On the Nature and Dynamics of Abstract and Concrete Thinking

Hello, world!

Although I've written publicly in the past, this entry marks the first of a new line of writings that will focus on my thoughts and ideas in a more accurate way. For this initial post, I wanted to start with something simple. The relative ubiquity of the underlying ideas notwithstanding, I think this is an important topic to cover, as it sets the tone for future writings.

With that said, thank you for stopping by! If you have any questions, comments, or feedback, you can find my email at the bottom of this page or on the home page.

Introduction

Of the many diverse manifestations of thought, there seem to be two distinct models that affect the perception of incoming information and, perhaps by extension, the orientation of thought-directed behavior. The latter, naturally, includes the acquisition of new information. The attributes of such models are, seen this way, highly recursive; as such, they tend to become entrenched into opposing positions ¹, affecting, I believe, the perception of those using the other model primarily—like any worthwhile dichotomy, this goes both ways.

In this entry, I intend to argue a few points in this context, on a naturally speculative basis. Firstly, and perhaps least importantly, that the polarity between these models of thinking is a consequence of our inclination for mental comfort, or, perhaps more clearly, the avoidance of mental discomfort, which itself speaks to the incredible power of repetition. By extension of this, I explain the peculiarities of repetitive thinking between binary models, some ideas on recognizing repetitive thinking, and some advice for counteracting this tendency. Secondly, that these seemingly oppositional models are, I propose, inherently complementary. Thirdly, further still, that they are not only complementary, but are fundamentally identical in nature, differing only in the degree to which they interact with information; additionally, an exploration of each as models dealing with complexity at the most fundamental level. Fourthly, that the application of the abstract model is a fundamental characteristic of the consequences of diversity within larger groups of people, and, naturally, the associated implications of this. Finally, I'll offer some concrete, practical advice for the implementation of both models to achieve more balanced cognition, with particular emphasis on the appropriate use of each model. I tend to take a rather... abstract approach to the enumeration of my arguments and, as such, you will find them intertwined throughout the whole of the work, not in a strictly linear fashion.

I'll begin with an enumeration of the peculiarities of the two models, and then move on to discuss the implications of their presence in the mind and their subsequent interaction with external information.

Before I move to explain the nature of concrete and abstract thinking, as I see them, a few things are worth noting. Primarily, that my own style of thinking tends, quite clearly, in the abstract direction. As a consequence of this, my analysis of concrete thinking will not only be at first through its manifestations, but more critically subject to an abstract perspective. As such, a certain amount of unfairness might reasonably be ascribed to my analysis. As a counter-balance, I have, throughout this writing, offered rather practical and actionable advice which might offset the rather philosophical nature of the work as a whole.

In any case, I shall continue, leaving the reader with this in mind. ²

The Nature of Concrete Thinking

The concrete model manifests as a predisposition for immediacy, practicality, and tangibility. It is a reductionist model that seeks to simplify complexity and reinforce known observations and explanations. Skepticism, practicality, efficiency, and a preference for clear, measurable outcomes are characteristics consistent with a concrete model, often seen in those who value structure, predictability, and control over ambiguity.

The concrete model has a tendency to dominate everyday thought. I'd argue that its prevalence can be attributed, in part, to the nature of our mental evolution. Traditionalist, survival-based situations demand swift decision-making and predictable results. Indeed, one wouldn't worry much about the state of the world at large if they were struggling to breathe in the moment—we have yet to overcome that simple barrier.

The mind tends to gravitate towards solutions that are clear-cut, well-defined, and actionable. Ambiguity is uncomfortable. Consequently, the concrete model often becomes the natural default. Furthermore, societal structures tend to reinforce this predisposition. Educational institutions, for example, often reward concrete thinking through quantifiable achievements and standardized testing, where existing methods and binary right-or-wrong answers reign supreme. In many professional settings, the tendency for using existing solutions also seems common. In my professional experience, novel, undocumented solutions to problems are often dismissed due to unfamiliarity, discomfort with pioneering new approaches, and the prioritization of 'more critical' issues—thus highlighting concrete thinking's focus on maintaining control over conceptual structures. ³

With that said, I have generally observed concrete thinking to be more liberal in its exercise of control, prematurely dismissing rather ingenious ideas exclusively on the basis of resistance. While this is typically a worst-case scenario, I would argue that, in general, people do not open themselves up to new ideas nearly as often as they should, further reinforcing an aversion to external perspectives. In more pathological cases, they may demonstrate an aggressive and even violent opposition to ideas that exist outside of known principles. With such fervent opposition, these principles are often deprived of exposure to the world, enduring not as thriving ideals, but as eroding structures that disintegrate the more they are subjected to the light of day. As an extension of this frailty, they tend to be heavily guarded, and quite emotionally so, for to challenge them is to challenge, in many cases, the identity of the host themself. This is an insidious characteristic of an unhealthy mind.

Much like exercise of the body, the resolution lies, as I discuss in a subsequent section, in exposing yourself to different perspectives and ideas. At first, you must disassociate your identity with your ideas—challenge to an idea does not imply challenge to you. If your principles are refuted, perhaps they merit reevaluation. If not, you now have more evidence to support such principles. As Alfred North Whitehead said, "The purpose of thinking is to let the ideas die instead of us dying."

Notwithstanding the intellectual humility required for this, it is, I dare say, a fundamental responsibility of ours as free-thinking individuals. To not perform this exercise is to be complicit in spreading and maintaining invalid, out of date, and unsupported societal principles, which, I believe, may serve to destroy our collective morality if left untreated.

Confrontation with Novelty

What happens when the concrete thinker’s reality is confronted with the unforeseen? Concrete thinking has a dangerous proclivity to force the interpretation of new information into its existing mass of indexed ideas, and the degree of distortion tends to be proportional to how invulnerable the index is. This is known by many labels: confirmation bias, intellectual immaturity and laziness, and ignorance, to name a few. The effect is still the same: fundamental delusion in the state of the world. While it's arguable that we all share some amount of misrepresentative behaviors, certain activities necessarily exemplify that in all the wrong ways, and the tendency for misinterpretation by particularly close-minded concrete thinking is one such example.

