On Sensemaking

Post date: Jul 9, 2015 2:25:06 AM

I'm working on a how-to-philosophize-about-technology project for an introductory-level course. The project isn't standard "identify and evaluate argument" philosophizing. That's one way to better understand a topic. But it's not going to work for me -- I think that philosophizing about technology hasn't yet progressed to the point where there are good arguments to analyze at an introductory level. So I'm trying to develop another way for understanding a topic. I'm calling it sensemaking, after some work I found while reading about business organization. Sensemaking begins with data about some target domain: some collection of personal opinions, experiences, and attitudes about the meaning and significance of certain objects of interest. As one makes explicit this data, one also elaborates an orientation toward the data – a framework for explaining why the target domain presents such data. Next, one reconciles the orientation. Reconciling involves identifying ambiguities and uncertainties in the explanatory framework, gathering evidence relevant to resolving those ambiguities and uncertainties, and updating the explanatory framework in light of the available evidence. Because ambiguities and uncertainties induce shocks into our encounters with technology, updating orientations restores a routine flow to these encounters. After reconciliation, one proceeds to questioning. This involves comparing the updated orientation to alternatives for the sake of identifying their respective strengths and weaknesses. Possible results include supplementing an original orientation with complementary ones for different domains, or outright replacing one orientation with another. As iterations of the entire process reach stable equilibrium – no new data comes to light, no further ambiguities or uncertainties emerge, and no competing orientations rank as better – sensemaking reaches a temporary end as well.

Among its other features, sensemaking is not truth-directed. Nor does it yield as output justification or support for some claims over others. I imagine that sensemaking is unfamiliar to most, and so I've designed an exercise set intended to approximate the activity. If you have the time and inclination, I invite you to try them -- and please, let me know how it goes!

Exercise 1.1: In brief phrases, write down the most important features of your personality.

This corresponds to the "collect data" step in Figure 1.1. Do this before you attempt subsequent exercises, in order to get the most out of the activity. Your response is meant to provide data for making sense of yourself. These data are personal, because they are reports of your self-opinions. There is no "correct" response here. Try to write down things that ring true or things that come to mind immediately. If you find yourself absent an opinion, it might help to imagine casual conversation with a new acquaintance at a party. You might focus on character traits, attitudes toward past experiences, your roles for work or family.

Exercise 1.2: Find brief descriptions of the sixteen Myers-Briggs personality types. Determine which personality type best characterizes you.

This corresponds to the "construct orientation" step in Figure 1.1. The idea for this exercise is to select from pre-established orientations; in more realistic sensemaking activities, you would use data collected in Exercise 1.1 to construct an orientation. (If you are web savvy, you can find online "tests" that determine your Myers-Briggs personality type for you. The input you give for these tests qualifies as collecting data; the output corresponds to a constructed orientation.)

You can find descriptions for the Myers-Briggs personality types in many places. They will be abbreviated with odd acronyms, such as "INFP" or "ESTJ." Skim the descriptions, and select the one you think best describes you. For example, if you think curiosity and cleverness are your most important features, you might decide that you most likely have an "ENTP" personality (Extroverted, Intuitive, Thinking, Perceiving). Avoid settling for ties or inventing your own type, at least for now; subsequent exercises will give you a chance to deal with such concerns.

Exercise 1.3: Use the description associated with your chosen Myers-Briggs personality type (from Exercise 1.2) to explain your most important personality features (from Exercise 1.1).

This corresponds to the "explain data" step in Figure 1.1. The idea behind the Myers-Briggs typology is that strangers will expect different personality types to have different features as their most important. When you find which personality type you have, you should be able to explain why the features you listed in Exercise 1.1 are your most important features. ("I am clever and curious because I am an ENTP.") Constructing these explanations completes the "elaborating" phase from Figure 1.1.

Because the Myers-Briggs personality typology is rather generic, most people will not fit neatly into one of the sixteen available descriptions. So you should expect your explanatory efforts in Exercise 1.3 to fail in some cases, or at least to seem like a stretch.[2] Do not be too eager to make yourself fit one of the standardized Myers-Briggs types. Indeed, if you find that all the features you listed in Exercise 1.1 fit the personality type you chose in Exercise 1.2, you should revisit Exercise 1.1 and write down at least one important feature of your personality that does not fit. These misfits drive the "reconciling" phase from Figure 1.1.

Exercise 1.4: Make a list with two columns. In the left column, list each element in the description of your chosen Myers-Briggs personality type (from Exercise 1.2). In the right column, list any important features of your personality (from Exercise 1.1) that do not fit the corresponding description. Then, for each row, ask friends and acquaintances which column best characterizes your personality. Keep a record of their responses.

This corresponds to the "gather evidence" step in Figure 1.1. For example, suppose that one of your important personality traits is a penchant for novelty: you like "mixing things up," as they say. Suppose also that the ENTP type best fits you. Then you might notice a misfit between your self-description and the aspect in the description that says "Bored by routine, seldom does the same thing the same way." Specifically, you might think to yourself, "I seldom do the same thing the same way, but I'm not bored by routine. I just tend not to have a routine." Exercise 1.4 asks you to note this misfit. In the left column, you would write, "Bored by routine;" in the right column, you would write, "Likes mixing things up."

The intention of Exercise 1.4 is to acquire some less personal information about your personality. The evidence you gather might not be reliable. Just do the best you can. The idea for the exercise is to identify explanatory shortcomings in your chosen Myers-Briggs personality type. You should be able to identify at least one shortcoming, if you followed the instructions that follow Exercise 1.3.

Exercise 1.5: Tally the responses you gather from Exercise 1.4. When there are fewer votes for the Myers-Briggs description (left column) than for the associated self-description (right column), revise the Myers-Briggs description in a way that makes it fit with your self-description. Do this for each row from Exercise 1.4.

This approximates to the "derive update" step in Figure 1.1. The result should be a variant on one of the sixteen standard Myers-Briggs personality types. If, after completing this exercise, you decide to reconsider those aspects of your self-description that people judged to fit you less well than the associated Myers-Briggs description, you will engage in something akin to the "restore flow" step in Figure 1.1 and thereby complete the "reconciling" phase.

Exercise 1.6: Carefully read brief descriptions for the other fifteen Myers-Briggs personality types. Select the one you would pick as best describing you, if you could not pick the type you picked in Exercise 1.2.

This corresponds to the "identify alternatives" step in Figure 1.1. The idea for this exercise is to select from pre-established alternatives; in more realistic sensemaking activities, you might have to do more extensive research. If you had doubts about your choice for Exercise 1.2, now is the time to revisit those doubts.

Exercise 1.7: Repeat Exercise 1.3, using the Myers-Briggs description from Exercise 1.5 rather than your original selection from Exercise 1.2.

This corresponds to an initial stage for the "compare / contrast" step in Figure 1.1.

Exercise 1.8: Compare the degree to which the personality description you constructed in Exercise 1.5 fits your data from Exercise 1.1, and the degree to which the personality description you chose in Exercise 1.5 fits that same data. Use this comparison to support a judgment about which description best fits you.

This completes the "compare / contrast" step in Figure 1.1. If you judge that the description you chose in Exercise 1.7 fits you best, consider endorsing it as your personality type and abandoning the updated description from Exercise 1.5. Moreover, even if you judge the updated description as a better fit, you might consider whether entertaining an alternative brought to light any additions or further revisions you would like to make to your personality description. Considering these possibilities completes the "consider revision" step and associated "questioning phase" in Figure 1.1.