Frequently Asked Questions

1. Can you summarize Thwink.org's fundamental concept?
2. What is "an analytical approach?"
3. Why is an analytical approach any better than what we are doing now?
4. I don't believe an analytical approach is the only way that can work. Can you prove this?
5. What is Analytical Activism?
6. What is Classic Activism?
7. What is a technical solution?
8. What is the "social side" of the problem? Why is it the crux?
9. What is a high leverage point?
10. What is "thwinking?"

After reading these you may be interested in the Serious FAQ or Points of Skepticism.

1. Can you summarize Thwink.org's fundamental concept?

I'll give it a try: Environmentalists are failing to solve the global environmental sustainability problem because they are pushing on low leverage points instead of high leverage points. They are doing this because they are using an instinctual problem solving process instead of an analytical one. If environmentalists would switch to an analytical approach that fits the problem, as science did back in the 17th century when it adopted the Scientific Method, they would be able to correctly analyze even difficult problems and find the high leverage points necessary to solve them.

Only then will the impossible become the possible.

2. What is "an analytical approach?"

An analytical approach is also known as "structuring one's analysis." Here's what Morgan Jones, former CIA analyst, has to say about this in his book The Thinker's Toolkit, 1995. The book contains 14 different extremely powerful analytical techniques for solving difficult problems.

"Exactly what does structuring one's analysis mean? The word analysis means separating a problem into its constituent elements. Doing so reduces complex issues to their simplest terms.

"If we are to solve problems, from those confined to a single individual to those affecting whole nations, we must learn how to identify and break out of restrictive mindsets and give full, serious consideration to alternative solutions. We must learn how to deal with the compulsions of the human mind that, by defeating objective analysis, close the mind to alternatives. Failure to consider alternatives fully is the most common cause of flawed or incomplete analysis.

"As a result [of taking an instinctive, intuitive approach] we unwittingly, repeatedly, habitually commit a variety of analytic sins. For example:

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.

Our analysis usually focuses on the solution we intuitively favor; we therefore give inadequate attention to alternative solutions.

Not surprisingly, the solution we intuitively favor is, more often than not, the first one that seems satisfactory. Economists call this phenomenon satisficing (a merging of satisfy and suffice). Herbert Simon coined the neologism in 1955, referring to the observation that managers most of the time settle for a satisfactory solution that suffices for the time being rather than pursue the optimum solution that a 'rational model' would likely yield.

We tend to confuse 'discussing/thinking hard' about a problem with 'analyzing' it, when in fact the two activities are not at all the same. Discussing and thinking hard can be like pedaling an exercise bike: they expend lots of energy and sweat but go nowhere.

Like the traveler who is so distracted by the surroundings that he loses his way, we focus on the substance (evidence, arguments, and conclusions) and not on the process of our analysis. We aren't interested in the process and don't really understand it.

Most people are functionally illiterate when it comes to structuring their problems. When asked how they structured their analysis of a particular problem, most haven't the vaguest notion what the questioner is talking about. The word structuring is simply not a part of their analytic vocabulary."

Morgan Jones then reaches these two key conclusions:

"In the instinctive approach the mind generally remains closed to alternatives, favoring instead the first satisfactory decision or solution. Consequently, the outcome is frequently flawed or at least less effective than would be the case with the structured approach.

"In the structured approach the mind remains open, enabling one to examine each element of the decision or problem separately, systematically, and sufficiently, ensuring that all alternatives are considered. The outcome is almost always more comprehensive and more effective than with the instinctive approach."

Now we can define a few terms: Analytical means the use of analysis to solve problems. Analysis is breaking a problem down into smaller problems so they can be solved individually. Good analysis uses a process to direct the analysis. A process is a repeatable series of steps to achieve a goal, such as a recipe or Robert's Rules of Order for parliamentary procedure. For a process to work, it must fit the problem and be used correctly.

Thus an analytical approach is the use of an appropriate process to break a problem down into the elements necessary to solve it. Each element becomes a smaller and easier problem to solve.

3. Why is an analytical approach any better than what we are doing now?

This is certainly a good question. After all, we don't want to switch to an approach that is no better just because it sounds better. It would be nuts to ask environmentalists to take the time to learn a new approach that in the end was no better whatsoever.

As Morgan Jones explained above, an analytical approach is much better than an instinctive approach for difficult problems. The problems the environmental movement is facing today, such as climate change and abnormally high rates of species extinction, are immensely difficult. If we do not take an analytical approach, all we have left to fall back on is an instinctual approach. This will not work consistently on difficult problems, even with heroic effort.

