Digital vs Analog Thinking
We live today in a predominantly digital world. The multitude of devices that connect us to the omnipresent internet are powered by digital thought. The world’s leading consulting firms proclaim that digital transformation is the future of business.
As we have adopted and internalized this digital way of living, we have also internalized a digital thinking paradigm. Digital thinking implies automatically thinking in terms of discrete categories. It is being comfortable only with yes/no or go/no-go options. We may add one or more intermediate categories (such as “maybe”) but that’s just increasing the number of categories. We seem to have developed an unease with fuzzy options that lie between two neatly defined categories. Fuzzy options are inherently subjective and disputable. The smart thing to do appears to be making things objective (even if they are inherently subjective).
That is why, we express opinions today on a Likert scale (say, on discrete levels of 1 to 5). It is standard practice to grade performance over a year (for students as well as working professionals) on a scale of A to E. We pretend that employee (or student) performance over an entire year across a multitude of projects (or subjects) can be unambiguously expressed in a limited set of distinct categories.
Where things are multi-dimensional, we adopt something akin to the famous BCG Matrix (a 2x2 representation of parameters considered to be most important). Even complex ideas such as political and economic viewpoints are represented conveniently in a 2x2 matrix. Any opinion expressed on any topic is pigeon-holed into one of the four quadrants and the person expressing the opinion is labeled left-wing or right-wing, liberal or conservative, etc. The nuances, complexities and trade-offs that go into a particular point of view are lost in the process.
Social media and political debates on mainstream media channels further amplify this tendency. People are pushed more and more into irreconcilable categories such as pro-government or anti-government, nationalist or anti-national, secular or fundamentalist etc. If one supports a political leader or a party, any action by any of the party’s representatives, however abhorrent, needs to be defended or downplayed in public. And any action by the opposite party, however constructive or praiseworthy, needs to be criticized or disregarded.
Don’t get me wrong — digital mode of thinking does have its advantages. The digital revolution over the last 2 decades has on balance improved the prosperity and standard of living of society as a whole (though inequality across sections of society may have increased). Clearly defined categories are more amenable to statistical analysis and thereby can generate “actionable insights”. A 2x2 matrix can sometimes work wonders in terms of clarifying your thinking. Rapidly categorizing people and situations is an efficient and essential survival tactic. It may not always work but it provides much-needed clarity in high-stakes fight-or-flight situations or instances where we are hard pressed for time.
However, I think at some point, the returns on adopting a digital thinking paradigm diminish and even turn negative. In such situations, one is well advised to adopt what I would like to call the analog thinking paradigm. Contrary to the digital thinking paradigm, the analog mode of thinking allows you to have an infinite number of states. You can precisely express what you think without having to fit it into one of many discrete states. You can focus on the reality of the situation as it exists and not be constrained to force-fit into predefined categories. The analog thinking paradigm lets you precisely compare and contrast, which can help in building a well thought through and nuanced understanding of a given topic or situation.
Unlike digital thinking, the focus of analog thinking is to deal with a subjective situation as it is without trying to be necessarily objective. An annual performance is full of several projects with their unique context and circumstances and it is grossly unfair to the employee (and lazy on part of the manager) to boil it down into a grade on a scale of 1 to 5. Similarly, a political opinion is far more complex to just think of it in terms of supporting or opposing a particular political party or leader. Trying to force fit these complex situations into simplified categories does far more harm than good.
Analog thinking can help us achieve a deeper understanding of the situation and open up ways to think about issues in multiple ways. It can also help achieve better alignment and reconciliation among differing factions as we try to see the merits of various points of view without being locked in sharply defined categories. It can spur better debate and dialogue as we dissociate opinions from the persons expressing them.
So the next time you think about any issue or topic, pause to consider what thinking paradigm you are adopting. Can you deliberately let go thinking in categories and frameworks and focus on understanding the situation as it is? And can you in particular consider carefully the merits of opinions you don’t agree with and the opinions that come from people you dislike?
As Charlie Munger is known to say:
“You’re not entitled to take a view, unless and until you can argue better against that view than the smartest guy who holds that opposite view. If you can argue better than the smartest person who holds the opposite view, that is when you are entitled to hold a certain view.”
As we welcome the new year, disciplining ourselves to do the mental work on having an opinion can be a great way to have more a engaging and thoughtful life.
