?
It teaches and enforces, as far as it can, linear thinking, communication and behaving. It suppresses non-shallow questioning, linear and critical thinking, communication and individual, pro-social behaving.
It presents knowledge, learning and understanding as fixed, definitive and top-down. Its affective domain or facet teaches and enforces unquestioning obedience, passive conformity and lack of grounded self and group confidence.
Might such be the unstated/submerged aim of those who plan/plot to rule for their benefit and that of those who back and aid them?
It
Agreed
Nonlinear thinking is used in abductive logic where complex or incomplete data requires the best possible hypotheses rather than definitive hypotheses. Used by organisation consultants to make sense of complex organisational systems
Educational: one of the reasons I have followed this site for years.
Thanks
What happens if you read the description of linear thinking a think ‘Yes, that’s me’, then read the description of non-linear thinking and think ‘No – that’s more like me!’ Am I Derrida?
Those who can do both are unliklely to be linear thinkers.
They just know when to use it.
Ha Ha!
Yes – that’s the crux of it, indeed. When to use it.
I use linear thinking as a departure point but I am not bounded by it.
Why do I think I may be non-linear?
Because I accept my imperfections, my capacity for being wrong or badly informed, my uncertainty about everything. It’s a sort of a form of moderation, of humility and humbleness. I am more likely to look for problems rather than opportunities (although looking for problems is an opportunity to do something positive).
I remember when Thatcher was always in the news about what she was up to. And I used read about her proposals and could only of think the problems she was going to create and effects it was going to have and time has proven me – and a lot of others – right. She was a non-starter for me – she just had not thought it through at all.
OTOH even though my non-linearity has positive aspects on more abstract ideas or environments, in my human relations, I have not been able to many times stop putting my foot in it and not being tactful or more patient with the expected consequences – as if I have to mention that here BTW!
You can’t have everything, and rest is age and experience I suppose.
Much to agree with (liked the definitions). The Bx collective is mostly concerned with systems, how they function/malfunction and why. Formaly I guess we apply: Ontology & epistemology – informally: “what are we looking at here”. In our perambulations we have found that the main barrier to non-linear thinking is silos. It is often, functionally impossible to get people to think outside their silos. I can cite endless meetings with very very bright people – their questioning on a subject shows that… they just don’t get it. In one infamous meeting, the person in charge of markets made his excuses an left because he did not, formally understand what information a price can (& cannot) carry. Senior offical. Oh dear (it we not me educating him – I left that to erm…. one of his colleagues – hilarious blue-on-blue combat). Hypothesis: only in times of disruption or change do the non-linear mob get a chance to shine. Desparation causes the linear-path to be abandoned.
Reading: The Unaccountability Machine (Dan Davies) not bad and it is clear that linear & non-linear thinking is relevant.
Much to agree with
I think I’m a linear thinker but I’m not certain, for example, principles are more important to me than logic and I would rather make the right choice than the one where the sums add up.
But leaving that aside, one obvious conclusion I draw from your article is that teams, boards, businesses, departments, Cabinets, families, Councils, parties, whole societies, and every other collaborative human endeavour, needs diversity. And an ability to listen (no, not focus groups) and to defer to those we may not agree with, because, “by George, you’ve GOT it, let’s give it a go! I would never have thought about it that way, thank you – now what do YOU think we could/should do?”.
In religious communities, these people are sometimes called prophets, and they can be difficult to live with, but you ignore them at your peril because “without a vision the people perish.”
But we are currently seeing the opposite of that. The rise of technocratic government, where “vision” is the LAST thing they want, plus, on the right wing, the ideological hatred of diversity, the reductive analysis of everything to numbers and money, all this cripples us.
It seems to me that we have created systems that are incapable of dealing with certain issues that cannot be neatly fitted into boxes, or that have a moral dimension, or deal with values, self-worth, human fulfilment etc.
So our governing politicians CANNOT understand what makes people happy, what gets a worker out of bed in the morning, how fear might damage social cohesion, how someone with severe disabilities might bring tremendous benefit to a society, family or workplace, or what causes riots in poor neighbourhoods in hot summers, or why Treasury forecasts are ALWAYS wrong, or why Morgan McSweeney is currently running the country.
One googly to finish, are the current crop of disruptive, destructive fascists, non-linear thinkers? If they are, what lesson does that offer?