This explains why the environmental movement is failing to make the progress so urgently needed on the global environmental sustainability problem. Because of this fatal failure, and it cannot be called anything else, the movement is rapidly losing its credibility with the public, governments, and donors. But we cannot blame the opposition. Nor can we blame the problem for being so intractable. We can only blame ourselves for doing something terribly wrong.

Thwink.org believes that environmentalism's fundamental error is failure to use an appropriate process for difficult problems. This is the central theme this website will be driving home time and time again, because an analytical approach is the only known method that works on difficult problems.

4. I don't believe an analytical approach is the only way that can work. Can you prove this?

Thanks. Here's a short proof:

An analytical approach is the use of an appropriate process to break a problem down into the elements necessary to solve it. Each subelement becomes a smaller and easier problem to solve. It follows that a non-analytical approach is just the opposite: the use of an inappropriate process, which is unable to break a problem down into the elements necessary to solve it. Because this is not done, the problem remains too big and complex to solve. Therefore an analytical approach is the only way that will work on solving the global environmental sustainability problem, because that problem is too big and complex too solve any other way.

Here's another short proof:

This is a difficult problem. Unlike simple problems, difficult problems require an analysis to solve them, because finding the correct solution requires a rigorous analysis. A correct analysis requires reliable knowledge. And the only known way to produce reliable knowledge, knowledge that you know is true, is the Scientific Method. Therefore, because the Scientific Method is an analytical approach, an analytical approach is the only known way to solve difficult problems.

For a longer and more complete proof please see the article on Why the Analytical Method Is the Only Way That Will Work. This uses the fundamental differences between simple and difficult problems to prove a point. If you have not encountered them before, the differences are an eye opener.

5. What is Analytical Activism?

Thanks for asking. Analytical Activism is the use of the Analytical Method to achieve activist goals. The Analytical Method is an analytical approach derived from the Scientific Method, which has these steps:

1. Observe a phenomenon that has no good explanation.

2. Formulate a hypothesis.

3. Design an experiment(s) to test the hypothesis.

4. Perform the experiment(s).

5. Accept, reject, or modify the hypothesis.

These five simple steps have worked spectacularly well for another group of problem solvers, scientists, for over three centuries now. With only a slight refinement they can serve just as well for the modern environmental movement. These steps have proven to be so foolproof and productive, if followed correctly, that we should tamper with them as little as possible.

This leads easily and logically to the nine steps of the Analytical Method:

1. Identify the problem to solve.

2. Choose an appropriate process.

3. Use the process to hypothesize analysis or solution elements.

4. Design an experiment(s) to test the hypothesis.

5. Perform the experiment(s).

6. Accept, reject, or modify the hypothesis.

7. Repeat steps 3, 4, 5, and 6 until the hypothesis is accepted.

8. Implement the solution.

9. Continuously improve the process as opportunities arise.

At first glance these steps may seem imposing. In practice they are not. The real key is choosing an appropriate process and sticking to it, while thinking in terms of hypotheses and experiments. If you can do that, you can do Analytical Activism. It is really no harder than patting your head and rubbing your stomach at the same time.

Step two says choose an appropriate process. For the global environmental sustainability problem there was none, so we have developed a suitable one from scratch. This is the System Improvement Process. It is designed to solve complex social system problems. It's key feature is it addresses the social side of the problem.

6. What is Classic Activism?

Classic activism is a simple four step process used by citizen groups to solve problems that governments are not addressing. Examples are discrimination, women's suffrage, the dangers of smoking tobacco, and the plight of the poor. If activism succeeds then governments assume solution responsibility. The basic process is shown below:

Classic Activism is the basic process that activists, including environmentalists, have been following for centuries. It works on those types of problems where "more of the truth" is all that is necessary to prevail, by winning over one mind at a time.

"The truth" is the proper practices society must follow to optimize the good of the group as a whole. If the proper practices are not yet known, they must be found, which is solution 2. For example, agricultural practices that do not require such heavy use of pesticides may be developed, or research proving that smoking causes cancer may be done. Once the proper practices and why they should be followed are known, all it should take to get people to use them is telling them about the proper practices and why they should use them, which is solution 3. This is done with articles, magazines, pilot projects, publicity campaigns, lobbying, the use of the courts to tell judges about the real truth of a situation, and so on. If solution 3 fails, then solution 4 is tried. The solution 3 techniques are cranked up by the use of more exhortative and inspirational prose and talk, which often slips into emotional arguments and rhetoric. Hard bargaining is also employed. Models of ideal behavior, such as gardener of the month or a city that started recycling are trotted out. Demonstrations to shock the public into paying attention are used. And so on.

