Morgan D. Jones of The Thinker's Toolkit      Morgan D. Jones is the author of He teaches ways of structuring the analysis of problems so that we don't jump to conclusions. He leads Thinker's Workshop, helped found Analytic Prowess, writes fiction, and taught analytic methods in Georgetown University's Master of Science Foreign Service graduate program. He worked in the C.I.A. for 36 years, including as an intelligence analyst of Soviet military affairs and chief of the Analytic Training Branch. I take his work to be representative of how the C.I.A. and other intelligence agencies analyze issues. Morgan D. Jones does a great job surveying the analytic techniques and providing intuition on how and where to use them. I'm especially interested in discovering how his analytic techniques relate to my ways of organizing, visualizing information. In his book, he considers applications in business and every day life. I think they also reflect on the analytical mindset at the C.I.A. where he learned, worked and taught. By his own logic, I think it's important to appreciate that bias. I suppose it also make sense to supplement them with espionage techniques, often clandestine, for gathering facts, as well as principles for finding moral bearings or not.

      We feel the need to find explanations for everything, regardless of whether the explanations are accurate. ... Explanations, by making sense of an uncertain world, apparently render the circumstances of life more predictable and thus diminish our anxieties about what the future may hold. ... The compulsion to explain everything drives our curiosity and our thirst for knowledge of the world. ... Knowing - finding an explanation for an event - is one of the most satisfying of human experiences. There is great comfort in recognizing and making sense out of the world. Doing so creates order and coherence, and, where there is order, there is safety and contentment. We are instantly aware of the loss of this inner feeling of safety and contentment the moment we don't recognize a pattern in a situation that confronts us. ... Unfortunately, our compulsion to explain things can ... get us in trouble. When presented with an event that has no particular meaning, we find one anyway, and we subconsciously don't care whether the explanation is valid. ... the explanations we give for things don't have to be true to satisfy our compulsion to explain things. ... being satisfied, we are then blithely content to move on to something else without seriously questioning our explanation. This is one of the reasons we humans don't give sufficient consideration to alternatives ... the principal cause of faulty analysis. drawing from The Universe Within by Morton Hunt and How We Know What Isn't So by Thomas Gilovich.

                Subconscious mental activity continuously influences our analysis and even determines our conclusions. ... Most of what goes on in the mind involves "mental shortcuts" that occur without our knowledge and beyond our conscious control. ... We cannot "teach" the mind how to work; it works as it works, and taking shortcuts is one of its ways. These shortcuts are beyond our conscious control. ... And where those shortcuts lead our thinking is anyone's guess. drawing from The Universe Within by Morton Hunt and How We Know What Isn't So by Thomas Gilovich.

                Inflating or deflating probabilities to conform to our desires is the curse of wishful thinking: it won't happen to me because I don't want it to happen.

                Information is vivid because it was acquired either traumatically or recently and thus has made a strong impression on our memory. Information that is vivid is therefore more easily remembered than pallid, abstract information and, for that reason, has greater influence on our thinking. This information can far exceed what it actually deserves. drawing from The Universe Within by Morton Hunt and How We Know What Isn't So by Thomas Gilovich.

                Another kind of patterning is the tendency of the human mind to look for cause-and-effect relationships. ... We seem to view the world in terms of cause and effect, and we somehow instinctively know the difference between the two concepts. ... So we by nature strive to know why something has happened, is happening, or will happen and what the result was, is, or will be. drawing from The Universe Within by Morton Hunt and How We Know What Isn't So by Thomas Gilovich.

                We are driven to view the world around us in terms of patterns (especially cause and effect). The human mind instinctively views the world in terms of patterns, which it recognizes based on memories of past experiences. ... We see the patterns in situations ... in sequences of events ... our compulsion to see patterns can easily mislead us when we analyze problems. ... patterns can be captivating ... the mind can also easily miscontrue random events as nonrandom, perceiving a pattern where, in fact, none exists. ... when we want to see a particular pattern or expect to see it, or have become accustomed to seeing it, not only do we fill in missing information but our brain edits out features that don't fit the desired or familiar pattern. drawing from The Universe Within by Morton Hunt and How We Know What Isn't So by Thomas Gilovich.

                Sometimes, when I offer to show people how to structure their analysis of problems, they say, "Sorry, but I'm awfully busy." "No, thank you. We don't use things like that here." "Very interesting, but it sounds a bit arcane." "I wouldn't think of using such Byzantine methods." The rejection is so spontaneous and emphatic that it could only be a mental knee-jerk reflex, not a reasoned response. What could be causing the unreasoning reflex? Because they have not learned and understood the techniques, they could not have performed any cost-benefit analysis on them. They therefore have not assimilated any data on which to base a reasoned judgment. The only conclusion one can draw is that their reactions are purely intuitive, meaning they come from the subconscious mind. And why would the subconscious mind reject these techniques out of hand? Because structuring one's analysis is fundamentally at odds with the way the human mind is accustomed to work. ... if we structure our analysis, the mind can't be free to mess around. That's why the subconscious rebels when it's asked to structure its thinking.

                We commonly begin our analysis of a problem by formulating our conclusions; we thus start at what should be the end of the analytic process.

                In keeping with our troublesome instinctive mental traits, we first select the scenario we intuitively believe is most likely correct ... Next, we look for evidence to support that scenario ... we become more and more convinced of our hypothesis and more and more resistant to, and contemptuous of, contradictory evidence and the alternative scenarios such evidence supports.

                Over the past several decades cognitive science has discovered that we humans are unknowingly victimized by instinctive mental traits that defeat creative, objective, comprehensive, and accurate analysis. As a result, we unwittingly, repeatedly, habitually commit a variety of analytical sins. He lists five analytic sins, which I think relate to the counterquestions, which serve to keep us from commiting them:

• Beginning analysis by formulating conclusions. Is this the way things should be?
• Focusing on our favorite solution and dismissing alternatives. What else should I be doing?
• Confuse "discussing and thinking hard" with analyzing. Would it make any difference?
• Focus on substance and not process. What do I have control over?
• Have no concept of structural analysis. Am I able to consider the question?
• ... How does it seem to me?