If new information is allowed in at all, it becomes subject to a disproportional amount of scrutiny. If something new is to alter known principles, it must be very reasonable indeed. Ideally, new information would be subject to an equal amount of scrutiny as your own principles, which is rather conducive to intellectual growth. The first step here is, naturally, awareness of this tendency.

The Utility of Concrete Thinking

The concrete model’s strength lies in its capacity for direct application. Strict adherence to established protocols, the need for measurable results, and the ability to focus on specific, reliable outcomes make the concrete model rather collaborative. After all, standardization is generally something handled exclusively by the concrete model. The point of standardization is to further the collection and benefit of measurable results. While an argument could be made to the recursively reinforced aspect of concrete thinking, I think it is generally more important, at least right now, to clarify that standardization has the clear benefit of facilitating communal understanding. If we all agree to a set of established protocols, deviations are easier to detect; order must be prioritized. If everyone were operating under their own set of moral laws, chaos would quickly follow. While it is arguable whether that's "what we currently have," it is undeniable that there is, at minimum, a foundation of some ideal order underneath. It is subsequently this ideal of normalization that furthers the exercise of the concrete model.

The Evolution of the Concrete Model

One peculiar aspect of the concrete model is that, in subjects with this model predominantly, its amount of control tends to decrease over time, as a process of "mental erosion" occurs. In this way, someone who starts out incredibly concrete may find themselves exploring a completely new, abstract world later in life that they had previously dismissed as absurd or outright did not see. ⁴ The same general pattern follows for the abstract-oriented thinkers as well.

My current hypothesis is that through sheer persistence of exposure, the consistent confrontation with information from opposing models tends to chip away at the petrified model we use predominantly, which starts to become clear later in life. However, it is not, in my opinion, worth waiting for—as I'll discuss below, we should take active responsibility to improve our own thinking.

Enumeration of Peculiarities

I. Definition

Concrete thinking is focused on the immediate, practical, and tangible. It relies on established models, clear facts, and direct outcomes.

II. Preference

• Prioritizes clear and actionable information.
• Prefers measurable and observable data.
• Leans towards familiar, proven methods and routines.

III. Susceptibilities

• Can become rigid, limiting creative exploration or new approaches.
• Tendency to dismiss theoretical insights that don’t offer immediate results.
• More likely to miss long-term implications or underlying principles.

IV. Objectives

• Achieve clear, tangible results in the short term.
• Focus on task completion and meeting specific targets.
• Minimize risks by adhering to known methods.

V. Characteristics

• Action-oriented, focused on doing rather than speculating.
• Prefers simplicity and clarity over complexity.
• Grounded in the present and in “what is.”
• Values efficiency and effectiveness.
• Seeks consistency and reliability in processes.

VI. Examples

• "What is?"
• "What's our deadline for this?"
• "Let's focus on the immediate next steps."
• "How does this fit into our current budget?"
• "We need to see measurable results?"
• "What's the specific objective here?"

The Nature of Abstract Thinking

The abstract model manifests as a predisposition for depth, exploration, and conceptualization. It is an imaginative model that seeks to explore complexity and generate ideas and solutions to problems, using methods outside of the realm of known approaches. Characterized by curiosity, open-mindedness, creativity, and, in mature cases, a comfort with ambiguity, the use of the abstract model is responsible for, in my opinion, all innovations by humanity. Indeed, it has been argued that the ability to utilize abstract thinking is the core characteristic that defines humanity and allows us to claim the rather vain title of homo sapiens ("wise man").

One important aspect of abstract thinking is its propensity for enumerative, exhaustive analysis into ideas—it seeks to locate first principles as the foundation for further analysis. If given a full platform, it may manifest as expression in insufferably long and detailed philosophical articles.

Like concrete thinking, abstract thinking, in more intense cases, has a dangerous tendency to misrepresent external information in a rather one-sided manner, constringing the information to deliberately (albeit, often unconsciously) disconnect itself from any concrete foundation, insofar as it has the ability to disprove or inhibit free thinking. While the user of the abstract model may declare themselves open-minded with their diverging approach to idea generation, they nevertheless tend to conveniently overlook those counter-balancing concrete observations that would reasonably allow them to claim a balanced type of thinking.

In pathological instances, the abstract model may manifest in a certain distrust or, at minimum, skepticism concerning physical sense perception. The abstract thinker may question the reliability of their own senses and seek out more objective evaluations in line with this concern. As such, it may result in hypochondriacal behaviors, where the physical sensations are not only scrutinized, but seen as a basis for concern. As pathological abstraction tends to disconnect itself from any concrete foundation, the rather human foundation of its own safety is likewise removed, as if it has wandered away from retrospectively well-known safety. The resolution, unironically, rests in a subsequent reevaluation of the abstract model's exercise of control, and a reintroduction of established concrete principles. If left untreated, the mind will generally initiate this process on its own, resulting in a forceful reconnection with reality, typically facilitated by fear. ⁵ The avoidance of this lies in exercising it by choice, and in a responsible manner. A common technique here, which sufficiently demonstrates the underlying characteristics of the problem, is the popular “grounding” method, as its entire purpose is to restore a concrete foundation of mental safety which can be relied upon. The resilience of this foundation is likely inversely proportional to the intensity of abstraction, as well as the emotional conviction under which it is operated.

Pattern Recognition

Another characteristic of abstraction is the natural proclivity for pattern recognition. The use of the abstract model tends to yield connections between seemingly disparate pieces of data, which subsequently yields indexed information. This capacity for pattern recognition is not limited to surface-level observations but extends into the underlying structures that govern ideas. In more advanced cases, analysis always begins, with the exception of inspiration, at the most primitive level of the concept and ascends to the original observation, having built up a foundation of abstract and generic structures until the final one, in all its qualifying specificity, is reached. This is a long and arduous process, but it has the general effect of empowering first principles that govern further analysis.