The process has tremendous logical appeal. The inner talk runs about like this: "Solving this problem is basically a matter of finding out what's best for the good of all, and then spreading that knowledge. Once people see what's in their own best interests, they will start doing things that way, because people are rational." Classic Activism a popular process because it usually works. And because it usually does work, it is addictive.

The process has three main solutions: 2, 3, and 4. What does the environmental movement do when these fail to work, as is happening today? Almost exclusively more of the same, but stronger. When faced with solution failure, activists desperately try to find even better practices, tell even more people about them, and exhort and inspire people to follow the proper practices even more. In other words, they "shout the truth" even louder. After all, what else can they do?

They could do what Analytical Activism does: analyze the problem until you know what's causing it and where the high leverage points are, and only then begin to formulate a solution.

For example, why is society failing to follow the proper practices of sustainable living, even when people have been told how to do this and why for decades? The answer to that question should shed a great deal of light on what the right solutions might be. However this is not an easy question to answer, and so we will not attempt to summarize the answer here. Please see chapter two in the Analytical Activism manuscript for the analysis, and chapter three for the solution.

Let's see if we can apply what Morgan Jones said in question one to why Classic Activism fails. He said "Our analysis usually focuses on the solution we intuitively favor; we therefore give inadequate attention to alternative solutions."

This applies to classic activists. They intuitively favor solutions A, B, and C because that's all they have. Furthermore, they give inadequate attention to alternative solutions because they are not driven by an analytical approach. Without analysis, alternative solutions that would work remain as hidden as a pearl at the bottom of the sea.

To those using Classic Activism, analysis consists of deciding whether 2, 3, or 4 is called for. If that doesn't work, then solution failure analysis consists of deciding how much more of 2, 3, or 4 is needed. Any other solutions, and any other way to arrive at them, is a whole new way of thwinking.

Therefore the fundamental flaw in Classic Activism is lack of real analysis, which causes a faulty analysis, which causes the wrong solution. Because Classic Activism is the central approach used by environmentalism today, the fundamental flaw in modern environmentalism is dependence on Classic Activism. For more on Classic Activism, please see chapter 2 in the manuscript to Analytical Activism.

7. What is a technical solution?

A technical solution is the proper practices people should follow to solve a problem. Technical solutions are found with solution 2 and promoted with solutions 3 and 4. They are called a technical solution because they so often involve changing to one or more new technologies.

A small example of a technical solution is insulating a house better to save on heating and cooling energy consumption. A large example is solving the climate change problem by changing from the use of fossil fuels to renewable energy sources, and reducing energy use by using more efficient technologies and practices. An even larger example of a technical solution are the many environmental books that have appeared since the 1960s describing ways society as a whole could change to a sustainable way of living. Books like Natural Capitalism: Creating the Next Industrial Revolution, Earth in the Balance, and Eco-Economy: Building an Economy for the Earth have done a well researched, excellent job of laying out an overall technical solution. The Natural Step framework and the United Nations Environmental Program do the same at an even higher level.

But why are these technical solutions not being adopted? Why is technical solution after solution ending up on the shelf collecting dust?

This brings us to the next question. As you will see, the reason technical solutions fail is they only solve the technical side of the complete problem.

8. What is the "social side" of the problem? Why is it the crux?

This is a key insight we've gained into the sustainability problem. There are two sides to the problem: the "technical side" and the "social side."

The technical side is the one the environmental movement, the press, academics, business, and governments have focused on. It is the technology and behavior changes needed to live sustainably. For example, society needs to follow "the three Rs" of reduce, reuse, and recycle. It needs to drastically cut dependence on fossil fuels to solve the climate change problem. Population growth needs to level off and then fall substantially.

The IPAT Equation - Probably the best example of viewing only the technical side of the problem is the IPAT equation. IPAT is short for environmental Impact = Population x Affluence x Technology. Affluence is another word for consumption. The units in the equation are impact units per year = number of people x average consumption per person per year x average impact units per unit of consumption. For example, if we have 10 people consuming 1,000 gallons of fossil fuel per year apiece by driving cars and there are 100 greenhouse gas units per gallon, then total impact per year = 10 x 1,000 x 100 = 1,000,000 greenhouse gas units per year. But suppose out of the 6.5 billion people in the world, one billion of them drive cars. Then the IPAT equation gives 1,000,000,000 x 1,000 x 100 = 100,000,000, 000,000 greenhouse gas units per year. This illustrates the huge amount of environmental impact caused by the world's large population, the high levels of consumption they are accustomed to, and the high tech ways that the industrialized world has become dependent upon.