                What else should I be doing? Our analysis usually focuses on the solution we intuitively favor; we therefore give inadequate attention to alternative solutions.

                Humans have a penchant to seek out and put store in evidence that supports their beliefs and judgments while eschewing and devaluing evidence that does not. ... "What am I supposed to be looking at? What's the point?" In other word's, what's the focus? ... focusing has immense downsides when we analyze problems. It tends to make us view problems one-dimensionally, meaning we tend to focus on (glom on to) the first solution that makes sense - that offers an explanation - as we interpret reality through the lens of our biases. Having focused on a solution, we are captivated by it and thus become uninterested in alternative solutions. Our fixation on our chosen solution therefore causes us to value evidence that supports that solution and to devalue, disbelieve, discredit, and discard evidence that does not. We therefore tend to accept at face value information that is consistent with our beliefs and to critically scrutinize and discount information that contradicts them. ... We tend to see in a body of evidence what, according to our mindset, we expect and want to see and tend not to see, again according to our mind-set, what we don't expect or don't want to see. drawing from The Universe Within by Morton Hunt and How We Know What Isn't So by Thomas Gilovich.

                Stereotyping is a form of patterning ... I have to struggle against this impression to see this person as he or she really is; I have to struggle against my own mind... drawing from The Universe Within by Morton Hunt and How We Know What Isn't So by Thomas Gilovich.

                "Satisficing" - picking the first solution that seems satisfactory, rather than examining all of the alternative hypotheses to identify not simply one that fits the evidence but the one that fits best. The problem is that most evidence is consistent with several hypotheses.

                ...we mess up in our efforts to analyze problems much more often than we are willing to admit. Indeed, the road to humankind's impressive achievements has invariably been paved with failures, many of which have set back our accomplishments by decades and longer. For every forward stride there have been telling missteps, because the problem-solving approach that has proven most practical and effective for the human species is the trial-and-error method. ... In all human affairs, from marriage to marketing to management, success is generally built upon failure. And while some failures are justly attributable to bad luck, most result from faulty decisions based on mistaken analysis.

      Convergence means bringing together and moving toward one point. Whenever we take a narrower view of a problem, focusing on a single aspect of the puzzle or eliminating alternative solutions, we are in a convergent mode.

      First, nearly all situations, even the more complex and dynamic, are driven by only a few major factors. Factors are things, circumstances or conditions that cause something to happen. Factors, in turn, beget issues, which are points or questions to be disputed or decided. ... Major factors and major issues are the navigational aids of analysis; they tell us where our analysis should be headed. And they normally change as we become aware of new information and gain a deeper understanding of the problem. If we lose sight of them, we lose our way in the analytic process. We should concentrate our analytic efforts on the major factors and issues. Studying subtleties (lesser factors and issues), incorporating them into our analysis, and weighting their impact on the situation and its possible outcomes are usually a waste of time because subtleties never play a significant role. ... The first insight, therefore, is to create at the outset and maintain throughout the problem-solving process a list of major factors and issues, adding and deleting items as necessary.

      We must resist at all costs being captivated by the numbers (like weights and utility values) we use in applying some of these techniques. We must constantly focus on and fully understand the analysis underlying these numbers, for they inevitably tend to take on a life of their own and to drive, not reflect, our analysis.

                According to Laplace, if we're trying to determine which of two or more outcomes will occur, but we don't have reliable evidence to judge which is more likely, we should assume the probability is equal for all outcomes.

                ... when we have all the data, as in a deterministic problem, calculate probability by arithmetic computation.

                Conditionally dependent events are those in which the occurrence of one event depends upon the occurrence of another. Multiply probabilities of the "and" type.

                Mutually exclusive events preclude one another. Add probabilities of the "either... or..." type. If they are completely exhaustive, then they should add up to 100%.

                Whether we are analyzing a problem alone or collaborating with others, we should make it a rule to highlight all probability expressions and translate them into percentiles. ... but only in the analytic phase. Never use percentiles in final written products unless ... the numbers are based on definitive evidence and precise calculations.

      Finally, experiments in group process have shown that, in most circumstances, the analytic power of a group of analysts is greater than that of any of its single members. For that reason, the group's consensus judgments are likely to be more accurate than the judgments of any individual member. Yet when a group of people sits around a table and analyzes a problem, rare is the group member who believes that the other members collectively know more about the problem, understand it better, can come up with a better solution than that member can, particularly when that member's opinion is at odds with the group's. Structuring group analysis of problems facilitates the exchange of ideas and the examination of alternatives that are necessary for building a consensus. ... A host of things - such as individual mind-sets, conflicts over who is in authority, domination by a clique, lack of group focus - can decimate the effectiveness of a group ... These interactions within the group tend to divide and confuse its members and to defeat their common purpose. ... By organizing in a sensible, informative way the problem being analyzed, structuring greatly facilitates a group's work. Because group analysis tends to jump erratically from one topic to another as members press for acceptance of competing ideas, a principal beneficial effect of structuring is to help the group perceive the problem's full dimensions, to focus its attention on individual aspects of the problem, and to keep track of where the group is in the analytic process.

      Divergence... means to branch out, to go in different directions, from a single point. Whenever we take a broader view of a problem, whether by examining evidence more thoroughly, gathering new evidence, or entertaining alternative solutions, we are in a divergent mode.

      The mother of all biases is the "mind-set" ... the distillation of our accumulated knowledge about a subject into a single, coherent framework or lens through which we view it. ... the summation or consolidation of all of our biases about a particular subject. ... feelings come upon us in a flash; we don't think about them before we sense them. Such is the power of mind-set. ... When we read a novel ... the author furnishes us bits of information ... At some point, our absorption and interpretation of these small details solidifies into a particular mind-set. ... mind-sets enable us to put events and information immediately into context without having to reconstruct from memory everthing that previously happened ... provide us instant insight into complex problems ... Being an aggregate of countless biases and beliefs, a mind-set represents a giant shortcut of the mind ... The influence a mind-set has on our thinking is thus magnified by many orders of magnitude over that of a simple bias ... There is only one way to change undesirable biases and mind-sets, and that is by exposing ourselves (our minds) to new information and letting the mind do the rest. Fortunately, the mind is, to a large degree, a self-changing system: give it new information, and it will change the bias. ... Most biases and mind-sets, however, are highly resistant to alteration and are changed only gradually, eroded away by repeated exposure to new information. drawing from The Universe Within by Morton Hunt and How We Know What Isn't So by Thomas Gilovich.

