整合思维

伊伯音 2014-11-04 0

一开始读这本书，感觉很震撼。其实仔细思考，感觉作者是在玩一个概念。

达摩者 2014-12-13 0

例子太多，理论太简

karel 2016-01-01 0

在做决策面临两难困境时，请思考一下可不可以两个选项合二为一，整合在一起，bingo。

@独舞@ 2012-06-13 0

很好的一本书

Cherrygooo 2015-11-03 0

这本书就像是一部论述整合思维是成功的一大因素的论文。作者不仅举例说明了整合思维的好处，也通过“凸显，因果，架构和解决”四个核心概念等教人们如何使用整合思维。但整合思维其实仅仅是思辨的一部分，两个冲突的因素中选择优秀的，创造一个新的模式。感觉这书写得还不是很透彻，这个思维模式应该更多地与辩证思考等联合起来说，后面说的几个因素，如经验，工具，个人态度等就有点勉强了。一本书说来说去，就说两者取优点合一起，还有怎么锻炼整合思维，有点牵强，很多的说辞还是自圆其说。但是仍然可以给四星，难得的一本书。

金刚king 2015-01-17 0

一本关于思维的工具书，作者提出整合思维需要明确凸显、因果、架构和解决四个核心概念，就是要在复杂的环境下发掘一些重要、凸显的因素，突破单纯的线性思维方式，寻找多方面的间接因果关系，通过一个全面、有机联系的整体架构，创造性的解决问题。整合思维不是在优劣中二选一，而是要寻找两者的优势以及其它可能存在的要素，进一步分析整合，形成新的解决问题方案。整合思维与个人的态度（理性）、工具（思维模式）和经验（工作经历）有关。对于整合性思维，作者给出了一些成功性案例，将整合性思维与成功联系，增强了说服力，但也过于夸大整合性思维作用之嫌。有些人运用整合思维可能导致失败了，但你不能不说是整合思维的运用。成功是多方面因素综合作用的结果，整合思维是达成成功的一个推动因子而已。

Fairy 2017-04-03 0

哈佛经管系列思辨头脑，继而创新。思考创造出可以共有的功能性。商业创新思维：将不同的思路结合，将两种方案的优势结合起来创造新新事物，满足客户需求。企业改革思辨：精简管理层和职能部门规模、合理适当外包、管理队伍年轻化、重视能力培养、增加现金流和削减成本的策略。里面有篇 “酒店管理体系”，可以借鉴呢。

colorxj 2012-12-22 0

分析对立观点，困境中另辟蹊径，不断谋求突破与创新，不安于平庸的现状。例子很多，也很激励人，打开自己的思维，information -> insight. “亲爱的读者，希望你们努力工作，认真思考，不要虚度光阴，因为世界需要你们。”

psy远 2012-09-11 0

看这本书时会有一种痛苦，并不是理论的枯燥也不是因为太难懂，案例都是点到为止，刚引起注意又回归到各种嚼舌头，就好像刚看完前戏电脑就断电一样不爽

dreamy 2013-12-02 1

书读起来一般，但是思维方式很可取。

dreamy 2013-12-02 1

书读起来一般，但是思维方式很可取。

Little Bee 2012-03-29 1

几乎是手不释卷地一口气读完了，在思维陷入僵局的时候，这本书又帮我打开了思路，高屋建瓴的东西就是好！跟同时在看的《失败的逻辑》《谈判力》相互照应，共同讨论着对于思维模式的谨慎和思辨，之于打开新思路，避免致命的失败有多么重要。冲突出现的地方，其实就是机遇掩藏之地。换个思路，世界就宽阔了很多。

伊伯音 2014-11-04 0

一开始读这本书，感觉很震撼。其实仔细思考，感觉作者是在玩一个概念。

达摩者 2014-12-13 0

例子太多，理论太简

karel 2016-01-01 0

在做决策面临两难困境时，请思考一下可不可以两个选项合二为一，整合在一起，bingo。

@独舞@ 2012-06-13 0

很好的一本书

Cherrygooo 2015-11-03 0

这本书就像是一部论述整合思维是成功的一大因素的论文。作者不仅举例说明了整合思维的好处，也通过“凸显，因果，架构和解决”四个核心概念等教人们如何使用整合思维。但整合思维其实仅仅是思辨的一部分，两个冲突的因素中选择优秀的，创造一个新的模式。感觉这书写得还不是很透彻，这个思维模式应该更多地与辩证思考等联合起来说，后面说的几个因素，如经验，工具，个人态度等就有点勉强了。一本书说来说去，就说两者取优点合一起，还有怎么锻炼整合思维，有点牵强，很多的说辞还是自圆其说。但是仍然可以给四星，难得的一本书。