This tendency has the peculiar effect of appearing, at first, to be paradoxically misrepresentative of external observations. After all, if observations are seen, at first, in their most abstract form, how can we reconcile and compare this with the dangerous effect of reduction of complexity and fundamental misrepresentation? The key distinction lies in the objective: whereas the latter seeks to reduce the overhead to analysis and, consequently, the natural inclination for self-criticism, the former seeks to return to the original observation, but with a solid foundation of understanding which can be likened to a tower of increasing complexity. Where in the one case the understanding of a complex system is, at best, cursory, the latter understands it in a fully subjective context and often has the effect of contribution. Indeed, this aspect of the abstract model is quite primitive: new ideas necessarily emerge from the parameters of an existing system; it seeks not only to understand at the most primitive level, but also to go beyond what is known, and to establish the new known in a recursive fashion—it is an unending process.

Although I touch on this topic later, it's worth noting now that abstract thinking is not necessarily concerned with ideas exclusively, inasmuch as we perceive them to be purely intellectual. Indeed, it may have a focus on emotions as well, characterized by deep introspection into meaning and purpose. Overall, it is the fundamental behavior and manifestation of abstract thinking that I am defining, not necessarily the content on which it operates.

The Advantages of Abstract Thinking

The primary strength of abstract thinking lies in its capacity for innovation and intellectual creativity. With a willingness to engage in complex, uncharted problems, the abstract model enables users to synthesize new ideas, protocols, and frameworks that might not emerge from a more rigid and linear approach. By extension of the invention of new ideas, abstract thinking serves as the foundational catalyst for progress and revolution—if the only thing we did was accept our present situation, nothing new would ever emerge.

However, acknowledging the advantages of abstract thinking only in the context of its practical effects is fundamentally injudicious. At the most primitive level, abstract thinking is about breaking away from those practical foundations, purely for the purpose of free-thinking—in a word, cognitive revolution. As a natural consequence, it has the effect of, as just described, innovation and creativity, which typically result in rather practical benefits. Consequently, while concrete thinking tends to dominate in popularity, abstract thinking has the effect of being the source of all fluctuations in perception within a system, from the individual to the collective level.

What is the most resilient parasite? [...] An idea. Resilient, highly contagious. Once an idea has taken hold of the brain, it's almost impossible to eradicate. An idea that is fully formed, fully understood, that sticks. (Inception, 2010) ⁶

The Challenges of Abstract Thinking

I. Applicability

One of the inherent difficulties of abstract thinking is that, in its early stages, it often lacks immediate practical application. In resource-constrained environments, this may serve as an unavoidable inhibition to abstract thought. If a known model serves a purpose, even tangentially, that may be preferred. After all, that solution is known entirely, whereas the abstract solution, or the possibility thereof, is, by definition, hard to visualize. It then comes down to the question of choosing the devil you know or the devil you don't.

Setting agreed-upon limits may be of use in this case. This allows for abstract thinking "within reason" while prioritizing the overall objective of a given activity. ⁷

II. Intellectual Overload and Paralysis of the Infinite

While concrete thinking tends to narrow down ideas and reduce complexity, abstract thinking has the opposite tendency: it explores possibilities for their own sake, generates connections, and generally results in amassing a greater amount of complexity. While this is undeniably a powerful asset in the production of new ideas, it can become paralyzing when used in an analytical capacity. Possibilities are perceived with equal importance to the concrete observations, which are often ambiguous and multidimensional. When faced with an inordinate amount of potentiality, abstract thinking can become stagnant and unproductive. A reminder of the return to first principles can help to "zero-in" the scope of abstract thinking and allow it to traverse the tree of possibilities with more clarity.

III. Difficulties in Quantification

Lacking in clear metrics and results, abstract thinking can be hard to quantify. When used as the barometer for a healthy mind, ascertaining the relative value becomes a matter of guesswork. How does one measure the value of a new concept, especially when its long-term impact is uncertain? In many cases, new ideas are introduced into a specific context; as they evolve, their utility becomes apparent in other contexts, which was unpredictable. Relying on subjective metrics is fundamental to any sort of qualification of abstraction—peer review, personal intuition, and application to future developments are some examples. Without immediate validation, it can be difficult to know when an abstract exploration has been successful, or whether it has the potential to evolve into something meaningful. This further adds to the claim that abstract ideas should not be shot down so quickly. It is equally ignorant to dismiss an abstract idea at the beginning of its lifetime as it is to refuse to develop them in the first place. We simply don't know how they will evolve or the benefit they could provide.

The Evolution of Abstract Ideas

Expressed above, there is a certain uncertainty in the final utility of an abstract idea. Indeed, many things that, at first, seemed useful, turned out to be futile, and many things that seemed absurd turned out to be quite useful. Predicting the evolution of abstract ideas is challenging due to the sheer amount of external influences and perspectives that tug at the thought while it's in the world. This carries with it, in my view, a certain optimism about life at large: it is, to us, inherently unpredictable, and has the effect of pleasantly surprising us in many ways. This must be, at least in part, due to our propensity to simplify our understanding of the world. By nature of the structure of our mind, we must maintain only a mere representation of the external world. As I express in this entry, this necessarily results in cognitive distortions that affect our perception. As such, when releasing abstract ideas, it is necessarily impossible to predict how they will turn out after passing through the minds of people different from us even in minor ways.

By extension of these characteristics, the idea of a certain responsibility comes to mind: because we cannot predict how an abstract idea will evolve, we must take care not to expose potentially dangerous ideas, or at least to facilitate their growth in a responsible manner. This opens up a wider discussion of moral responsibility which is, suffice it to say, outside of the scope of this article. However, it does beg the question: who is responsible when an idea goes wrong: the distributor or the enactor? I'll digress with the reminder that, "one man's tool is another man's weapon." Food for thought.