      Third, structuring helps us to focus our analysis. The mind instinctively focuses. That's how the mind works, so it's going to focus whether we want it to or not. Therefore, we're better off to work with the mind than against it and, in so doing, control what it focuses on. If we don't, it will do its own focusing, and its shortcuts can lead us down the wrong path.

                [Edumnd Bolles, A Second Way of Knowing] We shift attention from sensation to sensation, watching only part of the visual field, listening to only some sounds around us, savoring certain flavors among many. Our capacity to select and "impart intensity" to sensations prevents us from being slaves to the physical world around us. Reality is a jumble of sensations and details. Attention enables us to combine separate sensations into unified objects and lets us examine objects closely to be sure of their identity. ... drawing from The Universe Within by Morton Hunt and How We Know What Isn't So by Thomas Gilovich.

      We instinctively rely on, and are susceptible to, biases and assumptions. Bias - an unconscious belief that conditions, governs, and compels our behavior ... Immanuel Kant theorized that the mind is not designed to give us uninterpreted knowledge of the world but must always approach it from a special point of view ... with a certain bias. ... Acquiring a bias is not a conscious mental process ... we are stuck with biases whether we want them or not ... It is bias that enables us to repeat an action we have taken before without going through all of the mental steps that led to the original act. ... assumptions beget biases, biases beget assumptions ... much more often than not, our biases lead us to correct conclusions and reactions, and they do it exceedingly fast. ... the rapidity of this process and the fact that it is unconscious - and thus uncontrolled - have the unfortunate effect of strengthening and validating our biases at the expense of truth. The reason ... is that we tend to give high value to new information that is consistent with our biases, thus reinforcing them, while giving low value to, and even rejecting, new information that is inconsistent. New information that is ambiguous either is construed as consistent with our biases or is dismissed as irrelevant. ... because most biases are hidden from our consciousness, we aren't aware of their existence or of their effects ... The trouble with biases is that they impose artificial constraints and boundaries on what we think. The insidious part is that we aren't even aware that our thinking is restricted. drawing from The Universe Within by Morton Hunt and How We Know What Isn't So by Thomas Gilovich.

      Fifth, by establishing rational, systematic frameworks within which to analyze problems, analytic structuring techniques enable us to impose our analytic will on our subconscious mind, preventing it from following the instinctive mental traits that lead to faulty analysis.

      When we don't have all the facts, we estimate probability based on frequency and experience. Frequency is how often an event has occurred in the past; experience is what happened during each event. ... the more we know about the circumstances of an event whose probability we are estimating, the more accurate our estimate will be.

      Hypothesis testing is primarily about analyzing individual hypotheses and so I list it here. Secondarily, it is also related to ranking. ...a hypothesis helps to narrow the scope of our thinking. It thus provides a framework - a mind-set - within which to analyze and interpret information ... it can have dramatically negative effects if it leads to satisficing - to focusing on one hypothesis to the exclusion of alternatives. ... [Hypothesis testing ranks] competing hypotheses by the degree to which relevant evidence is inconsistent. The favored hypothesis has the least inconsistent evidence, not the one with the most consistent evidence. ... Consistent evidence proves nothing, because evidence can, and usually does, support more than one hypothesis. ... Only inconsistent evidence has any real value in determining the credibility of a hypothesis and in ranking hypotheses by the degree of their credibility.

• Construct a matrix. Label the first column "Evidence". Label the other columns to the right "Hypotheses", and enter descriptors of the hypotheses atop the columns. The hypotheses must be mutually exclusive .... need not be collectly exhaustive.
• List "significant" evidence down the left-hand margin, including "absent" evidence. ... Include the absence of evidence one would expect if the hypothesis were true as well as the absence of evidence one would expect if it were untrue. ... Ask "[Public health professor Dr. Russell] Alexander's question": What evidence not included in the matrix would refute one or more of the hypotheses?
• Working across the matrix, test the evidence for consistency [or inconsistency] with each hypothesis, one item of evidence at a time.
• Refine the matrix. Add or reword hypotheses. Add "significant" evidence relevant to any new or reworded hypothesis and test it against all hypotheses. Delete, but keep a record of, evidence that is consistent with all of the hypotheses. It has no diagnostic value.
• Working downward, evaluate each hypothesis.
• Rank the hypotheses by the strength of inconsistent evidence.
• Perform a sanity check.

                A hypothesis is a declarative statement that has not been established as true. ... We assert the truth of a hypothesis by offering supporting evidence. But, as the late philosopher Karl Popper established in his writings in the 1930s, we can never really prove a hypothesis true. We can and do, however, for countless reasons, accept hypotheses as true until they are proven to be false. ... We disprove a hypothesis with evidence. "Information" becomes "evidence" only when we connect it with a hypothesis. ... When we find "evidence", we should try to establish its validity by answering four questions:

• Who or what was the source?
• What was the source's access? How did the source obtain the information? Was that method plausible? ...
• What is the source's reliability? ...
• Is the information plausible? ...

      "How high can a giraffe fly?" Instantly our mind tells us the question is "illogical". ... how do we know? An educated guess is that the mind compares the new information about the giraffe with the old information the mind has stored away about the animal. ... it clashes violently, and the mind tells us it doesn't match, meaning it doesn't make sense. This is a far cry from reasoning or rational thinking, and it's certainly light-years away from formal logic. ... "Plausible" means "seemingly true at first glance." ... As Morton Hunt put it, "Natural [plausible] reasoning often succeeds even when it violates laws of logic. What laws then does natural reasoning obey?" He cited two: plausibility and probability. "In contrast to logical reasoning," said Hunt, "natural reasoning proceeds by steps that are credible [plausible] but not rigorous and arrives at conclusions that are likely [probable] but not certain. ... Because logic, to be effective, requires total consistency and total certainty, logical thinking is unsuited for dealing with the real world in which the only certainty (other than taxes and TV commercials) is ultimate death. But plausible reasoning requires neither consistency nor certainty. Plausibility strives for the gap, just as truth does. drawing from The Universe Within by Morton Hunt and How We Know What Isn't So by Thomas Gilovich.

