|
 |
|
|
Lumpers and Splitters
Have you ever tried to introduce a new idea and had someone say, "Oh, that's just the same as..." ? It's almost as if the "same as" view of the idea just blocks out any newness or distinction that might really be there. It seems as though getting ideas across to other people is all about making sure that they do not just absorb what you are communicating into a big "same as" sponge up there. One example of this happened recently. I told someone that I have an electric car. They said, "oh really? I have an electric car too." and then proceeded to talk about their Honda Insight. What this person did not get was that I was talking about a fully electric car, with no oil, gas, coolant, or anything... a fully battery-operated car. What I heard was this person talking about a hybrid vehicle, while I was talking about a purely electric vehicle. It took a good 15 minutes for us to realize that we were talking about two different things. A larger example, and a very recent one, are the twin notions of "liberal" and "conservative". Some folks sop up entire people into these very large and unweildy "same-as" sponges. As soon as this happens, it becomes easier to see the similarity between the pre-existing sponge concept and the individual person. Clearly, individuals are unique, and even the most zombie-like follower has some degree of individuality and complexity in their general values system. To say "oh, you are just a conservative" denies that person of any chance to differentiate himself from your internal straw-man, or archetype, of a "conservative". Another example is the idea of a "conspiracy theory". Imagine if someone tried desparately to tell the world about a secret group of people who control politics and wealth through intimidation and violence, and who carry out assassinations whenever people speak against them. If you had never heard of the mafia, you would probably dismiss this person's story as just another conspiracy theory. I first heard the phrase "lumpers and splitters" in the context of psychology, but it is a useful distinction in many other contexts. (Though, if you think about it, the idea that some people are lumpers and others splitters is essentially a "lumper" view of the world. "Splitters" might say: "There are no lumpers or splitters, just individuals.") In defining some people as "lumpers" and some as "splitters", it makes it easy to understand how two people can communicate about the same topic and not actually meet in the middle about it. "Hello, Mr L., I want to tell you about this terrible act of torture," says Mr S. "Look at this!" "That's a great picture, Mr. S. That looks exactly like something my girlfriend used to do." said Mr L. Some of the most frustrating debates / arguments I have seen or participated in are those surrounding the meaning of a word or phrase. And, unfortunately, this is the sort of conversation one has to have all the time when one is in the software business. Basically, we model a business process or entity, and then write tools and software around the model. The process of coming up with a model often forces folks to formally define what they once were able to manage informally in their heads. When you get definitions and boundaries out in the open, people start to disagree. "No, that is when the process starts, not way over there" "No! A customer includes people who receive gifts!" "Sales are only finished transactions that we have invoiced within the time period." "An address could be a property address, a house address, or a street address. There is a difference." "No, they all should be the same" You get the picture. Being one who does not believe that labels reflect anything terribly true about the world, arguing about what falls within a semantic boundary or not is not really useful as an exercise. It's more important to make sure that, despite the label we are using, we all are actually talking about the same basic concept underneath the label. I have actually led groups in which we make up two new nonsense words, and assign meaning to each one, ensuring that the meaning is precise and agreed upon by everyone in the group. The word we use to refer to the concept is rather arbitrary. So, I am mistrustful of people who lump very quickly. To me, lumping carries a penalty of removing the real world in place of preexisting symbols. Saying "this is the same as" is a very efficient way to interact with the world, but chances are the symbols in your mind do not represent the richness of reality.
|