Enumeration of Peculiarities

I. Definition

Abstract thinking is conceptual and focused on deeper understanding, underlying principles, and exploring possibilities beyond the immediate and the tangible.

II. Preference

• Values theory, possibility, and potential over immediate practicality.
• Prefers exploring “what if” scenarios.
• Leans towards innovation, experimentation, and unconventional approaches.

III. Susceptibilities

• Can become lost in speculation, losing sight of practical applications.
• May struggle with time management or prioritization of tasks.
• Risk of over-complicating issues or overlooking straightforward solutions.

IV. Objectives

• Seek to understand deeper meanings and larger systems.
• Pursue long-term innovation and transformative change.
• Challenge existing paradigms and explore alternative possibilities.

V. Characteristics

• Conceptual, focusing on ideas rather than actions.
• Open-ended, constantly exploring new possibilities.
• Recursive, revisiting ideas and refining them over time.
• Values complexity, nuance, and ambiguity.
• Concerned with “what could be” rather than “what is.”

VI. Examples

• "What if?"
• "How does this project align with our long-term vision?"
• "What underlying principles should guide our approach?"
• "What are the potential opportunities if we think beyond the current constraints?"
• "How do we define success in broader terms?"
• "What’s the deeper purpose driving this objective?"

Analysis on Repetitive Thinking

"It is difficulties that show what men are.” Epictetus

One peculiar characteristic of binary activities is that the repetitive use of one tends to make the distinction between them clearer, assuming, of course, that the opposing activity was acknowledged in the first place. However, this distinction is generally not so clear with models of thought. Instead, the repeated use of one model tends to hinder and disguise the manifestation of the other. As a consequence, we observe, in the worst of cases, a nearly pathological aversion to an alternative mode of thinking. Worse yet, any attempt to argue for the opposing model tends to entrench the subject even more in their preferred model of thinking. Furthermore, as a consequence of the clear distinction, any subject willing to try out the opposing model tends to revert back elastically, and quite quickly, to their preference, generally on the basis of difficulty and discomfort. Indeed, I would be lying if I said I did not share this unfortunate disposition. When I force myself to look at things concretely for extended periods, I find the analysis uninteresting and unidimensional; naturally, I go back to what I'm familiar with.

This speaks to a core characteristic of human behavior: the avoidance of disagreeable activities and the pursuit of pleasurable ones. Generally and fundamentally speaking, this leads us towards, I believe, net-positive behaviors. However, there are more than a few obvious and notable exceptions. While a full elucidation of these activities is far out of scope of this already verbose article (not to mention practically impossible), I think that, generally, this psychological disposition is in our benefit. After all, if it weren't, we likely would not continue it. ⁸

As a consequence of repetitive thinking which disguises the manifestations of opposing models, we tend to have a skewed perspective of external information—everything is filtered through one or the other model, and many potential insights are missed. This is understandable, albeit unfortunate. After all, we cannot reasonably maintain a complete and accurate model of the world on our own. ⁹ Instead, we construct simplified (read inaccurate) mental models which are inherently localized to our experiences. Thus, when different, opposing views come our way, they are seen not for what they are, but for what they are to us, as filtered through an already subjective model.

There is nothing new here. These concepts are quite well-known; most of us, I dare say, are at least familiar with them on a cursory basis. Nevertheless, the importance in the context of this entry is in the examination of the consequences, not of this psychological disposition, which is well-known, but of the repetitive behavior these primitive functions imply. It is, therefore, imperative that we exercise the mental muscles operating these opposing models, in an effort to achieve more balanced and, by extension, empathetic cognition. ¹⁰

Identification of Repetitive Thinking

I. Rigidity and Over-Reliance on Familiar Sources and Methods

Perhaps the most obvious example of repetitive thinking is a certain inability to entertain new ideas, which necessarily implies an over-reliance on existing methods a general rigidity in thought patterns. We often cling to what has served us well in the past, assuming that if a certain approach worked previously, it should naturally apply to any new circumstance. While there is a certain efficiency in this, it can be dangerously limiting. One of the best indicators of intellectual maturity is a certain level of cognitive flexibility, which is mutually exclusive with repetitive thinking.

This has the clear effect of hindering growth and the acquisition of new perspectives, both being fundamental to learning.

II. Difficulty Switching Contexts

As an extension of rigidity, it implies an inability or, at minimum, difficulty with switching contexts, both in terms of informational complexity and the application of it. This cognitive inflexibility is rooted in the dominance of a singular model of thought—one that becomes so habitual it resists change, even when the parameters of a problem demands it. Those who habitually engage in concrete thinking, for instance, may struggle to shift into an abstract model when a problem requires conceptualization, and vice versa. This has the effect of further reinforcing the preferred model and leading to still more repetitive thinking. This is an insidious and all-too common cycle.

III. Predictability

A peculiar disposition, the predictability of one’s responses and thought patterns, though often perceived as a virtue of consistency, can be a red flag indicating the presence of repetitive thinking. When one approaches new challenges or discussions with the same recurring set of responses, there is a clear lack of cognitive flexibility.

IV. Confirmation Bias and Reduced Curiosity

Repetitive thinking has the general effect of causing the subject to protect firmly held beliefs, even if those beliefs aren't justified with anything of substance. This results in a certain confirmation bias and a reduced curiosity. In the former case, information is construed in the most neutral way, where things that might refute known principles are seen as contextually different, and thus not a threat. In the latter case, new information is not acknowledged or sought out to begin with, for fear that it may challenge known principles and, by extension, the identity of the subject.