金刚king 2015-01-17 0

一本关于思维的工具书，作者提出整合思维需要明确凸显、因果、架构和解决四个核心概念，就是要在复杂的环境下发掘一些重要、凸显的因素，突破单纯的线性思维方式，寻找多方面的间接因果关系，通过一个全面、有机联系的整体架构，创造性的解决问题。整合思维不是在优劣中二选一，而是要寻找两者的优势以及其它可能存在的要素，进一步分析整合，形成新的解决问题方案。整合思维与个人的态度（理性）、工具（思维模式）和经验（工作经历）有关。对于整合性思维，作者给出了一些成功性案例，将整合性思维与成功联系，增强了说服力，但也过于夸大整合性思维作用之嫌。有些人运用整合思维可能导致失败了，但你不能不说是整合思维的运用。成功是多方面因素综合作用的结果，整合思维是达成成功的一个推动因子而已。

Fairy 2017-04-03 0

哈佛经管系列思辨头脑，继而创新。思考创造出可以共有的功能性。商业创新思维：将不同的思路结合，将两种方案的优势结合起来创造新新事物，满足客户需求。企业改革思辨：精简管理层和职能部门规模、合理适当外包、管理队伍年轻化、重视能力培养、增加现金流和削减成本的策略。里面有篇 “酒店管理体系”，可以借鉴呢。

colorxj 2012-12-22 0

分析对立观点，困境中另辟蹊径，不断谋求突破与创新，不安于平庸的现状。例子很多，也很激励人，打开自己的思维，information -> insight. “亲爱的读者，希望你们努力工作，认真思考，不要虚度光阴，因为世界需要你们。”

很训练思维

南瓜游侠 2013-01-15 2赞

购置了哈佛系列的一套，这册虽然薄一些，但读起来真实不容易，因为与固有的思维模式产生了激烈碰撞。

在读前半部的时候，我还在纠结于自身对领导力的看法，主要是决策层面。因此我在读书随笔中列举了以下内容：
1、决策核心是什么。
2、行业本质是什么。
3、优势是什么。

其实是在对作者提出的整合思维进行批判，认为形式上的兼顾，并不能反映问题的核心，而且在思考问题的时候，需要从行业本质出发，考虑如何发挥优势，得出最佳方案。

举例说明：在酒店案例中，究竟是该走国际豪华酒店的路线，还是走中小型便捷酒店的路线，书中通过整合思维给出了理想决策。但我在思考这一问题的时候，首先思考，引发这两种决策冲突的核心问题是什么？核心问题是没有一条路线从根本上适合企业未来的高效、可持续发展。然后思考，那么酒店行业的本质是什么？酒店行业的本质就是带给居住者更好、更舒适的服务。再思考，自身发展以及决策的优势是什么，继而寻找兼顾优势的办法。

然而，当我逐渐往下阅读时，发觉自己误解了作者的思路。作者在整合思维的四大程序里，已经包含我所说的思考过程。而且，我发觉自己的思考过程仍处于单线形式，有欠深入挖掘。如在模式上，我极力例证自己思维模式的正确。但一个人的思维模式再精确，也会存在忽略事实的可能，因为固有模式很难察觉的到。这就需要更多的对立模式来弥补缺陷。这就契合和通篇开头作者的比喻，手的灵活性，在于存在一个拇指与其他四指对立。

这本书读起来确实不容易，有很多话例要深入思考以获得实质性的理解，比如第二章开篇雷富礼关于“要不然”的一段话。我对此话的理解是：要不然属于思考过程中产生的并行选择，而且几乎每种选择都是单线的，互不建立本质联系。放弃要不然，并非放弃其他各种选择，而是寻找并整合出潜在优势方案。///也许个人理解存在偏颇，如在本质联系这一块，不同的决策目标虽然一致，但出发点可能不同，可能是根据凸显因素而制定，但我认为本质一致的各种决策其实是同一种决策。而惟有本质不同的，才有整合的余地。当然你也可以建立“整合思维”从对立的角度思考这一问题。呵呵，还是挺有意思和收获的。

