The human domain on this planet is a dynamically transactional space - a dizzying dervish dance between natural ecosystems and incredibly sophisticated manufactured constructs we use to negotiate this situation. On top of that we unintentionally layer one complication on top of another owing to the assumptions, emotions and activities of more than 7.9 billion inhabitants - and growing.
Even within the limited confines of each individual's daily routine, our world contains so much variety that it is impossible to process and comprehend everything that's going, due to the sheer amount and complex nature of our ambient conditions. Our solution is to try and sort information into compartments and routines - simplifying the complexity in order to get to the core of what matters to us. But as each day passes even that becomes trickier - at least with any assurance that we are not falling into a pit of distractions, given our clumsy methods of observation and analysis, as well as our penchant for generalizations.
In what is now a 'post-normal' period of societal disruption we resort to manufacturing our own personal 'normalcy' hoping that this cocoon can protect us and guide us safely through the dynamics of the dance. But then we find it puzzling when others deviate from our own impressions of what's going on. It's as though each individual is dancing to a different tune. And that is because they are!
The advent of new digital technologies means we have all become much more aware of how others are going about bringing order into their lives - relating and interacting across a vast spectrum of ingenuity, corruption, banality and inspiration as we conduct our activities and govern our affairs as best we can. Meanwhile, news headlines batter us with reports of events that trigger visceral emotions ranging from outrage to fear and every other sentiment felt by humankind.
In past decades, when the world was empty, and life was relatively simple, it was because most people were happy to accept the information conveyed to them by sources they trusted. Trustworthy sources were easy to identify: newspapers, state broadcasting entities, school teachers, the local GP and church wardens. Today though, in a realm populated by fakes, rumours, opinions posing as facts, and sensational fictions, it is far more difficult to make sense of what is going on, and to trust that we are being told the truth.
Truth has become a stranger. While untruths, cleverly nuanced and packaged as propaganda, have become a global lingua franca - a channel and knowledge portal in which all kinds of conspiracy theories and fictions can germinate. As a consequence the effort required to make sense of the world we inhabit is greater than it's ever been.
At its core, sense-making is the task of discovering what is true or not. But what is the meaning of this term truth that we use so nonchalantly? How do we know if something is true? How can we be sure that we know? Are some truths absolute and others subject to change depending on the circumstances - such as any community rules and principles where we live, or how we were socialised into that society? If we take scientific evidence to be sufficient for validating the truth, for how long should any one principle hold true? Does truth depend on evidence, or can faith alone contain the truth?
On a social plane, can truth be negotiated? If we are working on the basis of 'sacrificial logic' of a kind we still see in the Catholic church for example, it seems reasonable that we might want to negotiate truthfulness. Perhaps we all hold different truths and can accept, discard or favour specific aspects of our personal truths within prescribed or intuited limits? This 'internal integrity compass' seems often to guide what we consider possible, probable, and preferable after all.
Finally, how should truth be communicated for its interpretation to be valid? Where is the unimpeachable source of truth and in what conditions does it wither or thrive? What are its various aspects? How do we sort fact from fiction, diagnosing untruths wrapped up as facts? What happens when truth is fragmented - as in conspiracy theories, for example, where shards of truth are woven into fanciful conclusions that are mistaken and therefore untruthful? How do secrets, gossip and rumours feature in disturbing our ability to make sense? Can feelings of guilt or shame or humility keep the truth hidden or confined to a small circle of confidantes? What are the consequences of that?
These are all critical questions. In a way, sense-making is the process of excavating the architecture of surrounding events and transactions, and the multiple layers of meaning within the stories we tell each other, and to which we are subject, so that we are better able to set aside semiotic distortions, rumours, and gossip that all tap into and fuel our fears, anxieties and delusions, to reveal a version of reality upon which we can rely. At least temporarily.
So is the truth, then, merely a product of our collective interface with varying degrees of purpose, influence, power and impact? Or can the truth be 'coloured' by our own perceptions and ingrained beliefs? And, if the latter, to what extent can these shift by listening to and processing heterodox views?
For example, is the Taliban of 20 years ago the same Taliban that has won back power in Afghanistan? By adopting modern technologies with which to communicate they are demonstrating an ability to stay up-to-date that is novel. Their declared intentions, too, are certainly more inclusive than before. They are at pains to convey to the wider world how much they have changed. But is that assertion conveyed in their messaging consistent with a new reality, or are we simply being misled by propaganda? Is it just the aspiration of the Taliban leadership and, if so, does it accord with various field commanders whose actions seem to indicate they have not yet grasped the need for a less brutal policy towards women?