V. Over-Simplification

Over-simplification is a common cognitive shortcut that often emerges from repetitive thinking. Conditioned by habitual thought patterns, the mind tends to reduce complex issues into binary or overly simplified categories. ¹¹ This not only makes decision-making easier but also reinforces the cognitive model that has been repeatedly employed. However, in doing so, the mind overlooks the intricacies and subtleties of the issue at hand, flattening what could be a multi-dimensional problem into something rather unidimensional. As a result, one becomes increasingly detached from the complexity of reality, with a consequential tendency to approach problems with a narrow and reductive mindset that diminishes the richness of thought and observation.

VI. Lack of Reflection on Cognitive Patterns

The lack of reflection on one’s cognitive patterns is perhaps the most fundamental and unfortunate sign of repetitive thinking. Without regular metacognitive analysis, we remain unaware of how our minds process information, exposing a vulnerability that the habits and biases that unconsciously shape our thinking exploit at will. This lack of reflection creates a hidden feedback loop, where the same cognitive processes are repeated without examination, further entrenching our mental models. To neglect reflection is to allow our thoughts to operate on autopilot, where familiar patterns go unchallenged and the opportunity for intellectual growth is squandered.

Dangers in Metacognitive Analysis

Critically, the predisposition to filter and interpret information in a monolithic fashion, consistent with a single model of complexity, is a significant barrier for accurate and worthwhile metacognitive analysis. After all, the environment such analysis takes place is done so using a wealth of information that has already been indexed with a fixed model; furthermore, new information absorbed in this context will likely also be filtered as such. In this way, it serves to hasten the already recursive nature of our thinking and, by extension solidify the model's dominance even further.

However, while my writing tends toward the lowest common denominator in this respect, I do not see this as fully inhibitive to mental growth. In many cases, the mere recognition of this propensity is sufficient to plant a seed of change which, if properly cultivated, will grow into a catalyst for localized mental reconstruction. ¹²

With that said, however, it will be an uphill battle—just think of how difficult it would be to exchange your most fondly held opinions for others—especially those in opposition—with mere thought alone. Successful implementation requires enormous introspection with as much objectivity and, in some ways, skepticism as you can muster. This is not impossible, but the effort it requires, I would argue, is generally inhibitive for most, understandably. Furthermore, the discipline to maintain the consistency to do this over time requires substantial emotional conviction, which is generally uncommon when considering highly conceptual ideals like "truth," "objectivity," and the like.

It is worth noting, however, that, as Heraclitus said, “war is the father of all things.” The relative difficulty of this task notwithstanding, it highlights not only the importance but, more cosmically, the purpose—if it's difficult and unfamiliar, chances are it leads toward a more positive outcome—at minimum, something that can be perceived as positive.

As such, I think that small and trivial measures are the most effective, especially when considering the dynamic between importance and consistency. Instead of resolving to strip away all your preconceived notions, which is arguably impossible, you resolve to take individual steps towards a more balanced cognitive model. I think this is not only more effective for most people, but also incredibly manageable—small questions, quick rethinking, and other trivial efforts have a compounding effect which can amass to large-scale differences when observed over long periods of time.

Preventative and Neutralizing Measures for Repetitive Thinking

In this context, I think that preventative measures to reduce the biased effects of repetitive thinking are an imperative aspect of a balanced psychological development; in general, the longer some mental construct remains, the harder it is to notice and, ultimately, remove. Below, I've included a few suggestions on measures that can be implemented to aid this issue of repetitive thinking and the dangers it poses.

I. Reflective Questions

Perhaps the most obvious measure is to simply cultivate a habit of reflection, with particular emphasis on small decisions and thoughts. The focus should be kept small so that the complexity is not inhibitive to accurate reflection, as more complex concepts represent a multitude of dynamic ideas, which can disguise the original sentiment.

I find it easiest to start with simple questions:

• "What would [some other person] think about this?"
• "What would I have done 10 years ago?"
• "What would I have done if I were 10 years older?"
• "What would a [person with ideal behavior] do?"
  • "What would an abstract person think about this?"
  • "What would a concrete person think about this?"
  • "What would a wise person do?"
  • "What would a healthy person do?"

Questions like these not only open the door for different perspectives, they may also have the effect of introducing new ideas for your own identity. After all, once you start questioning the petrified cognitive constructs you've been working with, it begs the question about the "real you," which may serve as perhaps the most influential catalyst for change in the first place. ¹³

II. Exposure to New Ideas

Another fundamental measure is to simply expose yourself to new ideas, with particular emphasis on ideas that either go against your intuitive opinions or ones sourced from different cultures or subcultures—ideally, both. Combined with reflective questions such as, "why do they think this way," this method is a highly effective way to intentionally shift your perspective away from what you've come to accept as standard.

• Books of all kinds, with particular emphasis on topics distinct from your professional or cultural background
• Physically visiting new places, with particular emphasis on areas representative of other cultures (or, of course, visiting other cultures themselves)
• Discussions with people in your area or, if done so responsibly, over the internet in other areas of the world
• Learning new languages

III. Journaling

Finally, journaling is a good way to measure your success in cognitive development and perspective-shifting. Comparing notes from a year ago to those today, you can clearly see the compounding effect that individual, trivial actions taken daily have. One should not underestimate the benefit of journaling on this level.

Interpretation of the Fundamental Structure

The implicit foundation for the analysis of the two models of thinking I've elucidated thus far has been, predominantly, as individual components of a binary model. However, I've yet to comment on the behavior of the binary model as a whole. As the saying goes, "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts," which, I think, holds true in this case as well. Indeed, the use of one or the other model exclusively necessarily cuts one off from an enormous wealth of information that would have otherwise been considered with a more balanced cognition.