I think they are deeply linear thinkers
The rise in the party machine, perversely encouraged by those who champion the “individual” has resulted, as in the USSR, in the rise of apparatchiks to the top of the party. For them keeping the status quo was the aim and change an anathema to them. Every so often a weird event occurs, and as they only have slow means of responding they are swept away. Generally, with great loss of life.
Funny it does not strike politicians as odd, that as they increase the power of party machines, party membership falls?
This suggests a ground based movement will sweep them away. Brexit was a glimpse of this, and I fear we may see more tumult and probably death on our streets before long.
I think the Donald Rumsfeld quote on Known unknowns and unknown unknowns is very relevant here. I think there should also be a fourth category, of unknown knowns, where we think we know something but are mistaken. Key phrase: I think you’ll find it a bit more complicated than that.
More generally, getting to optimum solutions requires both non-linear and linear thinking. Problem. Germ of creative idea (non-linear) Working out implications, often linear , and sub-problems need more non-linear thinking. Maybe original idea needs major modifications, and so on. At least, that’s how it works in engineering context, and the model I try to use when thinking of social or philosophical problems.
I like that
And BTW, Richard, I am sure you think laterally as an accountant, but I don’t think you do in the wider realm of macroecnomics.
Pardon?
Why?
I am a little surprised…
I very much agree with Linda. I did a degree in Design Engineering in the 1960s (Diploma that could later be converted to a BA), and greatly followed the works of Marshall McLuhan and Edward de Bono, the latter of whom invented the term “lateral tinking”, but the former of whom led the way. In my early career as a design engineer this proved invaluable, but unlike you, Richard, when I later started working in accountancy I used those abilities in a discipline that really works on a lateral process. The accountants I worked with were always impressed with my abilities to think outside the box and use the software (Sage and QuickBooks) in ways that helped clients better to understand the ramifications of the figures.
🙂
Hard to explain why. I was, for example, extremely impressed when you posted your thought processes in mapping out your new book. Producing a chart showing how varous aspects are linked together. That’s lateral thinking to me. Certainly how I’ve always worked on a design project.
May I suggest that the non-linear thinker’s response to many statements from linear thinkers is ‘Yes, but……..’
I completed a degree back in the 80s entitled Systems and Management at City University. The essence being that most complex systems or indeed even simple ones are” more than the sum of their parts”. To fully understand any system one needs an wide multi disciplinary approach. Then ascertain effective agreed measurements of outputs with good feedback loops to address poor outputs.
All well and good for modern complex problem solving. But over my lifetime I came to realise that even this misses something even more important. It misses our spirituality. We are not just economic units seeking optimal economic outputs. Industrialisation has killed our spirituality. We have allowed ourselves to lose touch with our spirutual roots and our compassion for others. We need to find it again. We need a spirituality feedback loop.
You write “when emotion is eliminated from decision-making and supposed rationality is substituted, those things that can be measured are prioritised. ”
That is the is education system imposed on schools from the 1990s. Measurable outcomes and progression. Targets.
A number of teachers have argued against this, such as Dr Mary Bousted -now Baroness since last year, was General Secretary of the ATL which merged with the NUT to become National Education Union. She wrote that not all that counts can be measured. She had a lot of support but Gove and Cummings imposed their vision on schools.
Grades have become the goal and development of the individual neglected. I would suggest values , except the need to ‘work hard’ (and not get involved in Scouts, Guides, Cadets, sports clubs) are left to the institution and the individuals.
I am dyslexic although the concept was not recognised when I was young but there are several male family members who have been. It has been difficult -thank God for spell checks-but I did realise by my late teens that the reason I often didn’t conform to received ways of thinking was that I often saw a bigger picture.
My moment of fame at my Teacher Training College was being mentioned in a whole year lecture for suggesting in seminar that there might be different ways of thinking.
The psychology lecturer told us there was convergent thinking and divergent/ creative thinking. But it didn’t seem to go anywhere. The concept of IQ was still based on Sir Cyril Burt’s idea that 80% of intelligence was inherited. He forged the figures to fit his theory. But the 1988 Education Act seems to have forgotten what we began to realise in the 1960s. No doubt the neo-liberal mind set prefers that to be the case.
Much to agree with
The current mad rush after AI is a perfect example of linear thinking taking society off the rails. It is NOT intelligent. AI has no moral compass, cannot think non-linearly, has zero intuition and empathy, and struggles with reasoning. All it does is mirror what we have already done.
But Starmer wants to promote AI at the expense of the creative industries – those who are most able to think non-linearly. Madness.