As I review the news surrounding global events (such as the tragedy unfolding in Ukraine, and the ongoing mystery origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, for example), compare the 'contagion of anxiety' infecting the entire world with a range of mostly disregarded or misreported events of far greater magnitude in terms of existential threat (like the international apprehension and media hype on CO2 emissions at the expense of short-term warming from methane, for example), and then take into account the tsunami of trivia that quivers constantly in our field of vision as the most seductive and addictive dance of all, I am troubled. For what I am observing is collapse and destruction.
It seems to me that our ability to make sense of the human condition, to examine the deeper news as a way to imagine viable forms of renewal, has hit a wall. Indeed, the human family seems to be in a cognitive gridlock from which escape seems improbable. Unless we can bring a new consciousness to bear on our capacity for collective sense-making and regenerative responses.
The following practice fields are mostly missing from our sense-making inquiries. They are the generic rationale for why we so often fail, individually and collectively, to discern fact from fiction, and have trouble comprehending our everyday world.
Bandwidth: The amount of data we routinely create, capture, copy and consume through the technological domain is increasing exponentially. Today it is around 65 zettabytes. Over the next five years global data creation is projected to grow to more than 180 zettabytes. At the same time our ability to turn data into meaningful information - by what is often colloquially referred to as connecting the dots - appears to have stalled. There are some suggestions that our sense-making ability might be diminishing still further because of a lack of critical thinking being taught in schools. And this has been associated with an observed decline of IQ rates in some developed nations.
Thus, it is not just the sheer amount of data that is at issue, but rather the topological complexity of conflicting information we derive from that data which is aggravating the problem - together with the bandwidth we have available to process large exponential streams of data of course.
Navigation: Human interactions, and events within the various environments we inhabit, are all part of an ambient reality we are constantly trying to pin down and decode. This context is never static, as it might appear, but always shifting. So, for example, looking out of the window to decide whether we should take an umbrella with us as we leave the house might give us an accurate snapshot of current weather conditions. Based purely on that information we cannot know what the weather will be like in several hours time.
This means that most knowledge, though not quite all, is provisional. If we have the right tools, we can see complex events unfolding - simulated weather patterns displayed on the evening news for example. With more sophisticated tools we can see those same trajectories alter course, or speed, and assess their impact as they wax or wane.
The moment we arrive at any hypothesis, the ground may already have shifted - sometimes to such an extent that decisions we thought fixed become open to interrogation again. Sense-making therefore is not a discrete exercise in itself, but part of a cycle of sensing, making sense, reacting and monitoring complex patterns. A process of ongoing navigation.
Information Processing: Like all other sentient beings, humans absorb and process information synaesthetically - through all of our senses processed via three neural networks - the gut, the heart, and the mind. Adaptation over centuries has honed and re-ordered the way we use these senses, and in what sequence. So although our sense of smell is weak compared to an African elephant, and our hearing positively primitive in comparison to a bat, our ability to see is pretty good. As a consequence, a staggering 85 per cent of the information absorbed by the human brain is visual - in the form of movements, colours, patterns, trends, and factors to do with our identity and whether that information is important to us.
It stands to reason then that when we are analysing any aspect of a dynamically complex system (the improvised measures and countermeasures being used to both attack and defend Ukrainian citizens let's say), we need a way to visualise the data, preferably in an immersive environment where distractions are absent. Only when we can 'see' emergent patterns can we forensically examine the data from every possible angle and viewpoint.
Even using the most precise and comprehensive verbal language is no substitute for visualisation. Using the spoken and written word as the sole mode for making sense is entirely inadequate. Even ignoring such issues as translation, words by themselves invariably lead to misunderstandings and misinterpretations, which can then result in a further weakening of our sense-making capabilities.
Forms of Inquiry: Most conversations and methods of inquiry in the West are fashioned to fit dualistic models of discourse that emerged during the European Enlightenment. Cartesian logic still prevails in debates, negotiations, and tools constructed primarily as deductive reasoning. Deductive modes of dialogue are commonly used within the court system, schools, debating societies, and democratic parliaments.
This is different to Eastern modes of discourse which tend to be inductive - where deductive conversations can often be regarded as crude and unhelpful. Conversations for sense making could be enhanced by including both deductive and inductive forms of reasoning when examining information, or arguing a case for one position over another.