The tendency to think of these models, unironically, as static is one issue I see with their proper utilization. You are not an "abstract thinker" or a "concrete thinker," you are a thinker which tends towards one direction more frequently, and for certain types of information. Disregarding the obvious semantic ambiguity, we can say, then, that certain situations necessarily call for one or the other model—to be so rigid as to refuse to use the proper model when called for is a sign of intellectual immaturity. ¹⁴

An Interpretation of the Models as Complementary

As with quite a lot of traditionally oppositional models, a further analysis tends to reveal complementary aspects, and, in this case, it's no different. As I've indicated many times thus far, the disproportionate use of one model yields an obviously partial perspective. It is, therefore, prudent that we exercise the use of both models in a balanced manner if we ever hope to achieve an, at least, semi-complete view of the world.

We might see this as a sort of layered measure of practicality: each model has deficiencies inherently related to its lack of oppositional properties. As such, the collaborative use of the models has the effect of covering up the issues observed in a monolithic approach.

This structure of opposing-but-complementary forces is everywhere—light and dark, up and down, hot and cold, good and evil. Further analysis of these relationships yields, I think, a profound insight: they are not contradictory, complementary, or distinct on a fundamental level—they are the same thing.

An Exploration of Identity

"Hot" and "cold" are distinguished only by amounts of energy in a scale; they are labeled as relative "temperatures," which is the measure of the degree with which we use to distinguish one value from another. I think a similar structure can be conceptually applied to these models of thinking.

Instead of degrees of energy, they are distinguished by degrees of complexity and, by extension, comfort of working with information at a fundamental level. Seen this way, there is not "abstract" and "concrete" thinking, there is only a scale, some arbitrary value that defines how we work with information.

On the "low" end of the scale, information is seen as-is and is not taken much further than its initial representation—we call this "concrete." On the "high" end, information is reduced to its most fundamental principles on one thread, and analyzed for implications and synthesis of new information on another—we call this "abstract." We might then conclude that an abstract thinker is more "comfortable" with information and its implications than a traditionally concrete thinker. ¹⁵ It's worth noting, however, that comfortability is not always self-determinate—without consistent and accurate metacognitive analysis, you may never know how "comfortable" you are with information.

Visualizing the Flow of Information

We should explore, more fundamentally, what this structure looks like. If abstract and concrete thinking are labels for arbitrary intensities in the scale of informational complexity, it seems that they must exist between mind and environment. Indeed, it is as if this model is a lens through which information is perceived and, by extension, thought-directed behaviors (that is, almost all behavior) is funneled.

At a higher level, this lens interprets information in a representative way with particular emphasis on its indirect implications and how it relates to the process of synthesizing new information. At a lower level, this lens interprets information according to some concrete ideal, and how this information can be used to achieve that.

Of course, this is a highly dynamic—and very speculative!—model. Indeed, it appears to be polymorphic in many ways. As I am exposed to different classes of information, my relative amount of abstraction varies. For philosophical ideas, my abstraction is necessarily high; for administrative tasks, it is necessarily low. However, psychologically speaking, our tendency to use different thinking styles in different circumstances, especially those that call for one or the other model, imply things about the way our mind works at a more fundamental level. Indeed, if you viewed me performing administrative tasks, the thought would not occur that I am predominantly abstract.

Indeed, as I've touched on partially thus far, it is these deviations from what is traditional that sets individuals apart. Those who are known to have created and spread revolutionary ideas started, at the fundamental level, by not accepting what was generally accepted. ¹⁶

Effects of a Monolithic Model

All this begs the question: why does this hypothetical visualization matter? Beyond pure philosophical interest, I do think there are a few practical consequences.

I. Enhanced Flexibility in Problem-Solving

If concrete and abstract thinking are seen as the same process operating on different scales of complexity, it might encourage a more fluid approach to problem-solving. Rather than categorizing problems in a binary way as requiring either abstract or concrete solutions, one could approach each situation with a continuum of thought, scaling up or down the complexity as needed to fit the parameters of an ideal solution. This implies the development of a high level of cognitive flexibility and a more holistic view of external information in general.

II. Unified Educational Approaches

Educational systems or, less significantly, individual instances of educational information, might integrate these models of thought more holistically. Traditional approaches tend to segregate models into associative approaches to learning, which further exemplifies the short-sighted distinction between the two models. If they are seen not only as complementary but as fundamentally indistinct, it necessarily implies a more all-inclusive interpretation of information to be used as knowledge.

III. Reduction of Cognitive Bias

The recognition of the models as fundamentally monolithic might yield a less critical view of ideas classified as largely one or the other model. By recognizing that both forms of thinking are expressions of the same underlying process, one might become more open to diverse approaches, reducing cognitive rigidity. This should naturally result in a more positive outlook on different types of information, promoting collaboration by means of more empathetic communication.

IV. Personal Growth and Increased Metacognitive Awareness

Understanding or even considering different cognitive structures and their implications has the effect of necessarily requiring time spent in metacognitive analysis. Just by thinking about thinking, you're starting to pierce through this veil of cognition that is generally accepted as fundamental by most people. Once you realize that you can question it and, ultimately, change it, you'll never be the same—and that's a very positive thing.

Furthermore, seeing these models as scalic rather than binary naturally suggests that improvement is really a matter of progression instead of complete translation to another form of thinking, which is very much a difficult thing. Taking small steps, considering metacognitive analysis, and becoming more familiar with more-or-less complex ideas will inch you closer to a more balanced cognition, and, with it, a great deal of other benefits that come from intellectual maturity.

The Inevitability of Abstract Thinking

Much like how new perspectives and ideas tend to emerge quite inevitably from abstract thinking within a well-understood problem, abstract thinking itself, in my opinion, tends to emerge quite inevitably from within groups of people, which, I believe, is a consequence of diversity and communication. Sharing undeniable similarities, we also share undeniable differences and, consequently, the information we are exposed to is interpreted in unique ways. Furthermore, as an extension of communication, ideas spread like viruses which carry unique and unseen cognitive pathogens—by nature of interaction with others, we encounter new ideas. As such, abstract thinking is not necessarily inevitable as a model of perception itself, but more so as an almost inescapable consequence of cognitive variety at a communal level.