      Fourth, structuring focuses on one element at a time, which, compared to our instinctive scattershot approach of tackling all elements simultaneously, is more systematic, more thorough, and more productive of relevant ideas.

                At any point in the analytic process, from the very beginning to the very end, we are in one of two modes: convergent or divergent. ... Both divergence and convergence are necessary for effective problem solving. Divergence opens the mind to creative alternatives; convergence winnows out the weak alternatives and focuses on, and chooses among, the strong. Without divergence, we could not analyze a problem creatively or objectively; without convergence, we would just keep on analyzing, never coming to closure. It is therefore vital to effective problem solving that the analyst be prepared and able to shift back and forth between divergent and convergent approaches easily and at will, using each mode to its best effect as the problem-solving process dictates. What is more, our conscious awareness of (1) the diametrically opposed roles of convergence and divergence and (2) which mode we are in at any given moment in the analytic process will, by itself, greatly enhance our ability to solve problems. Unfortunately, it is extremely difficult for humans to shift back and forth between these two ever-opposite, ever-warring approaches. Most of us are not inherently good divergers; divergence is not one of our instinctive processes. Indeed, most of us habitually resist divergence - sometimes passionately, even angrily.

      Ask your friend to identify an issue about which he or she has strong feelings. Ask your friend to state his or her position on the issue and to defend tat position with argumentation. ... ask him or her to make the opposite case. ... Most people can't do it effectively; some can't do it at all and become quite upset when asked to. They are so focused on their interpretation of the issue that they cannot adequately articulate the other side (or sides). drawing from The Universe Within by Morton Hunt and How We Know What Isn't So by Thomas Gilovich.

                Learned churchmen took the devil's position simply for argument's sake to challenge the rationale presented in the nomination for sainthood, the idea being that through this process the truth, perforce, would out. ... challenge the proposition not because they disbelieve it but simply to test its validity. Devil's advocacy does this by seeking, with either the same or other evidence, to prove the opposite of whatever the challenged view holds. ... Devil's advocacy is analytically useful because it by design focuses on a contrary or opposite viewpoint and in doing so activates all of the instinctive behaviors associated with focusing: viewing the problem one-dimensionally through the lens of biases connected with that viewpoint; eschewing alternative solutions; valuing evidence that supports that viewpoint; devaluing and discarding evidence that does not. Devil's advocacy thus engages the very same mental tactics employed by the primary advocate but applies them in opposition, thereby promoting objectivity. What's more, the devil's advocate goes a step further by seeking out and obtaining new evidence, evidence about which the prime advocate has no knowledge or curiosity or that was disbelieved and discredited. This further step is the secret weapon of devil's advocacy, the extra dimension that makes it a formidable analytic technique. ... Devil's advocacy will ... open your mind to new dimensions and perceptions of the problem, poking holes in fallacious self-serving arguments and stripping away thinly reasoned and thinly supported analysis.

                The hallmark of focusing is the revered human institution of advocacy - taking a position on an issure, marshaling supporting evidence, and defending that position against the arguments of those holding (focusing on) opposing views. ... advocacy works. It is ... the foundation of our judicial system, in which the prosecution prosecutes, the defense defends, and neither side does both. ... So advocacy does work, when someone other than the advocator makes the decision - such as a judge or a jury, the electorate, the board of directors, or the boss, whoever that might be. But ... advocacy feeds and perpetuates our mind-sets, biases, beliefs, and prejudices. It thus nurtures our tendency to focus and, in doing so, defeats objectivity ... our full understanding of the problem. drawing from The Universe Within by Morton Hunt and How We Know What Isn't So by Thomas Gilovich.

                We let go of untrue beliefs by seeking the truth. We tend to cling to untrue beliefs in the face of contradictory evidence. ... many of our most cherished individual beliefs, upon careful examination, are simply untrue ... we tend to hold fast to these beliefs in the very face of incontrovertible contradictory evidence ... We simply rationalize away the disparity. ... Robert Abelson offers compelling insight. He contends that we humans treat belief like material possessions. We acquire and retain material possessions because of the functions they serve and the value they offer. ... our possessions make us feel good ... he notes the similarity between beliefs and possessions is revealed in our language. We have beliefs. We adopt, inherit, acquire, hold, and cling to them. drawing from The Universe Within by Morton Hunt and How We Know What Isn't So by Thomas Gilovich.

      While problems come in all varieties, shapes, and sizes, each can be categorized in terms of the roles that fact and judgment play in analysis of the problem. ... there is an inverse relationship between the number of facts and the amount of judgment required to solve a problem. ... the fewer facts we have, the more judgment is required ... the more facts - the less judgment. From this relationship we can define four basic types of problems:

• Simplistic: There is only one answer, no more. Who is the governor of New York?
• Deterministic: There is only one answer, but the correct formula must be used. What is the area of a square whose side is 20 feet?
• Random: Different answers are possible, and all can be identified. Which of the candidates will win the election?
• Indeterminate: Different answers are possible but are conjectural, so not all can be identified. What are the prospects for U.S.-Russian relations?

      Second, structuring allows us to compare and weigh one element against another. Instead of looking at a whole bowl of vegetable soup, we look at the soup's ingredients, one ingredient at a time. This identifies which factors and relationships are critical not only to our analysis but also to the concerns of those who will make use of our findings.

