Lexicon

This lexicon brings together key concepts that recur throughout the Context Thinking project. The terms are defined within the context of complex thinking and context sensitivity.

Transactional behavior

In low-complex thinking, transactional behavior is often observed: "I do X, so that you do Y." The nuance or underlying reciprocity disappears in favor of direct exchange.

Transactional behavior means thinking and acting in terms of direct exchange: "if you do this, then I will do that." It is a linear, first-degree form of thinking, with little room for implicit context or nuance. In human relationships, this often leads to major misunderstandings and misinterpretations of each other's behavior.

Human beings are not objects that respond according to fixed rules, but unique individuals with emotions, memories, expectations, and their own inner world.

In een zakelijke context, zoals de onderhandelcultuur van bedrijven, kan transactioneel handelen daarentegen heel goed werken. Managers die deze denkstijl delen, spreken immers dezelfde taal, waardoor afspraken snel en duidelijk gemaakt kunnen worden.

Casus

A low-context individual gives (justified?) criticism to someone else.

Later, that other person does something unexpected (e.g. not emptying the dishwasher). The low-context individual thinks: "that is a reaction to my criticism earlier."

Transactional: "I say something → you respond to that." No consideration is given to the other person’s context (forgetfulness, distraction, being overworked…).

Casus

A partner accuses you of infidelity because he/she reasons transactionally: "you do something → that means X, because that’s how it would work for me."

Casus

A woman lets the air out of her husband’s bike tires so that he has to take the car to work. As a result, he takes their son with him and she doesn’t have to bring him to school.

Egocentric thinking

Egocentric thinking is not the same as being selfish. Selfishness can sometimes be a consequence, but the core lies elsewhere: a limited ability to take context and consequences for others into account in one’s thinking.

A person who thinks in a low-context way has difficulty with:

• seeing the long-term consequences of his/her actions
• taking into account the sensitivities of others
• understanding the implicit, complex context of a situation

Therefore, such a person mainly starts from their own conclusions, a form of first-degree thinking. The intentions may be good, but the consequences are often poorly assessed.

Casus

"I’ll just drop by my husband’s work with the children, he will surely like that."

The intention is positive, but no account is taken of the context:

• the children have autism and cannot tolerate long car rides, especially not during rush hour
• after an hour in traffic, they arrive completely overstimulated
• the mother is also overstimulated and reacts emotionally
• the father has to interrupt his work to fix the situation

The starting point was good, but the lack of context makes the consequences negative.

Casus

You raise your voice to get attention or to push your point through.

You don’t realize this is unpleasant for the other person, nor that you may miss important information because of it.

In the long run, this leads either to shouting matches or to avoiding conversations altogether.

Casus

Interrupting someone in the middle of their conversation because you have an idea you want to express right now. It may seem harmless, but it ignores the other person’s sensitivities and can lead to irritation or withdrawal.

Complex thinking

Definition

Complex thinking refers to the ability to integrate multiple perspectives, time layers, and consequences into the interpretation of a situation. It requires context sensitivity, social intelligence, and self-reflection. It therefore goes beyond purely intellectual reasoning: complex thinking also involves empathy and self-reflection.

Degrees of thinking

We can distinguish three levels:

• 1st-degree thinking (low-complex thinking): linear reasoning – in case A, B follows.
• 2nd-degree thinking: thinking about how another person thinks in a given situation.
• 3rd-degree thinking: thinking about how another person thinks, who in turn is thinking about a third person in a situation.

From 2nd-degree thinking onward, we speak of complex thinking or high-contextual thinking.

Summary

Complex thinking is the ability to:

• take multiple perspectives into account at the same time,
• connect past, present, and future,
• consider consequences for yourself as well as for others.

Terminology / Synonyms

• Low-contextual thinking
  • first-degree thinking
  • context blindness
• High-contextual thinking
  • second- and third-degree thinking
  • complex thinking (term introduced by Koen Thomeer)

Note: In the scientific literature these terms are sometimes distinguished (for example: context blindness mainly in relation to autism, and complex thinking as broader than just context sensitivity). In this project, however, they are used as synonyms, in order to describe thinking styles clearly and consistently.

Theory of Mind

Theory of Mind (ToM) refers to the ability to imagine what another person is thinking, feeling, or wanting. It means understanding that others have their own perspective, which may differ from your own.

Classic explanation: Sally–Anne story

A classic experiment demonstrates this mechanism: Sally places her marble in a basket and leaves the room. Anne takes the marble out of the basket and puts it into a box. When Sally returns, the question is asked: "Where will Sally look for her marble?"

Fout bij het aanmaken van de miniatuurafbeelding: Het was niet mogelijk het miniatuurbestand op de doellocatie op te slaan.

• A child with a developed Theory of Mind answers: in the basket – because that is where Sally thinks the marble is.
• A child without (or with limited) Theory of Mind often says: in the box – because that is the actual place the child itself knows.

The test shows whether someone can understand that another person may hold a belief that differs from reality and from their own knowledge.

Practical consequences in daily life

Casus

Example 1: the muesli

Partner A moves the bag of muesli to another kitchen cupboard. Partner B can no longer find the bag and assumes the most logical thing: the bag of muesli is finished. Partner A, however, expects that Partner B “knows” the bag has been moved.

This leads to misunderstandings.

Casus

Example 2: communication

Partner A expects that Partner B will immediately understand everything she says, without extra context. She does not realize that her explanation can be understood in different ways.

Partner B, on the other hand, notices that she often struggles with implicit context and therefore communicates more explicitly, so the chance of misunderstandings becomes smaller.

Relevance in this project

A limited Theory of Mind is closely related to context blindness. Where ToM mainly concerns the social perspective (understanding what another person thinks or feels), Complex thinking goes further: it also integrates time layers, consequences, and broader contexts.

Empathy

Empathy is the ability to put yourself in the feelings, thoughts, and perspectives of another person. It is about recognizing, understanding, and (to some extent) sharing what someone else is experiencing, without having to go through that experience yourself.

Forms of empathy

• Cognitive empathy – recognizing and understanding what the other person feels or thinks. This requires processing contextual input: what is the real situation?
• Emotional empathy – sharing the other person’s emotion. To express this emotion appropriately, contextual output is also needed: how can I best respond in this situation?

Low- versus high-contextual

• High-contextual individuals generally have strong cognitive empathy. As a result, their emotional empathy is better attuned to context and often more appropriate in social situations.
• Low-contextual individuals have limited cognitive empathy. Their emotional response is therefore less attuned to the environment. This resembles more of a reflexive form of sharing emotion: sympathy.

Casus

Person B enters the train and struggles to place his suitcase in the luggage rack.

• Person A recognizes from Person B’s face that this causes effort and frustration → cognitive empathy.
• Person A feels frustration himself by seeing this → emotional empathy.
• A high-contextual person will respond in a way attuned to the situation (for example, calmly offering help).
• A low-contextual person may show a less appropriate emotional response (overreacting emotionally, without grasping the situation).

Casus

Another form of being cognitively misaligned: the husband is working hard, but the heavy lifting causes pain in his shoulders. He looks distressed. She notices his facial expression, but due to her low-contextuality she cannot link it to the heavy work. She therefore thinks he is 'angry'. Because she believes he is angry, she reacts with anger toward him. The husband feels misunderstood and doubly punished.

Conclusion

Low-contextual individuals certainly have a form of empathy, but it is less attuned to context. This is more often referred to as sympathy (a reflexive form) rather than full emotional empathy. A full form of emotional empathy takes into account both the input (what is really happening here?) and the output (how can I best respond in this situation?).