If this is entertained as true, why, then, is abstract thinking in its purest form so rare? One potential argument is that, by means of being unfamiliar, it is obstructively cognitively demanding. Looking at observations beyond their mere representation and questioning them below the surface is a difficult and demanding task, more so if one is not accustomed to it. In line with repetitive thinking, we tend towards what we are familiar with. However, I am not satisfied with this argument. After all, the tendency for repetitive thinking may be inhibitive for most, but many people still emerge with fresh perspectives, and they appear to do so effortlessly.

Indeed, my own predisposition for abstract thinking may be characterized by these observations. When forced to look at things in a concrete fashion, I not only get quite bored with the banality of it all, but I find it somewhat difficult and cognitively demanding to push against my own abstract inclinations. In some cases, I am surprised at how quickly an abstract idea has been minimized to mere practicality by someone else. As such, another argument is that some people are predisposed for using one model or the other, as an extension of diversity.

That is my core argument: humanity seems to be fundamentally characterized by a few traits, but, namely, diversification. You share both natural and nurtural similarities with your family, but the exact makeup of that manifests in vastly different ways, almost by design. It is this characteristic that, I think, makes the use of an abstract model inevitable: diversity breeds innovation, and the abstract model is the catalyst for that sort of progress.

Speaking even more primitively, we might recognize the need for change is an answer for inefficiency. Constant, iterative improvements are one of the most fundamental characteristics of nature at large, and it only makes sense that we would adopt the same attribute—change, evolution of mind and body, and the constant endeavor for growth, both individually and societally.

The Imperative of Abstract Thinking

It is this, and all that has thus been said, that leads to, perhaps, my most critical point: that the balanced use of the abstract model not only leads us to our instinctive ideal as a collective, but is what defines us to begin with. It is curious how often we despise change when, in my opinion, fundamentally speaking, it is the most primitive characteristic of our existence to begin with. Taken in context, it speaks to the overwhelming prevalence of repetitive thinking patterns which prevent us from reaching this cosmic ideal.

It is thus our responsibility to improve our thinking, for it is what directs our purpose.

Thank you for reading.

---

Acknowledgment of Argumentative Deficiency

An undeniable characteristic of this writing thus far can be labeled as speculative—I make no claims for actuality. Instead, I am merely proposing some ideas which I've thought about. Naturally, and by means of their philosophical nature, they will not be scientifically supported. Nevertheless, I'll address a few potential concerns.

Overgeneralization of Cognitive Models

The clearest criticism, and one that naturally extends from abstraction, is the overgeneralization of cognitive models. By describing these models in broad terms, it might be argued that the nuance and variability of individual cognitive styles are lost. People’s thought processes are influenced by a wide array of factors; these influences can result in a more complex interaction between abstract and concrete thinking than the relatively binary model proposed in this article.

While this criticism is valid, it is essential to clarify that the model of abstract and concrete thinking proposed here is not intended to reduce the full complexity of cognition to two static categories, or even to a monolithic model of arbitrary degrees. Instead, these models serve as conceptual tools to highlight patterns in how individuals tend to approach thinking at different levels of complexity. The goal is, understandably, not to deny the variability of human thought but to use these models as a means of understanding general tendencies.

Lack of Empirical Support

This criticism is valid in that this article does not claim to be grounded in strict scientific methodology. Instead, it offers a philosophical perspective on cognition, which is inherently speculative and does not require empirical validation in the same way scientific studies do. That said, further research could certainly help bridge the gap between philosophy and cognitive science, potentially enriching the discussion by providing empirical data to either substantiate, refine, or refute the claims made. The value of this discussion lies not in its scientific rigor but in its capacity to stimulate thought and provoke deeper consideration of how we engage with the world cognitively, which is inherently subjective. As a result of this subjectivity, much of our deeper and more imperative cognitive processes are beyond the reach of standardized evidentiary collections. Although it's contextually relevant to consider a recursive definition here, it's worth considering the effect concrete thinking has in this context ;)

Apparent Neglect of Emotional and Intuitive Aspects of Thinking

To avoid this article from becoming insufferably long, I did not spend much time discussing the nature of the information these models operate on. I tend to use the term "idea" or "thought" when describing such information, but that is prone to substantial misunderstanding. Instead, I see each model as inherently polymorphic, operating on a unique piece of information with each loop. As such, in one moment you may be considering historical literature, and in another the emotional impact that literature had on you. I see each of these classes of information, and the vast collection of the remainder of informational classes, as filtered through these models. Due to the enormous amount of uniqueness sitting atop the already insufferably complex state of our cognitive make-up, it would be nearly futile to attempt even a partially accurate description of the manifestations of each model in consideration of different classes of information.

In short, these models operate on information at its most basic level, which I have not categorized.

Difficulties in Determination Due to Misleading Psychological Dispositions

As an extension of the previous issue, we might observe issues in determination of your primary model. Because these models operate on fundamentally all types of information, their manifestations are unique between different circumstances as well as, obviously, people. As such, it may be difficult to ascertain the primary model in a person when looking at concrete manifestations. We can reasonably summarize this as, "it takes one to know one," highlighting that it takes an abstract perspective to recognize another, due to its inherent under-reliance of concrete observations.

Similarities to Jungian Analytical Psychology

Some readers may notice similarities between the models presented here and concepts found in Jungian Analytical Psychology, particularly in the distinction between intuitive (abstract) and sensing (concrete) cognitive functions. Jung’s psychological framework divides human cognition into distinct categories, including abstract and practical thinking, which are strongly reminiscent of the models described in this writing. Jung’s influence on personality theory and cognitive models is pervasive, and parallels might naturally emerge between his work and the ideas presented here.

