Information is interpreted according to simple fixed rules, without considering alternative interpretations.
Once information is processed in a certain way, it is done. There little room for reinterpretation, or new information that doesn’t fit existing categories, which is routinely rejected or ignored.
Values, opinions, assumptions, etc. are compartmentalized, allowing contradiction without awareness.
There are strong feelings of certainty, due to low tolerance for uncertainty.
Uncertainty is met with aggressiveness.
There is strong reliance on external authorities.
Behavior is highly controlled by external conditions
There are sharp distinctions between categories, but once a threshold is reached, the subject is abruptly shifted from one category to another, and assigned a radically different set of attributes.
Positions of the conflicting parties are perceived in either/or terms; perspectives are (implicitly) irreconcilable.
2. Moderately low integrative complexity
Different perspectives are recognized, but remain compartmentalized, they cannot be related to and integrated with each other.
It’s possible to develop rules for when to use one particular perspective, but once the choice is made, alternative perspectives are ignored. Thus categorizations and conclusions aren’t modified by reflecting on alternative perspectives.
Because there is no reflection on different perspectives, the choice of which to adopt tends to be arbitrary.
Probablistic reasoning is common-things can go this or that-but no thought is given to joint outcomes of different perspectives.
There are reductions in tendencies toward simple good-bad dichotomies, reacting aggressively in response to different perspectives, and relying on external authorities.
Positions of the conflicting parties are still perceived in irreconcilable either/or terms, despite the possible perception that both positions might have legitimate claims.
3. Moderately high integrative complexity
There’ s an ability to compare different perspectives with each other, so that even though one is chosen, the implications of other perspectives can still be considered.
Flexibility in interpretations and evaluations is greatly increased, with increased openness to revision of cognitive decisions in light of different points of view.
Varying combinations of several perspectives can be considered simultaneously, with conflicting aspects used to gain further understanding.
One can reflect on one’s own behavior as interpreted from another perspective, and adjust one’s behavior accordingly to reach a desired outcome.
There is an increased sense of freedom, intentional control and responsibility that comes from being able to use different principles of interpretation.
Positions of the conflicting parties can be assessed in terms of effects on each other, so conflict resolution can consider both sides, and produce compromise solutions.
4. High integrative complexity
Thinking is based in hypothetical reflection. Principles of different cognitive perspectives are generated mentally, and serve as guidelines in searching for new information.
Different perspectives can be integrated within an inclusive framework that explains their functional relationships.
Rather than avoiding paradox, it can be appreciated as accurately representing real experience-such as simultaneous needs for autonomy and dependence.
Paradoxes and incompatibilities among perspectives can be actively used to generate new insights and frameworks.
Positions of the conflicting parties can be assessed as parts of an interacting system, which can be systematically altered to produce a solution that satisfies all parties through a creative rearrangement of their mutual relationships.
STATE BLOGS
