Sensemaking

How our brain receives and interacts with all information, stimuli, and data. We then filter and synthesize it according to usefulness, understanding, and relevance. We structure (get our minds around) the unknown to act in or on what becomes known to us.

Story: The Group Assignment

Samantha and Ryan were assigned to work on a group project for their sociology class.

Samantha: Okay, Ryan, let’s get started on the research for the project. We must break this down into smaller tasks, like gathering and analyzing data.

Ryan: I don’t really know how to do that. Can’t we just start with a real-life example and work from there?

Samantha: I don’t think that’s the best approach. We need to start with principles and concepts.

Ryan: But I learn best through examples and real-life situations. Can’t we find some case studies to help us understand the concepts better?

Samantha: I see what you’re saying, but we must stick to the plan. It’s the most efficient way to get this project done on time.

Ryan: I don’t think I’ll be able to contribute much if we only focus on the plan. Can we try to find a balance between our learning styles?

Samantha: That’s a good point. Maybe we can start with a concrete example and then use that to guide our research and analysis. How does that sound? Ryan: That sounds great. I think we’ll be able to work together much better if we can find a way to combine our different strengths.

Examples from the Bible

  • The Bible uses formulaic expressions. “All the men and women and children, all the cattle and livestock” (Joshua 6:21). This language reflects other literature of the day.
  • Hebrew often has a 3-fold repetition (redundancy) to reinforce a statement and to help with memory. “His love endures forever.”
  • The Bible used homeostasis to speak about spiritual truth. “Why do your disciples not wash their hands” (Matthew 15:2). Jews needed the external and familiar. Paul eventually spoke of things like circumcision of the heart (Romans 2:29).
  • We find examples of high and low formality. “Write this down in a song … have the people sing to remember” (Deuteronomy 31:19). Even when God ordained writing (foreheads and wrists in phylacteries), it was done with manipulatives (Deuteronomy 6:4-9).
  • Sarah was barren, and Abraham was not, so their logic was he could have offspring with Hagar, her helper (Genesis 16:2).
  • Jews demand signs but Greeks search for wisdom (1 Corinthians 1:22-23). Both cultures have different reasoning.
  • The cross is foolishness to some and power to others (1 Corinthians 1:18).
  • God’s reasoning is higher than ours (Isaiah 55:8-9).
  • Job and his friends gave reasons for his pain. God responds, “I need no reason. I AM God. You are not” (Job).1
  • Jesus used questions to answer questions people had (Matthew 15:1-3).
  • Was the manager dishonest or intelligent? This parable does not make sense to some but is logical for others. The German (LOR) title is “smart manager.” The Filipino (HOR) translation uses “dishonest manager” as the title (Luke 16:1-13).
  • Jesus tells people to consider the sacrifice of following him using a story of a builder and a king (Luke 14:26-33). He wanted people to think about their decision.

Real-life examples

  • Eyewitnesses often fill in blanks in their memory. They believe they have seen something they did not. Often eyewitnesses contradict each other for that reason.
  • The Indian Snakes & Ladders game is circular (goes round and round) and not linear (towards the finish) like the English version. It is interesting how the difference in sensemaking can be observed in this simple game.
  • On any given morning in Manila (Philippines), a person rises from bed, grooms themself to look acceptable (if not good looking!), and goes off to work by walking down the street of their neighborhood on the side of the road, then crossing the street at just the right time to climb into the jeepney (a form of public transportation), sits down, hands 20 pesos to the person next to them, who in turn passes it to the driver while saying “bayad, po” (payment, sir). Everything in that sequence took “processing” – from how I combed my hair to the ballet performed with the passing cars and pedestrians. The sights, smells, touch, words, glances from others, and even the grunt of acknowledgment for receiving my payment. Individual? Yes. Collective and cultural? Absolutely.
  • Edward traveled from a US seminary to South Africa to lead some sessions on preaching. During an evening outdoor gathering, the tribal hosts invited him to share his sermon (which he considered his best and most moving sermon). He ensured he was well short of the hour allotted to him and preached passionately. As he preached, he noticed “listeners” looking up at the stars, others beginning to nod off, and a few feigning polite affirmation. Next, an African pastor preached (also in English). His sermons were stories laced together in some “unrelated” ways. The crowd woke up, began throat clicking, occasionally burst into laughter, and wept with conviction as he gave a call to commitment. This seeming random malaise of stories and proverbs connected with Bible passages made no sense to Edward. He had never followed that line of reasoning, just as they struggled with his multi-point syllogistic outline of homiletical excellence!

Relevance

Cultural misunderstandings (also between sexes) are often a result of different logic/reasoning. What makes no sense to one makes absolute sense to the other.

LOR people, with their linear/progressive (point 1, 2, 3…) logic, will often argue that HOR people “beat around the bush” with their circular/spiral thinking and reasoning that “does not come to the point.” This is a gross misunderstanding of HOR sensemaking. In HOR cultures, a narrowing spiral discusses the main point and while getting closer to the center. This is done to soften the impact “ligoy.” How it comes across “ang dating” is crucial.2

How we process data allows us to function in the world and community. We are individuals, so processing is psychologically/neurologically unique since no two people are the same. We are also social beings within a cultural environment that sometimes demands a mutual interpretation of the stimuli. All our senses work together, informing and helping us interpret our life.