From the viewpoint of the IPAT equation, if we can just reduce the P and the A and the T enough, then the problem is solved.

But that perspective completely misses the critical importance of human decision making, which is the social side of the problem. Why don't people want to live sustainably, despite clear evidence they should? Why do so many nations drag their feet on signing environmental treaties? Why is the United States leading the anti-environment movement lately? Why do so many corporations, especially transnational ones, use every trick in the book to bypass environmental laws and prevent new stiffer ones from being passed?

All these questions point to the need to solve the social side of the problem first. Until it is solved, we will never get to the technical side. Therefore the social side is the crux of the problem.

This comes as no surprise whatsoever to those who are familiar with complex social system problems. In this type of problem the social side is assumed to be the real challenge. For an in depth look at this, as well as an exciting read, please see Solving the Urban Decay Problem in chapter one of the Analytical Activism manuscript.

To properly handle the social side of the problem the System Improvement Process was developed. This process breaks the overall problem down into three subproblems: the social side, the technical side, and "model drift." These problems need to be solved in that order. The social side is also called change resistance. This resistance must be overcome to allow solving the second subproblem, which is the technical side. For an introduction to the System Improvement Process, please see chapter one in the manuscript to Analytical Activism. Or see this three page extract ^PDF from the chapter.

Model drift (also called solution evolution) means that once the social and technical sides are solved, the model the social system has adopted to solve the problem must continually evolve to keep the problem solved, instead of drifting away from whatever it took to solve the social and technical sides of the problem, as is usually the case. This prevents problem recurrence. For more on this term but a more imposing read than Analytical Activism, see the manuscript to A Model in Crisis.

Perhaps by now you are nodding your head and can see why the problem has eluded solution for so long. A large blind spot exists, due to tunnel vision and group think, as well as the counterintuitive nature of complex social systems. This has caused problem solvers to completely miss the critical importance of the social side of the problem. As a result they have been unable to solve it, despite decades of brilliant and heroic effort.

Nothing will change until the social side of the problem is solved.

9. What is a high leverage point?

Leverage is the ratio of change in input to change in output. A high leverage point is a place in a system where a small amount of force (the effort to prepare and make a change) causes a large amount of predictable response, such as the rudder on a ship. At a favorable high leverage point a small structural change to a system can cause the system to behave much more favorably. Only the use of the correct high leverage points can solve a difficult complex social system problem.

The corollary is a low leverage point is a place in a system where a small amount of force only causes a small amount of change. For example, pushing on the side of a ship is a low leverage point, because it take much more force to have the desired effect than pushing on the high leverage point of the rudder.

A historic example of a high leverage point was the method for choosing a ruler. Traditionally there were only two main ways to choose the next king: he chose his own successor, often a relative, or a violent struggle decided who would be the next king.

Eventually an entirely new way of pushing on this high leverage point was invented: let the people in the kingdom decide. This changed everything by introducing the right new feedback loop. The people elected the best ruler they could find. The ruler, knowing his tenure depended on how well he did to optimize the welfare of the people, found better and better ways to do just that. This so benefited the people that they started to pay even more attention to training the next generation of rulers and electing the best among them, and so on. This established a virtuous cycle, also known as a race to the top.

But until the correct high leverage point was identified, the progress of civilization was stuck. It could not get past the absolute power of kings.

In a similar manner, because Classic Activism assumes that solutions 2, 3, or 4 will work, it does not engage in serious analysis of problems. This leads to pushing on only the most obvious leverage points. For simple problems these will have sufficiently high leverage to solve the problem. But for difficult problems, lack of analysis causes pushing on what are in reality low leverage points. The sad and frustrating result is decade after decade of solution failure, all because the environmental movement is unable to identify the right high leverage points.

Civilization is stuck again, this time in the mode of unsustainability. It cannot get past the absolute power that Classic Activism has upon the minds of those habituated to it.

For more on leverage points please see the glossary and the manuscript to Analytical Activism.

10. What is "thwinking?"

The art of thinking and winking at the same time, as an aid to insight.

But the science of thwinking is something much more. It's the practice of structuring your thinking about solving a problem, such that the problem becomes much easier to solve.

The better a structured approach fits a problem, the more likely you are to solve it. Thwinkers are innovators who have adopted this proposition and are actively trying to apply it to problems it's never been applied to before.

For what a structured approach is, see question 2.