      How we define a problem usually determines how we analyze it. ... We frequently discover, based on information and perceptions gained midway through the analysis, that the initial problem statement was far off the mark. ... narrow definition of a problem caused their analysis to be shortsighted, overlooking alternative and possibly more beneficial solutions. ... Every problem ... can be viewed from multiple conflicting perspectives. And what drives these differing perspectives? Biases, those unseen killers of objective truth, determine our perspective of any problem. That perspective in turn drives our analysis, our conclusions, and ultimately our recommendations. ... it makes good sense at the outset ... to deliberately strive to identify and examine our biases as they relate to the problem at hand. ... the human mind by design works to conceal the biases that drive our thinking ... introspection is impracticable ... I recommend an indirect approach, which is to restate (redefine) the problem in as many different ways as we can think of. We simply shift our mental gears into a divergent mode ... and start pumping out restatements without evaluating them. The key here ... is letting ideas flow freely, without attempting to justify them. Sometimes restating the problem is difficult because the original statement was poorly articulated. ... One can generally gain most of the benefits of restating a problem in five or ten minutes. ... A problem restatement session will rather quickly, almost magically, focus on the crux of a problem - the core issues - and reveal what the problem is really all about ... if, as often is the case, we are analyzing a problem for someone else's benefit, it is best to generate the problem restatements in that person's presence. Doing so in an open discussion will reveal our consumer's prime concerns and what he or she considers to be the key issues. This will facilitate reaching agreement at the start concerning what the problem is and what our analysis will aim to find out. Two basic approaches: 1) Paraphrase: Reword the problem without shifting its primary focus. 2) Make a 180-Degree Turn: Shift the problem's focus by viewing it from the opposite direction. ... Most important of all, restatements should, whenever possible, be put into writing so we - and our consumer ... can study them. ... the goal of problem restatement is to expand our thinking about the problem, not to solve it. ... A valuable tip when restating problems is to make them simple, positive, and in active voice. The mind works more easily and quickly with simple, positive, active-voice sentences than with complex, negative, passive-voice sentences.

                Finally, all of the structuring methods presented in this book are visual processes that involve writing or depicting elements of a problem or on a display board or computer screen, where we can see them. Why is seeing them important? By enabling the brain actually to see the words or numbers or depictions of the problem, we engage more brainpower in analyzing and solving the problem and so gain added insights. Indeed, when elements are seen visually, we often discover correlations we missed when we simply thought about them. The old adage - "A picture is worth a thousand words" - speaks to the power of engaging the brain's visual capabilities.

                Georgia O'Keeffe separated levels in her mind, emotion and perception. ...in [Edmund] Bolles's book A Second Way of Knowing: "Georgia [O'Keeffe] was suddenly struck by the realization that her feelings governed the way she saw the scene. It was a moment of transformation: the entire visual world, she realized, was dependent on the emotional world." Said Bolles: "That day she learned the artist's secret; what you perceive depends on who you are. Analytical thinkers have generally assumed that we perceive reality as it is; they then use a process of abstract reasoning to interpret that perception. O'Keefe realized that the perception is the interpretation. It rests on an internal reality that governs the meaning we find in our sensations." The internal reality Bolles speaks of is, in fact, controlled by the mental traits I've been talking about. ... We view the world through a dense veil of burdensome, thought-warping biases and mind-sets. drawing from The Universe Within by Morton Hunt and How We Know What Isn't So by Thomas Gilovich.

                A matrix is typically used to compare and make explicit the internal structure of records, thus to uncover correlations, rather than to organize or visualize externally. I think the matrix is a way to restate a problem so that we can think of it on two different levels, the whole and the parts. This internal structuring yields a systemic boundary that opens the way for external restructuring. First, we think of as many different explanations as we can... We call that diverging. We then sort the explanations (cluster them) into definable groups, which we'll call categories, for want of a better term. ... We also discern basic explanations ... which I have listed below by category ... Let's examine each category ... [matrix analysis begins] that's what structuring analysis does: it enables us to analyze each element of a problem separately, systematically, and sufficiently. ... We can find out by determining whether there was a correlation ... To analyze this question, I have constructed chronologies using a matrix. ... a matrix is nothing more than a grid with as many cells as needed for whatever problem is being analyzed. ... a matrix enables us ... to separate elements of a problem; categorize information by type; compare one type of information with another; compare pieces of information of the same type; see correlations (patterns) among the information. ... putting the numerical data into matrix form has the effect of isolating the data so they can be analyzed more easily, both separately and in combination. ... is there a correlation ...? [...mapping out relationships...] ... which one of the following circumstances would be best ... possible outcomes ... facilitate discussion of the six possible scenarios (alternative outcomes) to ensure that the pros and cons of each were analyzed separately, systematically, and sufficiently. ... the first thing I do, when confronted with a problem, is to ask myself how I can represent the problem in a matrix. ... when I can portray it in a matrix, the problem immediately opens itself to analysis, like the petals of a flower opening up to reveal its inner parts. Moreover, displaying a matrix like this one on a screen to guide discussion at a meeting can be extremely helpful. ... By providing a visual means of focusing our mind on each option, one at a time, the matrix enables us to easily compare and rank...

      Structuring analysis has us tend to our mind's weaknesses and counter them before they become evident. Each counterquestion thus addresses a different weakness. Perhaps they complement each other in pairs. "What else should I be doing?" is divergent and "Am I able to consider the question?" is convergent. In general, perhaps the competition between convergence and divergence is given by the pairs of levels. Convergence takes us from questions to answers, whereas divergence takes us from answers to questions. Which is the broader view, the view of the heart? I also note that each of the six analytic tools seems to have us analyze the complementary levels. For example, a decision-probability-utility tree is defined by whether-what but has us analyze why and how, whereas a causal flow diagram is based on whether-why but has us analyze what and how, and so on. All of us regularly make mistakes of judgment based on faulty analysis ... While some of these errors can be blamed on a lack of information or education, most occur because of the way our minds work. Our minds frequently mislead us, giving us a false understanding of events and circumstances and causing our analysis of events and circumstances to be flawed ... By learning about the mental barriers and pitfalls that impede effective analysis and acquiring the skills and techniques to overcome them, our batting average can be improved, and significantly so. ... The skills and techniques I speak of are what this book is about: ways of organizing, or structuring, our analysis of problems. This book explains what it means to structure analysis; identifies and describes the mental traits that tend to lead us astray; explains how structuring our analysis of problems defeats the ill effects of these traits; describes fourteen easily understood structuring techniques; and provides exercises through which the reader can begin to master them. ... The word analysis means separating a problem into its constitutent elements. Doing so reduces complex issues to their simplest terms. ... But other than showing, as Bertrand Russel said, whether the elements of a problem are sensible or nonsensical, what does structuring buy us? ...