对于思考的思考

冰糖葫芦 2015-05-09 1赞

这本书很短。

书中所说的 integrative thinking，指的是这样一种能力：Not accepting either-or, nor trading off, being able to hold two opposite ideas or factors in mind and come out with a constructive plan. 简化与特殊化(simplification & specialization) 这两种普遍的思维方式会阻止integrative thinking, 虽然长久一段时间以来对人类社会的演进起到了很重要的作用.
Integrative thinking 不是成功的必要条件，但是是受访者的（作者是在采访了诸多成名人士之后，写的这本书）一大共性，受访者有的外向, 有的内向, 各种特点都有, 却都有 integrative thinking 的这个共性。

作者给出了人们的决策框架，由四部分构成。
salient, causality, architecture, resolution

它们分别对应着：
what factors do I see as important?
how do I make sense of theses factors?
what task will I do in what order?
how do I know when I’m done?

And thinking differently started with going beyond conventional notions of what was salient. 但是, more salient features make for a messier problem.

Conventional thinkers tend to take a narrow and simplistic view of causality. The simplest of all is a straight-line causal relationship between dependent and independent variables. 公司的环境是鼓励简化的因果关系的：most managers prefer simple unidirectional causal relationships, your boss tells you to stick to your job which involves taking a causal relationship rich with potential complexity and flattening it into a linear relationship in which more of A produces more of B.

因果关系的错误, 通常有
1）把不相关的两个salient联系起来；
2）关系的强度搞错；
3）因果错位

with respect to architecture, the most common failing of conventional thinking is the tendency to lose sight of the whole decision. 部门分工或人头分责的方式可以将每个独立的局部做好，但是会缺失the whole picture。分责的几个人，很难reach to脑中有whole picture的人所作出的决定。

Integrative thinking produces possibilities, solutions, and new ideas. It creates a sense of limitless possibility. Conventional thinking hides potential solutions in places they can’t be found and fosters the illusion that no creative solution is possible.

Conventional thinking is a self-reinforcing lesson that life is about accepting unattractive and unpleasant trade-offs. It erodes aspiration.

reality vs model of reality, many people = many models of reality
When opposites decisions collide we tend to first determine which one represents reality and which one is wrong. But the thing is, everyone has their own flavor of model of reality. No one is ever right.

We miss out on all the value that can be realized by holding in mind two opposing models at the same time. Unlike the rest of us, they don’t need to take sides. “They’re all wrong. See what you can do to combine those multiple perspectives and enhance the quality of your mental model.”

He treated the opposing models as hypotheses rather than the truth, which gave him the intellectual and emotional latitude to weigh the merits and drawbacks of both models without needing to defend one and declare the other false.

An unpleasant trade-off signaled to each of them that the current answers simply weren’t good enough, even if they appeared to be the only ones available. If an existing model didn’t meet their standards, the model would have to change, because the standards wouldn’t.

“Everybody can do ‘or;’ everybody can do great trade-offs. But you’re not going to win if you’re in a trade-off game.”

80-20 原理正好说明了，我们用简化拿到了80的outcome，为了不被剩下的20所带来的complexity搞糊涂。久而久之，人们更加喜欢简化问题，以至于忘了事实要复杂得多得多，本质上是由multidirectional causal relationship构成的。简化的力量发挥到极致的结果就是，从一个观点出发的解决办法，会战胜其他解决办法，从而只解决一个问题，其他问题随着时间推移，会渐渐被忘记，然而持续存在，日后变本加厉得惩罚第一个胜出的解决办法。到时，多数人能做的就是打地鼠，那个问题更显住，就追着打哪个问题。

另外一种模式，是让不同的人处理不同的问题， e.g. 一些人设计，另一些生产。但其实这并不结局根本问题。时间上的后者，只能遵照前者的结果，do the best they can。而integrative thinking指的是，一个人，将所有问题，放在脑子里，一同解决。That’s more complexity than most minds care to handle, and simplification and specialization can quickly come to look like the only refuge from chaos.

不过chaos和complexity是有区别的。complexity有结构，有模式，只是变面上看起来，与完全无序的chaos很像。

Don’t worry about criticism, because you’re not any good, so criticism is always valid.
That’s what’s behind the curtain—no one else is any good.”

Integrative Thinker’s pattern
This is an inherently optimistic stance. Integrative thinkers understand that the world imposes constraints on them, but they share the belief that with hard thinking and patience, they can find a better outcome than the unsatisfying ones they’re presented with.

