To me, conceptual thinking is simply the ability to effortlessly walk up and down the ladder of abstraction.
I think a lot of people think that great conceptual thinkers have more abstract thoughts than non-conceptual thinkers. I don’t think this is sufficient. Don’t get me wrong — abstract thought is good, and those able to think abstractly are able to solve problems easier (a lot of the details that are unimportant for the problem go away–many problems, when seen abstractly, also turn into similar problems that are more tractable), learn faster (since they can make deeper connections) and are probably less anxious in life (deeper understanding, no annoying and distracting detail, etc.).
But someone who is just an abstract thinker isn’t actually all that useful. For one, they simply can’t communicate with those who can’t think abstractly — which is the majority of the population. They are also probably unable to turn their thoughts into reality, because, like it or not, reality is concrete and not abstract.
To make their thinking useful, abstract thinkers need to be able to convert something abstract into something concrete, and vice versa. This ability is what I call conceptual thinking. A conceptual thinker starts in the concrete, then walks up the hierarchy of abstractions. At some level they make connections between the abstract representation of the concrete thought and another abstract representation. If need be, they can then walk that abstract thought back into another, very different concrete thought. The idea is that a local search (i.e. making connections) in the abstract space is easier than a local search in the concrete space. And so that person can either communicate more effectively, or solve the problem more effortlessly.
For example, suppose I have to solve a difficult puzzle. If I am a conceptual thinker, I can turn the problem into a more abstract one (recognize it as an instance of a more generic class of problems). The “abstraction tree” is more narrow the higher you go (because each time you walk “up” the hierarchy, you extract an equivalence class–there are fewer equivalence classes than instances those classes represent) so you’re more likely to have seen the more abstract problem before than the specific one. That way, instead of solving hundreds of puzzles in hope that in the future you will encounter one, you really just need to solve one per equivalence class.
I make it all sound so easy. Unfortunately, it’s not. I’ve replaced one ability (the ability to solve a concrete problem) with another (the ability to turn concrete things into abstract things, and vice versa). The latter is a generic ability, which makes it hard. The higher the abstraction tree you go, the harder the walk becomes–which makes sense, because the higher the abstraction tree you are, the fewer equivalence classes there are (so solving problems should be easier–fewer things to compare).
An interesting thought experiment is to take this to its logical extreme — it’s possible to have the ability to walk so far up the abstraction tree that there really is only thing, only one equivalence class. Every thing, every thought, every idea is equivalent to every other thing, thought, and idea. It’s a fascinating concept which I’ll be exploring much more in dedicated posts. Right now though, just think about it.
elevenseconds.com
blog.elevenseconds is powered by
Makes perfect sense to me. I like you “abstraction tree”.
I work in the oil industry with subsurface data. This means few control points with lots of geology in between. Consequently, keen observations (paying attention to detail) are essential to building a better mousetrap.
As a geologist, I’m constantly faced with new observations that challenge existing ideas. Years ago, my interpretations of core, would come fast, but I had a terrible time explaining how I arrived at my answer. Now I’ve vastly improved my ability to take the concrete evidence and lead people through the various observations, what they imply and how they are consistent with one another in support of the new working hypothesis. Even then, I loose some and it is frustrating when that happens. It clearly indicates I’ve not done a good enough explanation. Sometimes the communication breakdown centers on too narrow a background. My expertise is in carbonates, a suite of rocks that necessitate and understanding of paleontology and it helps to also integrate ecologic concepts. Few are adequately versed in al three disciplines, something I often forget.
All kinds of thinking are necesar . Conceptual thinking for me is something that breaks all boundaries bethwwen concrete reality and future reality !
[...] This definition from the Eleven Seconds blog: conceptual thinking is simply the ability to effortlessly walk up and down the ladder of [...]