• First, structuring helps the mind make sense out of complex problems.
• Second, structuring allows us to compare and weigh one element against another.
• Third, structuring helps us to focus our analysis. The mind instinctively focuses ... we're better off to work with the mind than against it and, in so doing, control what it focuses on.
• Fourth, structuring focuses on one element at a time, which, compared to our instinctive scattershot approach of tackling all elements simultaneously, is more systematic, more thorough, and more productive of relevant ideas.
• Fifth, by establishing rational, systematic frameworks within which to analyze problems, analytic structuring techniques enable us to impose our analytic will on our subconscious mind, preventing it from following the instinctive mental traits that lead to faulty analysis.
• Finally, all of the structuring methods presented in this book are visual processes that involve writing or depicting elements of a problem ... when elements are seen visually, we often discover correlations we missed when we simply thought about them.

                Bertrand Russell ... in 1901 wrote in his Principles of Mathematics that, with regard to interpreting the language of philosophic theories, the solution is the analytic method - the breaking down of language until a theory shows itself to be either a set of sensible substatements or just nonsense. In this way, he said, many philosophical "problems" just disappear. Russell's book changed the way English philosophy was conducted by establishing the "analytic approach" as the only reputable method of studying philosophical questions.

      A decision/event tree is a diagram that graphically shows choices and their outcomes at different junctures in alternative sequences or chains of events. Each sequence or chain of events is a separate scenario.

• The branches of the tree are mutually exclusive...
• The branches are collectively exhaustive...

• dissects a scenario into its sequential events.
• shows clearly the cause-and-effect linkages...
• shows which decisions or events are dependent on others.
• shows where the linkages are strongest and weakest.
• enables us to visually compare how one scenario differs from another
• ...reveals alternatives we might not otherwise perceive and enables us to analyze them - separately, systematically, and sufficiently.

                the most difficult analytic problems are of the random and indeterminate type, where, because facts are scarce, our analytic product depends heavily on subjective judgments. For that reason, there can be no certainty when dealing with random or indeterminate problems. ... Estimating is what we do when we run out of data. ... The two types of probability we encounter most often in analysis are mutually exclusive (the "or" type, where we add probabilities) and conditionally dependent (the "and" type, where we multiply them). ... There are three inviolable rules for constructing probability trees:

• As with any decision/event tree, the events depicted must be mutually exclusive, meaning each event is distinct from the others.
• Likewise, the events must be collectively exhaustive, meaning they must include all possible events in the scenario being analyzed.
• The probabilities of the branches at each node ... must equal 1.0

                utility is the benefit that someone has received, is receiving, or expects to receive from some situation. ... It is the reason why that person has taken, is taking, or will take a certain action. ... humans, when confronted with a choice between alternative courses of action (alternative options), choose the course that offers them the greatest utility, and the person making the choice defines what that utility is. ... we call it self-interest. ... The purpose of utility analysis is to rank any number of options according to how they serve the decision maker's self-interest.

• Construct a decision/event tree for each option [alternative course of action].
• Identify the perspective of the utility analysis.
• Assign a utility value to each option-outcome combination - each branch (scenario) of the tree - by asking the Utility Question: If we select this option, and this outcome occurs, what is the utility from the perspective of ...?
• Assign a probability to each outcome. Determine or estimate this probability by asking the Probability Question: If this option is selected, what is the probability this outcome will occur? The probabilities of all outcomes for a single option must add up to 1.0
• Determine the expected values by multiplying each utility by its probability and then adding the expected values for each option.
• Determine the ranking of the alternative option.
• Perform a sanity check. Always separate the analysis (including the discussion) of utility and probability. ... even more challenging is analyzing (forecasting) the decisions of others ... the harder people work to achieve goals that are in their self-interest, the greater is the probability of their achieving these goals.

      Most of us were not endowed with an inherent ability to think divergently. ... Why is opening up such a struggle? ... we humans are the fastest criticizers and ridiculers on the planet ... Negative thoughts flood our minds and overwhelm those tiny rivulets of positive notions. The foremost challenge in analyzing problems is to think divergently, not just at crucial points in our analysis but at every stage of the process. ... I regard as unnecessary overkill the wild, frenzied brainstorming methods that some people advocate ... Nevertheless, if blitzkrieg methods suit your purpose, use them. ... I have witnessed many a brainstorming session in which intelligent people go through the motions of generating ideas but treat the entire process as kind of a game. ... To analyze a problem effectively, we need to be open to ideas, at any time and from any source, from the very outset to the very end of the analytic process. ... 1) The more ideas, the better. ... 2) Build one idea upon another. The power of brainstorming lies in the freedom and spontaneity of the process: one idea spawns another and another and another in rapid succession. Participants are encouraged to say aloud that the idea one is suggesting "builds on" someone else's idea. This statement, which rewards and flatters that someone else and reaffirms the connectivity of ideas, adds momentum to the process. ... 3) Wacky ideas are okay. ... open the way to new, practical ideas ... incite humor, which relaxes our paranoid grip on the mind's generative capabilities and liberates more ideas. This commandment, however, bothers most people ... What troubles people is not that an idea is silly or foolish but that they will feel and look silly and foolish suggesting it. ... 4) Don't evaluate ideas. Neither yours nor especially someone else's. This rule liberates people from their self-imposed restraints in generating ideas. ... In brainstorming, the practicality of ideas is irrelevant. ... When we've finished diverging (exhausted our reservoir of ideas), the next step is to focus by winnowing out the impractical stuff and clustering ideas that are similar. We are now in a convergent mode. [In his example, he came up with six clusters and a seventh cluster of impractical ideas. I think I could structure his six clusters.] ... In the third step, we select those ideas that are intuitively practical and promising. ... a further useful step one can take is to perform PROs-CONs-and-FIXes on each of the selected ideas to identify their strengths and weakness and to evaluate their feasibility. This step also provides an opportunity to revise the ideas, enhancing and fine-tuning them. ... Frequently, when I'm discussing a problem with someone, I'll switch to a divergent mode. But I know that if I don't tell the person I'm switching, he or she will get upset, thinking I'm either off on some wild tangent or that I'm really serious about some idea I've raised for discussion when, in fact, I'm only testing the analytic waters. So I always tell people when I'm brainstorming ...