First, they believe that whatever models exist at the present moment do not represent reality; they are simply the best or only constructions yet made. Second, they believe that conflicting models, styles, and approaches to problems are to be leveraged, not feared. Third, they believe that better models exist that are not yet seen. Fourth, they believe that not only does a better model exist, but that they are capable of bringing that better model from abstract hypothesis to concrete reality. Fifth, they are comfortable wading into complexity to ferret out a new and better model, confident they will emerge on the other side with the resolution they seek. And sixth, they give themselves the time to create a better model.

“Patience is a virtue, seldom found in women—never found in men!” 哈！

How integrative thinkers connect the dots
－－－Generative Reasoning－－－
一般人在学校多年练习的是一种declarative reasoning：reasoning—the ability to declare a proposition to be true or false. 我们学习推理 deduction 和概括 induction，但是 declarative reasoning 并不是唯一的逻辑思维方式。Modal reasoning, uses logic to inquire into what could possibly be true. Integrative thinkers reason about what might be—about models that don’t yet exist—to generate a creative resolution.
他们使用推理和概括，但是还包括第三者：dubbed abductive logic by Charles Sanders Peirce.

To Peirce, neither deductive nor inductive logic satisfactorily explained how entirely new models came into being. Deductive logic needed a preexisting theory or model on which to base its reasoning. Inductive logic sought to draw inferences from repeated experiences or observations. But invention, Peirce saw, required a logic for making “leaps with your mind.” 这种思维上的跳跃，要求 integrative thinkers 可以正视推理或概括所不能解释的data或现象，以形成一种新的model。

练习generative reasoning的办法，就是先获得non-conforming data, 以求新的insights, then work towards a new model.

－－－Causal Modeling－－－
material causality + teleology causality = causality modeling
前者是物质世界的因为所以，后者是主观世界的目的性解释。

generative reasoning + causal modeling = radial metaphor, which helps integrative thinkers keep the whole picture in mind.

－－－Assertive Inquiry－－－
Integrative thinkers use it to explore opposing models, and in particular, models that oppose their own.

When we interact with other people on the basis of a particular mental model, we usually try to defend that model against any challenges.
Our energy goes into explaining our model to others and defending it from criticism.

Assertive inquiry involves a sincere search for another’s views 并不是为了赢取争论，也不是为了证明他人的错误观点，更多的是为了寻求共通点。

它是一种谈话的技巧，帮助integrative thinker获得更多的salient data
其实就是twinning advocacy with inquiry

More Critique than Praise

四维九生 2012-11-21 0赞

1. "Integrative Thinking" is Roger Martin's favourite touting phrase. It tried to be as comprehensive as possible, covering the essence of what's behind succesful business decision making. To its credit, it followed an approach as logical as possible, digging up common traits, then find out how the traits came into being.

2. However, just like the business books that it critiqued in early part (books such as Good to Great, etc), it inevitably has its own fallacies:

-Retrospectively looking for catalysts for success is like data mining in mutual fund analysis - you are biased. The narrators themselves are biased to (de)emphasize part of their thinking, and the recorder (author) is biased to select some of what was spoken. Further, the fact that those key traits are present in successful cases does not preclude the fact that in failure cases, those same traits might have been in place too. Without a lookout for not-so-great scenarios, how can it be validated that these are indeed all that has made the difference?

-For that matter, the sample selected is small.

-The book is about thinking process of past successful entrepreneurs. However, thinking is only the first necessary step to bear fruit. Execution and how to execute, only slightly touched (if at all), are as important, albeit admittedly guided by the high-level thinking.

-The book goes back to "stance", which is another world for how one views the world (and his/her own position in it), which is not something taught in a course, in a year, or with a degree. To some extent, it is influenced by one's family and/or nurtured by oneself, the rest is innate (are the great leaders born as so? with unyielding characteristics, charming chrisma and high intelligence?).

This is why reading books written by the business leaders first hand provides fresher insight into those people's thinking process, for any reader that want to discover a formula for their own rather than to be given a checklist. This book, on the other hand, does provide a nice framework/guidance when reading the former type of business books, as the reader can now ponder if, and to what extent, is the leader (author) manifesting an opposable mind, and what other traits seem to be at play for their success.

Finally, the opposable mind is not only practised by successful businessmen. I dare to propose that it is practised by every working mom who manages her household well, who has to prioritize every day and who has to constantly strike a balance between the needs of others and her own needs. I write this as part of birthday wishes I'd like to extend to my mom.

中文翻译版是果断将integrative thinking置换opposable mind作标题了吗？英文的商业图书利用创新的,refreshing lingo来引人注目，中文的商业图书翻译则倚赖于professional sounding标题；若是写“灵活的大脑”，将会被无情地放入自我提升而非商业策略了吧。

PPS. 为alma mater行将离任的领袖提升一下人气。

读书笔记：延伸阅读

maranatha 2011-02-08 10赞

用了大概3个小时的时间看完了这本书，感觉这本书挺适合作为一个了解整合思维的提纲挈领的引导书，但如果想充分了解这个思想，光是这一本是不够的，因此特把我自己看过的相关类型的适合做延伸阅读的书列举如下：

《设计心理学》
《系统思考》
《乱好》
《伤心者》
《万有引力之虹》
《复杂—— 诞生于秩序与混沌边缘的科学的新描述》

读书笔记：延伸阅读

maranatha 2011-02-08 10

用了大概3个小时的时间看完了这本书，感觉这本书挺适合作为一个了解整合思维的提纲挈领的引导书，但如果想充分了解这个思想，光是这一本是不够的，因此特把我自己看过的相关类型的适合做延伸阅读的书列举如下：

《设计心理学》
《系统思考》
《乱好》
《伤心者》
《万有引力之虹》
《复杂—— 诞生于秩序与混沌边缘的科学的新描述》

很训练思维

南瓜游侠 2013-01-15 2

购置了哈佛系列的一套，这册虽然薄一些，但读起来真实不容易，因为与固有的思维模式产生了激烈碰撞。

在读前半部的时候，我还在纠结于自身对领导力的看法，主要是决策层面。因此我在读书随笔中列举了以下内容：
1、决策核心是什么。
2、行业本质是什么。
3、优势是什么。

其实是在对作者提出的整合思维进行批判，认为形式上的兼顾，并不能反映问题的核心，而且在思考问题的时候，需要从行业本质出发，考虑如何发挥优势，得出最佳方案。

举例说明：在酒店案例中，究竟是该走国际豪华酒店的路线，还是走中小型便捷酒店的路线，书中通过整合思维给出了理想决策。但我在思考这一问题的时候，首先思考，引发这两种决策冲突的核心问题是什么？核心问题是没有一条路线从根本上适合企业未来的高效、可持续发展。然后思考，那么酒店行业的本质是什么？酒店行业的本质就是带给居住者更好、更舒适的服务。再思考，自身发展以及决策的优势是什么，继而寻找兼顾优势的办法。

然而，当我逐渐往下阅读时，发觉自己误解了作者的思路。作者在整合思维的四大程序里，已经包含我所说的思考过程。而且，我发觉自己的思考过程仍处于单线形式，有欠深入挖掘。如在模式上，我极力例证自己思维模式的正确。但一个人的思维模式再精确，也会存在忽略事实的可能，因为固有模式很难察觉的到。这就需要更多的对立模式来弥补缺陷。这就契合和通篇开头作者的比喻，手的灵活性，在于存在一个拇指与其他四指对立。

这本书读起来确实不容易，有很多话例要深入思考以获得实质性的理解，比如第二章开篇雷富礼关于“要不然”的一段话。我对此话的理解是：要不然属于思考过程中产生的并行选择，而且几乎每种选择都是单线的，互不建立本质联系。放弃要不然，并非放弃其他各种选择，而是寻找并整合出潜在优势方案。///也许个人理解存在偏颇，如在本质联系这一块，不同的决策目标虽然一致，但出发点可能不同，可能是根据凸显因素而制定，但我认为本质一致的各种决策其实是同一种决策。而惟有本质不同的，才有整合的余地。当然你也可以建立“整合思维”从对立的角度思考这一问题。呵呵，还是挺有意思和收获的。

对于思考的思考

冰糖葫芦 2015-05-09 1

这本书很短。

书中所说的 integrative thinking，指的是这样一种能力：Not accepting either-or, nor trading off, being able to hold two opposite ideas or factors in mind and come out with a constructive plan. 简化与特殊化(simplification & specialization) 这两种普遍的思维方式会阻止integrative thinking, 虽然长久一段时间以来对人类社会的演进起到了很重要的作用.
Integrative thinking 不是成功的必要条件，但是是受访者的（作者是在采访了诸多成名人士之后，写的这本书）一大共性，受访者有的外向, 有的内向, 各种特点都有, 却都有 integrative thinking 的这个共性。

作者给出了人们的决策框架，由四部分构成。
salient, causality, architecture, resolution

它们分别对应着：
what factors do I see as important?
how do I make sense of theses factors?
what task will I do in what order?
how do I know when I’m done?

And thinking differently started with going beyond conventional notions of what was salient. 但是, more salient features make for a messier problem.

Conventional thinkers tend to take a narrow and simplistic view of causality. The simplest of all is a straight-line causal relationship between dependent and independent variables. 公司的环境是鼓励简化的因果关系的：most managers prefer simple unidirectional causal relationships, your boss tells you to stick to your job which involves taking a causal relationship rich with potential complexity and flattening it into a linear relationship in which more of A produces more of B.

因果关系的错误, 通常有
1）把不相关的两个salient联系起来；
2）关系的强度搞错；
3）因果错位

with respect to architecture, the most common failing of conventional thinking is the tendency to lose sight of the whole decision. 部门分工或人头分责的方式可以将每个独立的局部做好，但是会缺失the whole picture。分责的几个人，很难reach to脑中有whole picture的人所作出的决定。

Integrative thinking produces possibilities, solutions, and new ideas. It creates a sense of limitless possibility. Conventional thinking hides potential solutions in places they can’t be found and fosters the illusion that no creative solution is possible.

Conventional thinking is a self-reinforcing lesson that life is about accepting unattractive and unpleasant trade-offs. It erodes aspiration.

reality vs model of reality, many people = many models of reality
When opposites decisions collide we tend to first determine which one represents reality and which one is wrong. But the thing is, everyone has their own flavor of model of reality. No one is ever right.

We miss out on all the value that can be realized by holding in mind two opposing models at the same time. Unlike the rest of us, they don’t need to take sides. “They’re all wrong. See what you can do to combine those multiple perspectives and enhance the quality of your mental model.”

He treated the opposing models as hypotheses rather than the truth, which gave him the intellectual and emotional latitude to weigh the merits and drawbacks of both models without needing to defend one and declare the other false.

An unpleasant trade-off signaled to each of them that the current answers simply weren’t good enough, even if they appeared to be the only ones available. If an existing model didn’t meet their standards, the model would have to change, because the standards wouldn’t.

“Everybody can do ‘or;’ everybody can do great trade-offs. But you’re not going to win if you’re in a trade-off game.”

80-20 原理正好说明了，我们用简化拿到了80的outcome，为了不被剩下的20所带来的complexity搞糊涂。久而久之，人们更加喜欢简化问题，以至于忘了事实要复杂得多得多，本质上是由multidirectional causal relationship构成的。简化的力量发挥到极致的结果就是，从一个观点出发的解决办法，会战胜其他解决办法，从而只解决一个问题，其他问题随着时间推移，会渐渐被忘记，然而持续存在，日后变本加厉得惩罚第一个胜出的解决办法。到时，多数人能做的就是打地鼠，那个问题更显住，就追着打哪个问题。

另外一种模式，是让不同的人处理不同的问题， e.g. 一些人设计，另一些生产。但其实这并不结局根本问题。时间上的后者，只能遵照前者的结果，do the best they can。而integrative thinking指的是，一个人，将所有问题，放在脑子里，一同解决。That’s more complexity than most minds care to handle, and simplification and specialization can quickly come to look like the only refuge from chaos.

不过chaos和complexity是有区别的。complexity有结构，有模式，只是变面上看起来，与完全无序的chaos很像。

Don’t worry about criticism, because you’re not any good, so criticism is always valid.
That’s what’s behind the curtain—no one else is any good.”

Integrative Thinker’s pattern
This is an inherently optimistic stance. Integrative thinkers understand that the world imposes constraints on them, but they share the belief that with hard thinking and patience, they can find a better outcome than the unsatisfying ones they’re presented with.

First, they believe that whatever models exist at the present moment do not represent reality; they are simply the best or only constructions yet made. Second, they believe that conflicting models, styles, and approaches to problems are to be leveraged, not feared. Third, they believe that better models exist that are not yet seen. Fourth, they believe that not only does a better model exist, but that they are capable of bringing that better model from abstract hypothesis to concrete reality. Fifth, they are comfortable wading into complexity to ferret out a new and better model, confident they will emerge on the other side with the resolution they seek. And sixth, they give themselves the time to create a better model.