Whereas we look to provide absolute answers in the West, decision makers in the East are perfectly comfortable to withhold a final definitive solution, keeping inquiries open and maintaining a balanced view of a fluid situation. Is it possible that inductive reasoning in more open inquiries will find alternative truths to those established prematurely when using deductive methods of inquiry requiring 'the truth' to be found quickly?
Emotive Prejudice: Humans are primarily emotional beings. Initially we seek to absorb information kinaesthetically. This is often instinctive. Most decisions we make are triggered or informed by an emotional reaction to a particular situation or set of circumstances, and only rationalised later as we search for evidence to support our prejudices.
So it is important to ask how we feel about a certain event, individual, or policy in order to fully comprehend any bias we might have. Indeed affective information is often more important than anything else in arriving at the truth.
Layers of affective content are often subliminally packaged within conscious reason. Feelings are filters. They cannot be separated from interpretations of factual evidence attempting to find out 'what happened'. Nor should they be discounted as being of secondary importance to rational thoughts. They must therefore be taken into consideration as one, if not the most important way, in which 'the truth' is allowed to emerge.
Epistemology: Epistemological differences within participants in any discourse should be openly declared as part of framing any conversation aimed at shedding fresh light on an issue. Our individual 'ways of knowing' about the world are all inimitable because we grew up in different societies, with differing beliefs and assumptions, and idiosyncratic cultural traits and acquired values. As we mature we are further conditioned into believing some things but not others.
That does not make one episteme more right or wrong, true or false. It simply means that our sensing mechanisms, which inevitably precede sense-making, are different and will invariably 'colour' our sense-making. If these different epistemological nuances go undeclared we can be drawn into a Cartesian trap of erroneous and endlessly dualistic disputes, while stepping into new epistemologies can reveal possibilities previously hidden.
Ontological Framing: Our ontology is our individual 'window' onto the world. It frames and informs what kinds of things exist in the social world and our assumptions about the form and nature of that reality. We will never discover other truths by asking close friends - especially if we know they are likely to agree with us - as they will have similar ontologies. They will 'see' things the same way, make the same assumptions, and then roughly come to similar conclusions. The best we can 'know' in these circumstances is that our friends see reality through a similar lens.
Differing ontological frames offer us insights into different sets of truths. Asking an indigenous Australian woman how best to protect a local urban ecosystem, for example, will most probably reveal an ontological response that is fundamentally dissimilar from that of the female European scientist living next door to her.
Adopting 'polyocular' diversity is crucial for making sense of what might be possible (distinct from making sense of what happened, or what is happening) because our views regarding the nature of what it really means to be human, or ethical, or a doctor (our ontological framing) will be different in each case. Including this kind of framing in conversations about the future is essential if design breakthroughs are to be expected.
Space-Time: The present moment - the 'now' of our actuality - constrains our ability to imagine anything beyond the current manufactured normalcy. Only by repositioning an 'issue' within a broader metaframe, an 'expanded now' of awareness and interconnectivity, can we draw on a deeper understanding of what happened and what could still eventuate, as we learn to more fully appreciate what is going on 'right now'.
Levels of Conversation: We generally only notice stuff, and talk about matters superficially - skating on the surface of our perceptions and totally ignoring underlying factors - such as the inherent code that impels us to see and explain the world and our role in it a certain way. The scope of most discourse relates to an immediacy of what we can see, recall, and 'understand' clearly. Other vital information remains hidden below a surface we hesitate to penetrate for fear of causing offense, or discovering unpalatable truths. That will not do if we are sense-making for enlightenment or design.
Questions and explanations for 'how' we see and 'why' we interpret the world the way we do, or what it is about our thinking that allows some things but not others to endure, are most often to be found under the surface veneer of the dialogue. The tools on which we mostly rely cannot 'see' below the surface. Far deeper levels of conversation are needed to probe the parameters of a complex systemic issue if we expect to recognise and escape the cognitive prisons of our own invention.
Learning Metabolism: A key lag factor in sense-making is the time taken to engage in the process of transforming newly acquired information into insights, which can then be incorporated into purposeful adaptation. Our speed of learning - or 'learning metabolism' - is the time it takes to sense a variation in the environment, make sense of what that means, and respond or adapt accordingly. Often we experience delays in the time between these functions. Delayed response times is the reason sense making is best curated over more than one session.