      The paramount feature of weighted ranking is its method of ranking each item against each other. ... We thus systematically compare each item with every other item. ... If, by chance, two items end up with the same number of marks because our analysis was inconsistent, we simply rank these two items head to head to break the tie. ... It doesn't permit us to take analytic shortcuts that shortchange our analysis. We must analyze and make a decision on each member of every pair. ... Ranking things in pairs is something the mind can do easily, quickly, and effectively. The mind does love to focus. ... Pair ranking also provides reliability. ... What happens is that the process delivers the rankings. ... As you practice pair ranking, you'll discover that sometimes you can quickly determine with certainty which item is going to be first or which last. When you do, make a note of it and don't include that item anymore as you rank the others.

                Now rank these fifteen movies from best to worst according to your personal likes and dislikes. ... The main defect in our instinctive method lies in our tendency ... to view problems one-dimensionally ... to focus on (glom on to) the first solution that makes sense. Thus, the moment we think of a reason - any sound, persuasive reason - to like or dislike one of the movies on our list, we tend to latch on to that reason, make our ranking decision on that basis, and move on without considering our other likes and dislikes, which may actually be more important to us. ... It is well and good to use stringent criteria in making decisions, but we should be sure we have considered all relevant criteria and have applied all of the criteria equitably to all of the decisions. ... By applying different criteria to different ranking decisions, we distort our analysis, which can lead to gravely disappointing outcomes that later make us wonder what went wrong. ... There are two inherent weaknesses in our instinctive method. First, we tend to apply different criteria to the different items being ranked. Second, we tend to regard all of our criteria as having equal importance to us ... For that reason, rankings generated with our instinctive method tend to be inconsistent and are thus unreliable. ... your mind doesn't distinguish between vital and nonvital matters when it comes to ranking.

                In most problems there is a bevy of outcome classes that we consider when choosing among alternative courses of action. ... each class equates to a different perspective.

• 1) Identify the outcome classes and each one's range of outcomes and weight each class according to its importance.
• 2) Construct for each class of outcomes a utility matrix with identical perspectives and options.
• Perform Steps 3 through 6 with each matrix
• 3) Assign utilities from 0 to 100 to the outcome of each option-outcome combination (each cell of the matrix).
• 4) Assign a probability to the outcome of each option-outcome combination (each cell).
• 5) Compute expected values.
• 6) Add expected values for each option and enter the totals in the "Total EV" column.
• 7) Construct a single merged matrix with the same options as in the classes-of-outcomes matrices.
• 8) Enter opposite each option the total expected values for that option from the classes-of-outcomes matrices.
• 9) Multiply the total expected values under each class of outcomes by the class's weight.
• 10) Add the resulting products (weighted expected values) for each option and enter the sums in the "Total Weighted EV" column.
• 11) Rank the options. (The one with the greatest total weighted expected value is the preferred option.)
• 12) Perform a sanity check.

                It is frequently advisable, even necessary, ..., to assess utilities from the vantage of more than one perspective. ... Utility analysis handles multiple perspectives quite easily by analyzing each perspective separately (constructing a utility matrix for each) and then merging the results to rank the options. Because the options being weighted are the same for each, the matrices are identical in structure. Ensuring this uniformity is critical to the process. Each matrix contains the same options and outcomes, and the probabilities of the outcomes are identical. Only the utility values will vary because each matrix ... views the problem from a distinctly different perspective ... with different self-interests in mind. ... This technique for utility analysis of multiple perspectives has wide application in problem-solving situations where conflicting interests render a choice among alternative courses of action difficult. Multiple-perspective utility analysis produces decisions that take equitable account of each party's interests, especially when these parties actively participate in the analysis.

• 1) Identify and weight the perspectives to be analyzed.
• 2) Construct an identical utility matrix for each perspective - same options, same outcomes.
• Perform Steps 3 through 6 with each matrix
• 3) From each matrix's particular perspective, assign utilities from 0 to 100 to the outcome of each option-outcome combination (each cell of the matrix)
• 4) Assign a probability to the outcome of each option-outcome combination (each cell)
• 5) Compute expected values.
• 6) Add expected values for each option and enter the totals in the "Total EV" column.
• 7) Construct a single merged matrix - the same options as in the perspective matrices.
• 8) Enter opposite each option the total expected values for that option from the perspective matrices.
• 9) Multiply the total expected values under each perspective by the perspective's total weight.
• 10) Add the resulting products (weighted expected values) for each option and enter the sums in the "Total Weighted EV" column.
• 11) Rank the options. (The one with the greatest total weighted expected value is the preferred option.)
• 12) Perform a sanity check.

                ...humans are compulsively negative... negative thoughts defeat creative object thinking... Negative thoughts can quickly overwhelm and preempt positive consideration. A powerful but simple technique for dealing with this problem is called PROs-CONs-and-FIXes. This rigorous technique compensates for negative thinking by forcing us to identify the positives first. Only then are we allowed to indulge joyously in the negatives. But the technique goes a step further by examining the negatives and trying to think of actions that could be taken to "fix" them, either converting them into positives or, if that isn't feasible, eliminating them altogether. Those negatives (cons) that can't be fixed represent the price one must pay, the burden one must bear, if the thing being evaluated is to be adopted or accepted.

1. For each option
   1. List all the PROs
   2. List all the CONs
   3. Review and consolidate the CONs, merging and eliminating
   4. Neutralize as many CONs as possible
2. Compare the PROs and unalterable CONs for all options.