Have you noticed how the quality of results on google search has deteriorated recently? Google used to give you very few results if it could not answer a precise very detailed query. Now it jumps to conclusions, mixing in irrelevant data. I had an example, searching for whether a restaurant for visitors would be open in a hospital that is 3 hours travel away from me, on Saturday evening. The hospital website did not give the hours. Google answered with the hours of other hospitals in the area, which was useless. A phone call to somebody living nearby gave me the answer.
A brief comment on AI and linear/non linear thinking – or processing. AI does use non linear processing (I hesitate to use the word “thinking”)
Ordinary computers use serial processing – one thing after another, or linear “thinking”. They do it at phenomenal speed, mind you. AI uses parallel processing; neural networks which “learn” using feedback loops, in what might be described as a non linear fashion. However, they are incapable of the “leaps of imagination” which I think in some way underlie the non linear thought process.
I agree with your last sentence.
This is, undoubtedly, one of your best bits of writing, Richard, and thank you for creating it.
My industry is riven by linear thinkers who, basically, promulgate BS to flog iffy products to consumers. I like to believe that I’m an ethical, non-linear thinker when dealing with what I call the “emotional response” that individuals have to money matters, rather than just the numbers.
Next week, I’m at a seminar that will be full of linear thinkers, which will make my BS Detector lively!
Thanks, and good luck with surviving that.
I agree that this is a very important issue. A related aspect, as your blog touches upon, is thinking in terms of closed systems rather than open systems. Governments prefer to put matters into isolated boxes. Whereas, in reality, all systems are open and everything interacts. There lies the uncertainty and there lies life.
This makes me think of two books that I have found very valuable and profound: Iain McGilchrist, The Master and His Emissary: the Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Master-His-Emissary-Divided-Western/dp/B0851PX9Y5/ref=sr_1_1?Adv-Srch-Books-Submit.x=0&Adv-Srch-Books-Submit.y=0&__mk_en_GB=%C3%85M%C3%85Z%C3%95%C3%91&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.sQITV_4EHQACBA8zLdYf7SK9mdoK0Ob2toLQ_i1f-We5fY1Fcp2weNffgqeQXNf8.qoLdm6Nl85FTs-ifEThSSNi9Z-ihWZUwJ1fVCznMUFc&dib_tag=se&qid=1747660449&refinements=p_28%3AThe+Master+and+his+Emissary&s=books&sr=1-1&unfiltered=1) and Guy Claxton, Hare Brain, Tortoise Mind: How Intelligence Increases When You Think Less (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Hare-Brain-Tortoise-Mind-Claxton/dp/0060955414/ref=sr_1_1?Adv-Srch-Books-Submit.x=0&Adv-Srch-Books-Submit.y=0&__mk_en_GB=%C3%85M%C3%85Z%C3%95%C3%91&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.nRiNfh5f0cFufO-3fR0WCb1PBCbOsF0lhZWxwp-vR8DGjHj071QN20LucGBJIEps.GFONf5zPuQvXZ6cgwGu9SpJjDgUsKcwTa-9r9g2G6CU&dib_tag=se&qid=1747660615&refinements=p_28%3A+Tortoise+Brain%5CcHare+Brain&s=books&sr=1-1&unfiltered=1). Measurement can be a valuable tool, but over recent decades I get the feeling that it has become too important (‘what can’t be measured doesn’t count’), and that as McGilchrist says, a style of thinking that should be an invaluable servant has become a tyrannical and destructive master.
Thanks
I was going to suggest Iain McGilchrist’s book. He argues that the linear/nonlinear divide arises from the different functions of the two hemispheres of our brain – the left (in most people) thinking linearly and the right non-linearly. Mary Midgley’s review in the Guardian is quite a good summary – https://www.theguardian.com/books/2010/jan/02/1
I have very real problems with the left brain being described as autistic: the autistic brain is capable of making very many more connections than the neurotypical brain. It is in fact, the right brain as far as I can see. Tht is because, as a matter of fact, it has more synapps’. It just has hyper focus, which is something quite different. It also demands precision, but that is precisely because it has the capaciy to handle it.
Don’t be put off by one inappropriate sentence in a review. I can’t remember any mention in the book itself of autism.
Thanks
In response to Mr Mollison & Richard,
I agree re left-hyper focus & precision. That said – & as we used to say when doing data analysis: in numbers its better to be about right than… exactly wrong. Precision has a place (bearing fitment) but outside of engineering, one can, mostly get by with about right, does it “look right” – judgement….erm…. non-linear stuff. As for left & right – well the “Market Prayer” the other day in the blog was the right brain – having some fun – it just needs to be given some space by the left.