The purpose here is not to align with or refute Jungian theory. Rather, the comparison highlights that the dichotomy between abstract and concrete thinking has been explored by many across different disciplines. The models discussed here are more focused on the cognitive tendencies that individuals adopt when navigating complexity and practicality, rather than on their strict relationship with conscious and unconscious processes. Though influenced by similar concerns about human cognition, this analysis is concerned more with the functional and philosophical aspects of thinking than with the psychodynamic structures central to Jungian analysis.

Footnotes

1. Naturally, the crystallization of repetitive thought patterns speaks to a more fundamental characteristic of the structure of the mind and, by extension, memory. Further still, these biases based on existing information are quick to form and quite resistant to change (Richards J. Heuer, Psychology of Intelligence Analysis, Center for the Study of Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency, 1999). While I argue for the application of the abstract model in this entry, I recognize the inherent futility in changing the method of thinking in any notable number of people. In any case, notwithstanding my inherent bias, the benefit of cognitive diversity generally outweighs the speculative gains to be made from a monolithic approach. ↩

2. It is worth noting, however, that the inherently abstract nature of this topic to begin with gives the abstract model a clear advantage in analysis, as the concrete model has the tendency to dismiss theoretical insights. With that said, I believe that metacognitive activities, while somewhat theoretical and abstract, have a clear, actionable benefit. ↩

3. However, ascribing the misalignment of my personal experience merely to a binary difference would be highly reductive. Seen another way, the example of my professional experience highlights a more fundamental difference in importance: I am primarily interested in the nature of novel solutions, while high-level decision-makers focus more on the viability of the project as a whole. This is understandable. After all, the potential risks we expose ourselves to by using undocumented solutions might not be worth the effort to pioneer them in the first place. More than a simple matter of binary differences between models of thought, this demonstrates a clearer misalignment in passions and objectives. Personally, I am quite willing to risk a new solution simply because, either way, I don't really lose: if it fails, I learn from the failure, if it works, it works. However, such liberal experimentation is rarely seen the same way in professional environments. ↩

4. I'd argue that most of this takes place unconsciously. ↩

5. An interesting contrast for concrete thinking might be seen in the context of hallucinations. Devoid of sensation, the mind establishes an abstract model to supply it, resulting in a pathological disconnection from reality, but through a proxy, which is not immediately obvious to the subject. Of course, hallucination can occur equally in both models, and the psychiatric field is distinct from what we're discussing here. Nevertheless, I find it worth considering in passing, as hallucinations fundamentally are mimicked information, and, as such, are interpreted through these models. ↩

6. Inception (2010) is, by a considerable degree, my most favorite movie. It explores the implications of ideas and their conceptual behavior in the mind's of individuals in states of lowered cognitive security. Additionally, it explores the idea of dreaming and how the subconscious of a person manifests at different levels of complexity. In fact, I am working on an upcoming article discussing the idea of subconscious agents and their behaviors which was largely inspired by the narrative from Inception. ↩

7. The use of "within reason" is one tactic to set obvious limits on abstract thinking. This is, of course, an understandable condition, otherwise abstract thinking would have no earthly supervision. Still, it is interesting to examine the subtle ways that concrete thinking exercises control of ideas. ↩

8. Again, generally speaking. One obvious criticism of this claim would be concerning criminal psychology. If the avoidance of disagreeable activities generally leads towards net-positive behaviors, why, then, do we consistently observe criminals going back and forth between so-called "correctional" institutions? Clearly, they are not doing much "correcting" if their subjects tend to repeat behaviors that result in predictable and undesirable outcomes. One potential explanation speaks, yet again, to the power of repetition and familiarity; ingrained, crystalized behaviors are very difficult to change, even over long periods—borderline impossible, if the subject themselves are unwilling to change. As such, while we all may agree that criminal punishment as a disagreeable outcome, it might be said that the subjects continue behavior with this result because it exists, primarily, within the realm of outcomes they are familiar with. Furthermore, this may speak to the importance of environment in the cultivation and acquisition of net-positive mental models. As some say, "there are no bad kids, only bad parents." ↩

9. Herbert Simon, Models of Man, 1957. James G. March. “Bounded Rationality, Ambiguity, and the Engineering of Choice,” in David E. Bell, Howard Raiffa, and Amos Tversky, eds., Decision Making: Descriptive, Normative, and Prescriptive Interactions. Cambridge University Press, 1988. ↩

10. By "empathetic cognition," I mean two things: (a) that the use of a different model of thinking necessarily improves our understanding of a different group of people; and (b) that, by extension of this understanding, we come to be more empathetic of their mental processes and conclusions which, I would hope, results in better relationships. ↩

11. The term "recognition" finds its roots in Latin, specifically from "recognitio," meaning a review or examination. This is derived from "recognoscere," which itself is a combination of "re-" (again) and "cognoscere" (to know or become acquainted). The verb "cognoscere" stems from "com-" (together) and "gnoscere" (to know), a root also linked to the Greek "gnosis" (knowledge). Hence, "recognition" initially referred to the act of knowing something once again, highlighting a process of identification or acknowledgment of what is already familiar. In this context, we might say that the process of recognition of mental propensities serve as a reevaluation of something you've come to assume you know. As ever, the most perplexing analysis we will ever face is that of ourselves. ↩

12. James Clear, Atomic Habits, 2018 ↩

13. The irony of the fact that this entry primarily concerns the discussion of a binary model of thinking is not lost on me. ↩

14. It's worth considering the established "norm" here that is, naturally, due to concrete thinking. ↩

15. This is referring to an "abstract thinker" and a "concrete thinker" again as a strictly binary model for the purposes of explanations. Obviously, the distinction is less clear in real circumstances. ↩

16. This begs the question: what can be said of children and their often creative ideas? One argument is that their relative inexperience hasn't yet solidified a particular model, allowing them to move between different modes of thinking with more ease. Furthermore, the inexperience speaks to a lack of already indexed information, which, in adults, can serve as an inhibition to pure thought. Children haven't yet accepted everything in the world "as-is," and, as such, are more willing to challenge that which, in their view, isn't fully established. ↩