The spectrum of context sensitivity

Just like with an IQ distribution, there is also a distribution in context sensitivity. Some are strong in complex thinking, others are weak in complex thinking. Most people are in the broad middle of the Gaussian curve.

A continuum like IQ

The tree as a metaphor

Context is not a one-dimensional given. Just as the branches of a tree grow in all directions, context sensitivity can also differ per domain.

For example, someone can think very contextually in social situations, but rather concretely and linearly in organizational matters.

This makes context blindness fundamentally multidimensional: every person has a unique profile of stronger and weaker contextual domains. That profile is never fully captured in a label or a point on a line. See also The multidimensional profile.

Degrees of thinking

We distinguish three levels:

1st-degree thinking: linear and concrete
2nd-degree thinking: thinking about how another thinks
3rd-degree thinking: thinking about how another thinks, who thinks about a third

From 2nd-degree thinking onwards, we speak of complex thinking.

The spectrum from low-context to high-context thinking — The spectrum of context sensitivity: from concrete, linear (1st-degree) thinking on the left, to rich, layered (high-contextual) thinking on the right.

Complex thinking

Complex thinking is the ability to integrate multiple perspectives, time layers, and consequences into the interpretation of a situation.

See Lexicon – Complex thinking for the full definition.

Spectrum from low to high

On the left side of the spectrum is context blindness:

interpreting information mainly literally and concretely
a lot of attention to details, less to coherence
missing social and emotional signals
transactional behavior

On the right side is high-contextual thinking:

making connections between the present, past, and future
understanding nuance and undertones
considering others' perspectives
strong in systems thinking and long-term thinking

Differences within one sex are larger than between sexes

An important consequence of thinking in spectra: for most psychological characteristics on which people differ — including characteristics closely linked to context sensitivity, such as empathy, experience of intimacy, and how you interact with others — the variation within a sex is larger than the average difference between sexes. Large review studies confirm this for all sorts of ways of thinking, feeling, and social functioning (Hyde, 2005; Hyde, 2014; Zell, Krizan & Teeter, 2015).

Such characteristics usually do not form two distinct groups, but a sliding scale on which everyone sits somewhere (Carothers & Reis, 2013). Even in the brain, average sex differences do not produce a clear picture of two distinct "male" and "female" types (Joel et al., 2015; Joel, 2021).

In other words: knowing that someone is a man or a woman tells you almost nothing about where that person sits on the context sensitivity spectrum. If you want to know that, you ask the person themselves — or you infer it from how someone reads the world. Not from their sex. See Thinking style, not gender for what this means in relationships.

Further

For concrete examples, see Examples of low-contextual thinking and Examples of high-contextual thinking.

References

Vermeulen, P. (2015). Context Blindness in Autism Spectrum Disorder: Not Using the Forest to See the Trees as Trees. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 30(3), 182–192. doi:10.1177/1088357614528799
Vermeulen, P. — Autisme als contextblindheid (Acco, Leuven). ISBN 9789033476129.