My brother was a bridge engineer
Work everything out
Then double the safety margin to be sure
So “this doesn’t work for me, what’s my work around?” would be non linear?
Sounds like it
That makes sense, Maggie – I have to find work-arounds because I often can’t do things the ‘regular’ way 🙂
Linear and non-linear thinking are complementary, not exclusive. One without the other leads to sub-optimal results in problem-solving.
But you miss the point: we have a society biased against non-linear thinking.
Linear thinking is just a smaller unit of non linear thinking, as described elegantly by my systemic supervisor.
There is a vast cannon on the systemic approach much not on google. It understands human problems, communication and relationships are in a complex interconnecting web of mutual influence , which cannot all be known or certain.
One of the key planks of systemic practice is reflexivity, the awareness of self and other for therapeutic benefit, creating the good life for all, especially those who are oppressed and those who have less power in the system.
Connection over Content. Another elegant way of describing the systemic endeavour, valuing the importance of connection and respectful relationships over content / material gain, and competition which leads to disconnection from our own humanity and the humanity of others.
I think you have outdone yourseld with this post Richard. Its magnificent.
I have read both books that Peter Cave has mentioned – a while ago, I might add, so I cant really offer anything additional, only ‘read them.’
The thing I will add is how as a civilisation we seem to be ‘regressing.’
Person to person we are not – the controlling public bodies are reducing complex discussions to idoicy. Really, how else can we explain the rise of Farage and his ilk?
The struggles we face – as a species, as an ongoing coherent civilisation – are truly not helped by a sneering media out with the shallowest of intentions.
Thanks
For clarification and I have read The Matter With Things twice Iain McGilchrist does not describe the left hemisphere as autistic and I think would be very offended if that were seen as his interpretation. What he does lay out is that there are some characteristics shared by those with autism, schizophrenia and right hemisphere damage which is supported by research. Given the spectrum of neurodiversity – and who is to say that we are not all on that spectrum – this lesser claim will have relevance only to the group of people on which the research was based.
Your comments, Richard, about the relative merits of linear and non-linear thinking are so close to McGilchrist’s views that I would be surprised if you didn’t find much more to agree with than disagree with in his writing.
I am relieved, and thanks.
Very interesting and thank you all. It has added a great deal of clarity to my understanding about linear and non linear thinking. I was not diagnosed as being dyslexic until I was 45 and have always found thinking like everyone else difficult. Still do!
Join the club
I heard Iain McGilchrist speak at a festival about 3 years ago. I came out feeling as though I’d had some sort of road to Damascus experience. I’ve read both his more recent books; the second is a two volume tome. He is, imo, the greatest polymath mind of today. Psychiatrist, neuroscientist, philosopher.
Richard, you would find his books utterly fascinating.
Thanks
I had better expand my reading list…
My only caveat about The Master and His Emissary is that McGilchrist is a bit repetitive. I suspect that reading the first 200 pages or so will give you the key messages. The historical ideas toward the end of the book are interesting and quite persuasive, but inevitably speculative.
Hannah – absolutely. I read it when it came out in 2010 and I too believe he is one of the foundational thinkers of our time.
Linear thinking economists act as gatekeepers for all decision basis information as theirs are the reports read last before policy making.
The presentation, with budgets, cash flows, break evens, tables and times is rather appealing. Scientists tend to leave policy makers hanging as to what actually they want actual people to spend actual money on.
I heard from a politician that after a presentation from scientists a certain PM said I didn’t understand that lets not do anything. After the economist “didn’t understand that but we’d better do it”.
🙂
I’ve mentioned before the discipline of “family systems theory”, which I came across in a sabbatical year in 2002, while doing Mediation Training with the (now closed) London Mennonite Centre.
https://theneurodivergentbrain.org/family-systems-theory/
It doesn’t provide neat rules or recommendations, more a set of frameworks for trying to understand how complex individuals and complex family dynamics interact, and how powerful, sometimes quite intense things happen to relationships, when individuals seek to “differentiate” themselves as they maintain a balance between emotional closeness to a family system and establishing a degree of personal autonomy.
It’s powerful stuff, very non-linear, and when thrown into the “mediation” mix (real mediation, between parties who WANT to resolve their differences, not the compelled sort used by employers, or councils or the family courts), can produce some powerful emotional healing for dysfunctional relationships.
I suspect if it was applied inside Downing St. the results might be measured on the Richter scale and would improve all of our lives.