Some call those with a HOR reasoning pattern: illogical or “un-logical,” However, nothing could be further from reality. That statement betrays historic Western dominance and an inherent bias that all logic is based on formal Greek rules and thought patterns. It comes out in the ordinary syllogisms: “If A is true, and B is true, then C is therefore true.” In some cultures, C may or may not be true!

Orality preference continuum

Clear tendencies of sensemaking can be demonstrated by looking at the poles of the spectrum.

Groups on the HOR end of the spectrum tend to have a multi-value (analog) logic/thinking (true, false, both true and false, and neither true nor false. When all come together, this is how in Hindu thought that “many paths lead to the same truths”). They think in spirals, circular, and situational (the story as the point).

People on the LOR spectrum have a two-value (digital) logic/thinking (true OR false). LOR people tend to think linear, progressive, and abstract (the story is an example).

Most of us fit somewhere between these two poles of the continuum. A better picture can be gained from this table.

Very highHighLowVery low
Everything relates to real-life concrete situations (praxis is when everything works and nobody knows why).Real-life situations make the best sense with principles and concepts that emerge from them (praxis eventually leads to understanding something new).Explain the concepts and principles with added illustrative examples from life (theory often has the support of praxis).Relate to principles and concepts that are “above” everyday examples (theory is when nothing works, but everyone knows why).
I know how to follow a message when I hear a predictable verbal cue (formula).Verbal cues can sometimes be less predictable.I hear the formula, and after a while, it gets annoying.I know how to follow a message from its progressive flow of information from one thought to the next.
Learning is always situational and directly related to shared real-life situations.Most learning is hands-on, but it is supplemented with formal education.Most of the time, learning is formal and theoretical, and sometimes it is supplemented with practical learning.A lot of theory is learned in formal settings (school) with the expectation that some of it will find application in real life.
Non-linear logic/spiral thinking (narrative preaching).Non-linear thinking with some progression (circular preaching).Mostly linear thinking
(prepositional and expository preaching mixed with stories).		Linear thinking (prepositional and expository preaching).
Divergent (using imagination). Also called creative or horizontal thinking. Explores many possible solutions. Occur in a spontaneous, free-flowing way. Many possible solutions and unexpected connections are more easily drawn. Then, ideas and information are organized and structured using convergent thinking.Lateral: Using logic and imagination. “thinking outside the box.” It involves solving problems through an indirect and creative approach.Making use of both lateral and convergent thinking.Convergent thinking. Also called critical, vertical, analytical, or linear thinking. The ability to give the “correct” answer to common questions that do not require significant creativity. Focuses on coming up with a single, well-established solution to a problem. Consciously use standards or probabilities to make judgments.
Story to the truth.Principles emerge from stories.Principle & stories as examples of visualization.Principle & truth to examples.

What has been discovered?

Humans created in the image of God have unique abilities to process things around us and make decisions rooted in several variables. This spills over into our discussion about HOR and LOR people and groups.3

Social learning may dominate all forms of learning when possible. Your brain is designed to absorb information and eventually act on that data. Bandura’s social learning theory did not directly research HOR cultures. Still, it was first done among children who tend to function more in HOR. He demonstrated that we are persuaded when processing socially.4

Most of us function by unconsciously working from formulae or expected sequences that help us understand things. “And there was morning, and there was evening day XX. Then God said….”5

Most people process things seen and embraced as part of everyday life.6

The elaboration likelihood model explains how people decide to agree with a persuasive message. It says we can think about the message carefully (the central route) or go with our gut feeling (the peripheral route).7

Low formality and high formality presentations show different impacts. Some things are good for remembering words, concepts, and minute details. Others help promote discourse and discussion. This study translates orality (HOR) strategies among LOR students.8

It’s about the processes that allow people to understand ambiguous, equivocal, or confusing issues or events. Disagreements about the meaning of sensemaking exist around whether sensemaking is a mental process within the individual, a social process, or a process that occurs as part of the discussion; whether it is an ongoing daily process or only happens in response to rare events; and whether sensemaking describes past events or considers the future.9

Many HOR societies use non-linear logic or thinking to make sense. “If A is true, and B is true, then it only stands to reason that C is true and D is not.” But some may begin with B being true and C and D being true (Southasia). So, even our “argument” about the resurrection of Jesus may have trouble if we follow only Western/Greek logic to come to a conclusion.

Additional resources

  1. https://bibleproject.com/explore/video/job/ ↩︎
  2. Meeting with Magay Melba 2023; Perry Shaw et al., Teaching across Cultures: A Global Christian Perspective (Carlisle, Cumbria, UK: Langham Creative Projects, 2021), 50. ↩︎
  3. Crashcourse. Psychology. Explains how we process things. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-sVnmmw6WY. ↩︎
  4. Nabavi, Razieh Tadayon. “Bandura’s social learning theory & social cognitive learning theory.” Theory of Developmental Psychology 1 (2012): 24. ↩︎
  5. https://uva.theopenscholar.com/charles-mathewes/blog/parrylord-theory. ↩︎
  6. Ong, Walter. Homeostasis. ↩︎
  7. John T. Cacioppo et al., “Central and Peripheral Routes to Persuasion: An Individual Difference Perspective.,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51, no. 5 (November 1986): 1032–43, https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.5.1032. ↩︎
  8. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QO8dQnSwgH8. ↩︎
  9. Brown, Andrew D., Ian Colville, and Annie Pye. “Making sense of sensemaking in organization studies.” Organization studies 36, no. 2 (2015): 265-277. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/epdf/10.1177/0170840614559259. ↩︎
Tags:
Last updated on July 31, 2024