Theory Mapping and World Views

f
Agendas

There are a number of different agendas concerning world views/belief systems/ ideologies, depending on one’s perspective:

• Seeker after truth: wants a rational means to judge between different world views. The problem is that each world view has its own epistemology for how to test for the truth, and so as soon as one selects a means to judge between them, one is potentially already biased towards some and against others. For instance, atheists would prefer the scientist method while theists would say that the scientific method is inadequate. Conspiracists cannot trust evidence gathered by official bodies, while non-conspiracists can.
• Adherents: want a way to convince others that their world view is the best. But they find that when they try to engage others in debate they do not get far since they are all coming from such different standpoints that it is hard to communicate and find common ground to work from. Some end up blaming non-believers as not open-minded enough, while others resort to rhetoric and emotional manipulation.
• Policy makers: want a way to reduce the impact of different world views in causing Wicked Problems, whose solutions requires large groups of individuals to change their mindsets and behaviours e.g. one of the definitions of a wicked problem includes the feature that “Stakeholders have radically different world views and different frames for understanding the problem” (Jeff Conklin). Classic examples of wicked problems include economic, environmental and political issues.
• Academics: want to understand better the nature and role of world views, whether religious, political etc.
• Visionaries: dream of a world in which we can all share a common world view based upon integrating the most advanced human ideas e.g. the Center Leo Apostel for Interdisciplinary Studies.

Theory Mapping provides an answer to all of these agendas.


A rational way to assess different world views (Seeker after truth)

The test for the truth that Theory Mapping is based upon of looking at coherence in explaining facts is completely neutral between different world views, and so is a rational way to judge between them. Each world view is free to flesh out their own more substantive tests of the truth, provided they can be coherently justified within the system or in reference to facts that the competing world views can agree with. For instance, the conspiracist is free to distrust evidence gathered by official bodies providing it is justified by rules about what you can and cannot trust that is itself coherently justified e.g. with reference to examples of proven government cover-ups.


A way to improve the efficiency of debate between world views (Adherents and Policy makers)

Differences between worldviews are based not just on different beliefs about what is true, but also different values and economic interests. However, by increasing the efficiency of debate between worldviews about what is true, Theory Mapping can at least help to reduce some of the complexity of Wicked Problems. For instance, Theory Mapping of climate change could help to bring greater agreement and accuracy over the extent of the problem and the best underlying models for modeling solutions. The choices between those solutions would then depend on values and economic interests.

Some websites and tools have already been developed to help improve the debate between world views using forms of Argument Mapping (see the post Argument Mapping for more information), and there are a number of initiatives to harness the power of visual argumentation techniques to address Wicked Problems e.g. the Global Sensemaking network. Theory Mapping goes one step further by providing an objective test of the truth of world views, that all parties can agree to. This can be potentially revolutionary in improving the efficiency of debate, to the benefit of both adherents and policy makers.

To make the case, it is first necessary to have a definition of the ‘efficiency of debate’. I suggest that it can be defined in terms of benefits versus costs:

Benefits in terms of:
A. Increasing the probability of people believing the truth on any given topic as a result of participating in or observing the debate.
B. Increasing mutual respect and understanding between world views.

Costs in terms of time and money.

Having an objective test of the truth of competing world views may have a revolutionary effect by playing on each world view’s conviction that they have the most coherent account of reality. If the results from Theory Mapping debates start coming out that show a particular world view not to be the most coherent at explaining Agreed Facts, it will create cognitive dissonance within the adherents, not to mention a loss of face. Since the Theory Mapping approach is completely neutral between debating parties (see above), this cognitive dissonance cannot just be eliminated by writing off the results as ‘biased’, and so the results have to be treated seriously. Adherents will therefore have a strong incentive to:

• Participate in Theory Mapping debates: this ensures that the maximum variety of ideas and experiences can be contributed, increasing effectiveness (Benefit A);
• Observe Theory Mapping debates: this ensures a maximum impact from the debates (Benefit A).
• Increase the coherence of their world view: all of the participants efforts will therefore be most efficiently channeled to increasing the probability that their theory is true, first by gathering new facts or changing the arguments, and if that fails, making changes to the theory itself (Benefit A).
• Reduce the coherence of competing world views: to point out incoherencies in the competing theories, they have to first of all fully understand them by reading the Theory Maps in detail. This promotes mutual understanding between world views (Benefit A).

Creating such incentives is important given our natural inertia to remain in our own comfy world of beliefs rather than engage with others who disagree with us and open our beliefs up for potential criticism. It can also counter the higher initial cost of Theory Mapping in terms of time and mental effort to learn the methodology.

Neutral observers of the debate would be likely to be persuaded to believe the most coherent world view (Benefit A), while adherents to the losing side would take much longer. Over time, a theory that consistently proved itself to be significantly less coherent would gradually die out, unless it had certain advantages in meeting peoples psychological needs.

Any world view that had a comparatively high level of coherence would command the respect of the other world views (Benefit B).

The upfront costs of Theory Mapping are higher than other means of debate, but are likely to be more than offset by the higher benefits as outlined above. The time taken to learn and implement the method can also be reduced through effective software (see How to Implement Theory Mapping). Cost-benefit analysis can be done once the approach is implemented to test to what extent it really does increase efficiency.


A way to learn more about world views (Academics)

Studying Theory Mapping Debates and Theory Mapping Competitions involving world views will be a rich source of data for academics to understand better the role and nature of world views/belief systems/ideologies. This is for a number of reasons:

• Uncovering the full picture: although much is written about the surface content of world views, less is understood about the underlying assumptions and arguments that they are based upon. Since Theory Mapping uses Argument Mapping, all hidden assumptions and arguments have to be stated explicitly. Furthermore, since Theory Mapping forces each world view to provide a coherent explanation of the evidence put forward by its competitors, it will reveal what each world view has to say about a large number of different topics.
• Uncovering differences within world views: different world views each have many competing versions, which will be clearly revealed as they compete for dominance.
• Uncovering the bases for belief: studying the reactions of adherents to losing Theory Mapping Debates can provide information about how beliefs are grounded and how they can be changed.

A way to ensure survival of the fittest (Visionaries)

It could be argued that the current proliferation of different world views is partly due to a lack of competition. By increasing that competition, Theory Mapping can allow only the ‘fittest’ (in fitting the facts) to survive. If there genuinely is a superior world view it will emerge naturally as the victor.

Of course, this doesn’t take into account the functions that world views play in providing meaning and value as well as a model of the world. But other methods can be developed for improving competition between world views in meeting our needs for meaning and value e.g. see my post Value System Analysis.
f