But it won’t be, they prefer the toxic (supposed to be) predictable linear dogma of Zionism, neoliberalism, bullying and dishonesty perpetrated by Morgan McSweeney.
If only Cabinet Ministers and MPs could differentiate themselves from the emotional dominance and control of the LINO Party Whips!!
If only….
RJ
Glad you appreciate family system theory, the world of circularity, in a largely linear world. So we’re not a well known approach, perhaps because the preferred approach is to locate problems in people not systems. See my other post on the family systems.
Systems are complex so no one model works and there are many different approaches used, early pioneers included Bateson, Minuchin, Haley, Hoffman, Bowen the Milan group, Strategic, more recent approaches include EFT, narrative, multi systemic and Functional Family Therapy.
CMM might be one approach that links well with economic and political power. SFT has a great interest in power and how it operates in systems.
Richard, this is the most marvellous post. Thank you so much for taking the time to put it into words. Why our bloody awful politicians are so bloody awful definitely needed to be analysed and you’ve articulated that analysis splendidly. No wonder people are so confused and angry.
I have a diagnosis of bipolar disorder. The “highs” include racing thoughts and “flight of ideas”. In practice, this manifests as rapid speech and what might sound like muddled and strange sentences. However….. I know that what I say makes sense. It’s just that everyone else’s brains are simply too slow of thinking to catch the links. Even as a child, I knew that my brain was travelling slightly faster than the rest of the planet. Later on, I was once asked by a very senior officer why I always nodded off in his meetings. Before I could stop myself, I replied: “I’m so sorry, sir – I just can’t think as slowly as you do”. (Another “interview without coffee” followed).
It’s been a real help in my life; but it’s also been a severe curse. My mind is never, ever still. Never quiet.
However, the non linear thinking which has underpinned my whole life has enabled me to see the “end” almost before the problem has been fully outlined. It’s a bit like having a pinball machine as a brain – bouncing off obstacles and setting off lights and bells, and being ingeniously flicked around until I hit top points. I must have been hell to live with.
My sister, whose mind is rather more normal, rang me one day in helpless giggles. At a meeting in Rolls Royce aerospace, her new boss had suggested they all go and “scuba around in other people’s think tanks”. The issue at the heart of politics today is that none of the linear thinkers are even aware there are any other “think tanks”.
Love it!
Thank you, too.
The Scientific and Medical Network was founded by people who found the materialist concept of the mind and consciousness too narrow. Very much thinking outside the box.
Not that you have much time but if you wanted to devout a bit to spirituality , this would be a good place to go to.
Iain McGilchrist 1.5 minutes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dRkocorj0Y&t=55s
Watched
Fascinating
I have already found more….
Wow that’s a brilliant description of how I think! I’m definitely saving that and sending it to my children, one of whom has a diagnosis of autism. I always knew I felt different and used to think I’d been adopted. It took me a long time to realise that I thought in a different way. I’m 77 now and only recently realised that I was on the spectrum when my daughter was diagnosed with autism.
It’s wonderful to have finally realised that it can be a strength and despite trying to hide it over the years I have had professional success in any field I found personally interesting to me.
I always enjoy your postings and videos but this is special to me. I really appreciate this in particular and want to offer a grateful and personal thank you from me.
Thank you.
I feel rather humbled by the reacftion to this. I knew I had to write it, and did so in three walking sessions – the last in a cafe, when there was almost no one around and I could pace up and down (a decidedly neurocomplex thing to do, I know). The words just came together.
OMG – this is beautiful Richard. Thank you. And thanks to all the responders too – enlightening, funny etc. I could write masses in response but I have my (non-linear) 2.5 year old to grandparent all day. And he’ll be here soon.
Have a good day.
How many poets
How many does it take
To change a light bulb?
You want to know..?
Ten
It’s a made up number
Plucked from a random synapse
Ten poets
Ten poets:
One to hold the bulb,
To cradle it with care
To honour it
To see it
To be it.
A second to worry
About whether any word
Rhymes with bulb
And no word does
Dr Internet confirms
A third to imagine
Magical metaphors
How bulbs light up our lives
How bulbs are binary
Off or on
A fourth to shoehorn analogies
Of how bulbs are like small suns
Are like the stars of our homes
Guiding us like torches in the night
A fifth to talk of love
And passion
And devotion
Of how bulbs just fit
And slide
Into their screw fittings
Or bayonets…
A sixth to imagine
A world without light bulbs
A desolate desert of darkness
A future to grieve for and despair
A seventh to hold the ladder
Because poets need to be safe
Even when their words stir, challenge
And upset
An eighth to evoke history
To recall times gone past
Of Edison
And Tesla
And Benjamin Franklin
A ninth to sense
The bulbous
The globular
The spherical
The oval
The infinite symmetry
And a tenth to hold the poet holding the chair.
