Analyst’s Pendulum (Psychology)
A Divergent Convergence Of Thinking
Wrecking balls are pendulums, too. They swing on chains rather than rods and we call them balls rather than bobs (ok, no one says bobs period), but wrecking balls are just big, purposeful pendulums. For our analogy, they converge upon their target and turn it into a divergent spray of debris.
When we go to podcast, we are going to need some Miley Cyrus playing right now.
Was that an aside? I think it was a divergence… or was it?
Practically speaking, it is now a segue.
Psychology
Clearly that was also divergent, as there is nothing practical about psychologist. I jest… mildly. Where I have often railed that philosophers care only about Why? I will also admit that Psychologists, at least, ask a lot of How? But do they ever do anything about it? Ok — many analysts wear that charge, too. Converging on!
My barbs aside. Psychology has long been a field concerned with how we think. As such, it is a fertile ground for strong concepts useful in the field of analytics. This article will focus on just one pair — it is the point of these articles after all…
Divergent & Convergent Thinking
The infographic provided is not mine. It was however the best example among a myriad of Google image search contenders. I provided the link in the image caption. That article does not provide a reference, so I assume they built it.
Convergent vs divergent thinking is not a difficult topic. It is a complicated one, though not so much for psychology. It is complicated only when you conflate it with practical applications (ah, the genius of those psychologists).
In good analytics, analysts rarely engage in just one type of thinking. In my experience, most great analysts are actually so comfortable swinging from one side to the other — they fail to recognize the change.
The risk, in analytics, is interesting and bias. Analysts who fail to recognize each side of this pendulum sometimes get stuck. Almost always — that is on the convergent side of the spectrum. What further biases their perspective is that they are sure they ideated! They know they innovated! They are sure they elaborated! Unfortunately — once is not always enough.
You see analysts often view this concept as a path. This diagram illustrates that quite well. This style of thinking is incredibly practical (take that psychology peeps!). It is also convergent. So it fails to recognize the true essence of the concept (fudge!).
Like so many topics before, there is room for flavors and nuances in this concept. Design thinking, the analytic process, and other techniques with a little cognitive awareness utilize aspects of psychologies model. I personally like to speak in terms of resolution (think optics)… but I diverge.
While I borrowed some thoughtful images, I stopped short of recommending articles… so far. This final diagram came from an article that I found quite informative (if bias) and was evidently itself borrowed from Sam Kaner.
Analysts need to be cognizant of the style of thinking they are employing. They should understand the components developed in psychology’s more formal treatment. They should be sure to remember that like so many others, this concept is a pendulum, too. Be able to swing from one style to the next is a tremendous skill. If you only swing in one direction, you are little more than a wrecking ball. Thanks for reading!
For more Analyst’s Pendulum:
