Cognitive Enablers, Both Concrete and Abstract
Cognitive enablers are tools that we acquire through formal education – at least they should be. They are generic in nature and are not really linked to any particular job or occupation, but which lie at the heart (or should) of what we do as teachers. There are concrete cognitive enablers and abstract cognitive enablers, both of which we need to acquire in order to reach our fullest potential.
The concrete cognitive enablers are deemed important enough that we, as a society, put a high value on individuals learning them. Reading, writing, numeracy, and basic problem solving are highly valued and we put a great deal of our resources into ensuring that every member of our society is taught these skills.
If we look at reading as an example of a fundamental concrete cognitive enabler, reading is not about a set of facts that need to be memorized and regurgitated in order to be useful. Reading is a skill that is taught, continuously used, and improved upon throughout our lives. Writing, numeracy, and problem solving fit into the same category. Fundamental cognitive enablers that we value enough that we are willing to use significant societal resources to teach them to almost everyone (teaching doesn’t mean learning).
There are a couple of other fundamental cognitive enablers that we learn to a very basic level of literacy, but don’t often follow up with any kind or formal learning opportunities. I think of logic and rational thinking as two of them. We must develop some basic level of both of these enablers in order to communicate with each other.
Logic provides us with ‘rules of engagement’ with each other. When we communicate with each other, we have a set of rules that we follow. We use basic logic from an early age. We present arguments that are used to convince someone else to accept that what we are arguing is true, usually with evidence (either verifiable or non-verifiable). An example would be a young child trying to convince his or her mother to give them a snack. They want something to eat (an argument) backed by the vital evidence (non-verifiable) that they are hungry. Mother then has to decide whether or not to accept the argument as true and how to respond.
A response to a logical argument presented by a four-year-old in order to obtain a snack can demonstrate another fundamental skill that we don’t spend a lot of time or energy teaching, and that is rational thinking. Often the response to a logical treatise espoused by the four-year-old might not be the response that they want to hear. “Have an apple” may not be the response being sought by their logical appeal when there is a full cookie jar within arms reach. The lack of rationality then often manifests itself as a logical fallacy – “I hate you because you are mean” – clearly an ad-homonym attack (an illogical response) in order to sway the argument. After all, who wants to be hated by their own children?
Rationality develops (usually) as a child matures. Rationality involves the consideration of evidence that has been logically presented in order to provide an appropriate response. We all know people for whom almost any level of rational thought is elusive. It is the development of clear or high-level rational thinking, an abstract cognitive enabler, that can be greatly expedited with formal teaching. Developmental researchers agree that abstract cognitive enablers don’t just happen but must be explicitly learned in either a supported or non-supported way.
The primary failure for most rational discourse comes with the veracity of what might be considered evidence. “I am hungry” may be a non-verifiable piece of evidence, but can be generally accepted as reliable evidence for a logical argument by most people. However, hearing about a friend who was abducted by aliens is rejected by virtually every (rational) individual who might be presented with the statement as a primary source of evidence in support of an argument. One of the concrete cognitive enablers that needs more attention is critical analysis. Critical analysis is the ability to evaluate evidence.
Critical analysis is an important enabling skill that is not taught in a robust, systematic way for most of the population. Although there will be those who argue that this is a core part of the curriculum for every youth in a secondary school, or every student in a university, the evidence (after critical analysis) clearly demonstrates that this is not the case. The exponential increase in ‘Fake News’, and ‘conspiracy theories’ that are used evidence to support arguments clearly shows us that critical analysis is a concrete cognitive enabler that is not taught, or if it is, it is taught poorly and learned even worse. Critical analysis is not a skill that leads directly to a job, something that the majority of stakeholders in higher education demand. It does not lead to a job any more than reading leads directly to a job. However, it is an enabler that makes someone who has it more valuable to society, and (presumably) more valuable to an organization. Having said this, it is taught and learned much better than Critical thinking.
Critical thinking is an abstract cognitive enabler that does not prepare people with it on the pathway to a specific job. Critical thinking is the most effective method of solving problems that we know of. Through a systematic approach that relies on a set of sub-skills to reach a solution, critical thinking should be an abstract enabler that every higher education graduate has. One of the core components needed for critical thinking is the critical analysis of evidence. And we know that we aren’t doing a terrific job on that one.
Critical thinking is rarely taught because of the vital need to teach content in secondary school, college, and university, the fundamental need for content (see the Figure below), along with the demands of parents, employers, and other stakeholders for a narrow focus on specific job skills is another killer for teaching abstract cognitive enablers. Critical thinking is not a specific job skill any more than reading is not a specific job skill. Both are cognitive enablers, providing people with tools to work with information and knowledge.
Reasoning is another enabler that is understood at a very basic level without any teaching, but in order to fully appreciate reason, it must be learned, ideally with the formal support of a teacher. There are two forms that reason takes, drawing conclusions based on the best available evidence: size three handprints on the surface of the chocolate cake, size three prints in dark brown on the wall next to the cake, and dark chocolate icing around the mouth and on the hands (and shirt, pants, feet, and in the hair) of the size three child in the vicinity. A theory, not absolute proof, but a theory based on the best available evidence, is that the size three child found at the scene of the defaced cake is responsible for the cake defacement. Drawing conclusions based on the specific evidence found through careful observation is called inductive reasoning.
Complex inductive reasoning is less intuitive and not as straightforward as basic inductive reasoning. The basic skill of inductive reasoning is acquired at a young age. Often, the links between the evidence when faced with real world problems is far more difficult to observe, and expert assessment and knowledge of a field is usually required in order to reach a logical conclusion.
The other type of reasoning that is less intuitive, but important, nonetheless, is hypothetico-deductive reasoning. This is the kind of reasoning that means you start with a theory and predict specific probable outcomes based on the theory. As an example, I would predict (based on prior experience) that an extremely seductively presented chocolate cake left in a place that is easily accessible to a three-year-old will likely result in a defaced, and less than seductively looking (although no loss in the quality of the taste) cake. Deductive reasoning predicting a possible (or probable) outcome based on a theory.
The ability to engage in complex reasoning is an abstract cognitive enabler that provides people with ways to understand and use sophisticated and complex information. Not direct skills that lead to a specific job, but like reading, cognitive skills that provide the user with ways to understand and use information in ways that make them valuable to society and organizations.
Neither of these higher order reasoning skills are widely understood or used and this means that many complex phenomena can be and are used to manipulate people. If these reasoning skills are lacking, complex arguments that rely on either kind of complex reasoning cannot be followed and people have to rely on a trusted source to provide them with an explanation that can be followed and understood. As an example, the blatant manipulation of scientific findings for ideological or commercial ends has led to a serious mistrust of scientists and their work.
In addition to these skills I have listed, there are other abstract cognitive enablers as well that, literally, change how people think but do not have a high enough value in our society for us to expend the resources that would equip the population with these enablers that would allow them to better navigate the world we live in. More importantly, as algorithms are written that read, write, crunch numbers and carry out most of the basic cognitive skills that we learn, being equipped with these abstract cognitive enablers that equip us to better understand and use information becomes ever more important.
As we progress through the transition of the fourth industrial revolution to the fourth industrial age, these abstract cognitive enablers will come to define our value to society. Just as illiterate individuals are currently devalued in our society today, so to will be those who fail to develop (or have developed) these abstract cognitive enablers be devalued tomorrow. Algorithms are decades, or more like centuries (if not more) away from really possessing abstract cognitive enablers. And don’t let the AI cheering squad fool you into believing otherwise. Imitation isn’t the real thing.
Now is the time to learn the abstract cognitive enablers that have not been taught. Businesses and organizations that fail to value and embrace the development of these skills within their workers will find themselves marginalized and disappearing, not in the next ten years, but in the next (very) few years. Cling to the past and we’ll fondly remember your livery stable or photographic film producing company.
Embrace the changes because tomorrow is here and the promise of tomorrow is (or can be) a time of unparalleled prosperity and happiness for those organizations or individuals who are valued by society.
The concrete cognitive enablers that led to the unprecedented prosperity of yesterday are as valuable now as they ever were. However, as the world increases in complexity, sophistication, and automation, individuals and organizations must embrace and develop abstract cognitive enablers that have been largely ignored, except in higher education marketing materials, for decades. We can do this as both individuals and organizations and in order to avoid marginalization or complete disappearance from tomorrow’s world. We need to begin now to acquire and develop these vital enablers. We have the science of learning to show us how, we just have to make it happen.