Ten poets
Changing light bulbs
For the world
Buckingham
24 March 2024
Jon
Is that your own work?
It is very good
Richard
Thank you. Yes, I wrote it.
May I post it on the blog?
Yes – of course – thank you!
Brilliant!
A wonderful post. I receive Roy Lilley’s email about happenings in the NHS and was forcibly struck when reading this post that his latest amply demonstrates the government’s linear thinking re the NHS. Someone, McFadden if I remember correctly, wants to save 5% of the Civil Service budget, so hey, why not get rid of NHSE? because everything it does is duplication right? Then offer £20,000 to managers from “good” performing trusts to bring “poorly” performing trusts up to speck – so move, upset family life, leave good friends and neighbours for £20,000? Meanwhile, don’t give the “poorly” performing managers a pay rise, like that will work. Then to cap it all, offer a £40,000 sweetener redundancy package and see all those most experienced managers nearest retirement leave, because that will work won’t it? You really couldn’t make it up, and this is how our government ministers think.
I think the incentive to move is £40,000.
The incentive to leave is £80,000.
Which amazing brain thought that up?
Thank you for taking the time to write this article, as well as your pieces on neurodivergence. It’s something that’s been on my mind for a long time, but your work really connected the dots for me.
Thank you.
I am trying to connect the dots.
Yes – of course – thank you!
As I’ve read this post and all the moving responses to it, I’ve remembered a transformative moment for me, in my spiritual development, which opened a previously closed/unrecognised door of spiritual communication for me, in middle age. The occasion was a 30 day guided silent Ignatian retreat at a Jesuit centre near Liverpool (now closed) during the sabbatical I mentioned earlier. I was introduced to the Ignatian discipline of contemplative prayer, the practice of “lectio divina” for reading scripture, and the use of the repetitive “Jesus Prayer” as a way of stiiling the mind, stopping the verbal thinking process for a while, and opening the door to vivid imagination (with moving pictures!), often entering into, rather than thinking about, a bible story or passage of scripture. It was a dramatic experience for a Baptist.
Ignatius of Loyola lived in the 1500s in Spain and founded the Jesuit Order (to “protect” the Pope, who didn’t really want protecting, at least, not by Ignatius, and his Jesuits although eventually one did become Pope Francis!), after some profound spiritual experiences while lying bedbound for months, after a cannonball nearly blew his legs off at the siege of Pamplona.
Perhaps think of it as “mindfulness with spiritual extras”.
It was lifechanging for me, and dramatically improved spiritual “communication”.
Since then, thinking “about” stuff has been less important for me (although I still think v analytically) than experiencing, feeling, empathising, “noticing and listening to the movements of my heart” (a v Ignatian concept), the experience of spiritual consolation and desolation, the experience of understanding ones deepest desires – and that has made a big difference to my ability to cope with traumatic circumstances and some recent personal tragedy.
Anyone wanting an accessible route into this stuff, look for the books of Margaret Silf.
https://www.loyolapress.com/authors/margaret-silf/
https://www.jesuits.org/stories/heroes-of-the-ignatian-tradition-margaret-silf/
Once again, thanks to all.
How can we serfs, set our leaders free from their self-imposed mental, emotional and spiritual poverty?
I learned about “lectio divina” at Ampleforth, 25 or mnore years ago. As a form of meditation, it works.
Hi,
In other words we have boring straight line thinkers in power and we really need interesting funny butterfly thinkers…………………. Could I volunteer my wife? She butterfly shops (we flit from aisle to aisle following no particular order) its more fun and makes me laugh.
I’ll get my coat……………..
🙂
Poets share themselves
Politicians share what they do not own
Benjamin Zephaniah recycled Adrian Mitchell
most people ignore most politics because most politics ignores most people
I feel the the detachment of non-linear thought is the specialism a genuine neutrality.
Musk tackles problems on principal not as allegory which is a non-linear mindset but resolves himself as net beneficiary.
A real public thinker would resolve the everyperson as the beneficiary and in so lose their identity.
Is his is a characteristic of a neuro-type?
Is a type of decision making class so far from inherited wealth and ownership of global debt.