                A matrix offers two important advantages over a tree for performing utility analysis. First, the relative differences in utility values of outcomes are more easily perceived in a matrix than in a tree. Second, arithmetic calculations are easier to perform. This is due, in part, to the different configurations of the two structuring devices: a tree is busy, sort of sprawls out, and is sometimes unsymmetrical, while a matrix is a compact, tightly organized, symmetrical unit. Also, the focus of a utility matrix is squarely on alternative outcomes, while a tree portrays whole scenarios in which outcomes are only a part. Depicting scenarios - the strong suit of trees - tends to overshadow and divert attention from the outcomes. ... Because it facilitates arithmetic operations ... a matrix is more suitable than a tree for analyzing a problem from different perspectives and with different classes of outcomes.

• Construct a utility matrix.
• Identify the perspective of the utility analysis.
• Assign a utility value to each option-outcome combination - each cell of the matrix - by asking the Utility Question: If we select this option, and this outcome occurs, what is the utility from the perspective of...?
• Assign a probability to each outcome. Determine or estimate this probability by asking the Probability Question: If this option is selected, what is the probability this outcome will occur? The probabilities of all outcomes for a single option must add up to 1.0
• Determine the expected values by multiplying each utility by its probability and then adding expected values for each option.
• Determine the ranking of the alternative options.
• Perform a sanity check.

                Weighted ranking is essentially pair ranking, but it includes the use of weights (setting the contribution of factors, as in B3) and a table (the factors yielding the internal structure of a record).

• List all of the major criteria for ranking.
• Pair-rank the criteria.
• Select the top several criteria and weight them in percentiles (their sum must equal 1.0)
• Construct a Weighted Ranking Matrix and enter the items to be ranked, the selected criteria, adn the criteria weights.
• Pair-rank all of the items by each criterion, recording in the appropriate spaces the number of "votes" each item receives.
• Multiply the votes by the respective criterion's weight.
• Add the weighted values for each item and enter the sums in the column headed "Total Votes".
• Determine the final rankings and enter them in the last column, headed "Final Ranking". (The item with the most points is ranked highest.)
• Perform a sanity check.

      ... a chronology, or what Harvard professors Richard Neustadt and Ernest May call a time line in their thoroughly engaging, highly informative book Thinking in Time. ... I stumble over information that I expect to be chronological but isn't ... This compulsion to view events chronologically is related to our instinct to view the world in terms of cause-and-effect relationships ... the mind is programmed to see cause first and effect second. ... the mind, in order to interpret [otherwise], silently reverses the events, just as it reverses the order of object and actor in passive voice. ... A chronology (time line) allows us to understand and appreciate the context in which events occurred, are occurring, or will occur. We are then in a far better position to interpret the significance of each event with respect to the problem. Sometimes putting events in chronological order points to a solution. ... [Neustadt and May] "To see the story behind the issue [the problem], it can help merely to mark on a piece of paper the dates one first associates with [the problem's] history. ... Implicity: vicarious experience acquired from the past, even the remote past, gives such guidance to the present that [the history of the problem] becomes more than its own reward. .

                A special form of time line is what Neustadt and May call "placement", whcih means arraying chronologically the events in public history and details in private life that may affect the outlook of a decision maker whether the latter be a person or an organization. From this history and details we draw inferences about the decision maker's thinking - motives, prejudices, and so on.

                First, structuring helps the mind make sense out of complex problems. Most problems, even the ones we regard as fairly simple, are much too complex and ambiguous to analyze without some kind of structuring. I use structuring when I work a jigsaw puzzle. I group pieces of the same or similar color or texture together - the all-blue sky pieces, for example. I then arrange these pieces in subgroups according to their shape. This approach allows my mind to focus on the subgroup of pieces that will most likely fit, eliminating hundreds of alternatives from consideration. Were I not to group the pieces, I would be forced to continually scan the entire field of unused pieces to find the few that are likely candidates. Yet this is exactly how most of us work a problem. We take in the entire problem (the entire puzzle) with all its complex dimensions (all of its pieces) in one gulp and try to digest it. Structuring frees us from this trap.

      Sorting - what I do in grouping jigsaw puzzle pieces - is the most basic structuring technique. ... Some of us never sort problems into their component parts. ... Others of us sort, but we do it incoherently or according to misleading assumptions about the nature and similarity of the parts. All of us tend to believe that only complex problems require sorting. The fact is, analysis of even the simplest problems benefits from simple sorting. For example: In preparing a grocery list, it facilitates shopping to group items on the list according to their location in the store. Otherwise, one's eyes are constantly scanning the whole list to ensure that items have not been missed as one moves from one aisle to another.

      Even when we fully understand what "the problem" is, we all too often have a poor comprehension of what is causing it; lacking that vital knowledge, we resort to that timeworn problem-solving method called trial and error with its focus glued to the first plausible corrective option we think of. All events in life are the results, the outcomes, of previous events. Life itself is a collage of ecological cycles, all intertwining, mingling, overlapping, sharing, and competing, all linked together in countless ever-evolving chains of cause-and-effect relationships. Likewise, every problem we analyze is the product of a definable cause-and-effect system. ... identifiying that system's components and how they interact to produce the problem is essential to effective problem solving. ... illuminating these components and their interactions can validate or invalidate our initial assumptions about how the system works and uncover hidden biases and erroneous perceptions. ... What is causing this problem? How are the major dynamic factors interacting to produce this result?

• Identify major factors.
• Identify cause-and-effect relationships.
• Characterize the relationships as direct or inverse.
• Diagram the relationships.
• Analyze the behavior of the relationships as an integral system.

• Identifies the major dynamic forces - the engines - that drive a situation, how they interact, and whether these interactions are direct or inverse relationships or form feedback loops.
• Enables us to view these cause-and-effect relationships as an integrated system and to discover linkages that were either dimly understood or obscured altogether.
• Facilitates our determining the source(s) of the problem.
• Enables us to conceive of alternative corrective measures and to estimate what their respective effects would be.

      ...when we have finished using any analytic structuring technique, we always do a "sanity check" by asking ourselves, "Does this make sense?" If the analytic result is reasonable, we're probably okay. But if our intuition tells us something doesn't seem right, we should go back and reexamine or completely redo our analysis.