“Patience is a virtue, seldom found in women—never found in men!” 哈！

How integrative thinkers connect the dots
－－－Generative Reasoning－－－
一般人在学校多年练习的是一种declarative reasoning：reasoning—the ability to declare a proposition to be true or false. 我们学习推理 deduction 和概括 induction，但是 declarative reasoning 并不是唯一的逻辑思维方式。Modal reasoning, uses logic to inquire into what could possibly be true. Integrative thinkers reason about what might be—about models that don’t yet exist—to generate a creative resolution.
他们使用推理和概括，但是还包括第三者：dubbed abductive logic by Charles Sanders Peirce.

To Peirce, neither deductive nor inductive logic satisfactorily explained how entirely new models came into being. Deductive logic needed a preexisting theory or model on which to base its reasoning. Inductive logic sought to draw inferences from repeated experiences or observations. But invention, Peirce saw, required a logic for making “leaps with your mind.” 这种思维上的跳跃，要求 integrative thinkers 可以正视推理或概括所不能解释的data或现象，以形成一种新的model。

练习generative reasoning的办法，就是先获得non-conforming data, 以求新的insights, then work towards a new model.

－－－Causal Modeling－－－
material causality + teleology causality = causality modeling
前者是物质世界的因为所以，后者是主观世界的目的性解释。

generative reasoning + causal modeling = radial metaphor, which helps integrative thinkers keep the whole picture in mind.

－－－Assertive Inquiry－－－
Integrative thinkers use it to explore opposing models, and in particular, models that oppose their own.

When we interact with other people on the basis of a particular mental model, we usually try to defend that model against any challenges.
Our energy goes into explaining our model to others and defending it from criticism.

Assertive inquiry involves a sincere search for another’s views 并不是为了赢取争论，也不是为了证明他人的错误观点，更多的是为了寻求共通点。

它是一种谈话的技巧，帮助integrative thinker获得更多的salient data
其实就是twinning advocacy with inquiry

More Critique than Praise

四维九生 2012-11-21 0

1. "Integrative Thinking" is Roger Martin's favourite touting phrase. It tried to be as comprehensive as possible, covering the essence of what's behind succesful business decision making. To its credit, it followed an approach as logical as possible, digging up common traits, then find out how the traits came into being.

2. However, just like the business books that it critiqued in early part (books such as Good to Great, etc), it inevitably has its own fallacies:

-Retrospectively looking for catalysts for success is like data mining in mutual fund analysis - you are biased. The narrators themselves are biased to (de)emphasize part of their thinking, and the recorder (author) is biased to select some of what was spoken. Further, the fact that those key traits are present in successful cases does not preclude the fact that in failure cases, those same traits might have been in place too. Without a lookout for not-so-great scenarios, how can it be validated that these are indeed all that has made the difference?

-For that matter, the sample selected is small.

-The book is about thinking process of past successful entrepreneurs. However, thinking is only the first necessary step to bear fruit. Execution and how to execute, only slightly touched (if at all), are as important, albeit admittedly guided by the high-level thinking.

-The book goes back to "stance", which is another world for how one views the world (and his/her own position in it), which is not something taught in a course, in a year, or with a degree. To some extent, it is influenced by one's family and/or nurtured by oneself, the rest is innate (are the great leaders born as so? with unyielding characteristics, charming chrisma and high intelligence?).

This is why reading books written by the business leaders first hand provides fresher insight into those people's thinking process, for any reader that want to discover a formula for their own rather than to be given a checklist. This book, on the other hand, does provide a nice framework/guidance when reading the former type of business books, as the reader can now ponder if, and to what extent, is the leader (author) manifesting an opposable mind, and what other traits seem to be at play for their success.

Finally, the opposable mind is not only practised by successful businessmen. I dare to propose that it is practised by every working mom who manages her household well, who has to prioritize every day and who has to constantly strike a balance between the needs of others and her own needs. I write this as part of birthday wishes I'd like to extend to my mom.

中文翻译版是果断将integrative thinking置换opposable mind作标题了吗？英文的商业图书利用创新的,refreshing lingo来引人注目，中文的商业图书翻译则倚赖于professional sounding标题；若是写“灵活的大脑”，将会被无情地放入自我提升而非商业策略了吧。

PPS. 为alma mater行将离任的领袖提升一下人气。

整合思维

推荐文章

猜你喜欢

附近的人在看

推荐阅读

拓展阅读