Bringing order to chaos

The world presents us with a confusion of objects. We seem inclined to

order these objects according to their similarities. So, for instance, we

divide people into men and women; events into past, present and

future; and cutlery into knives, forks and spoons. Organising the

world like this reduces its complexity, enables a more parsimonious

description of it, and reduces the burden of thought to what can be

managed.

Organising the world’s objects may be something we are inclined to

do, but objects can be organised in a variety of ways. Cutlery, for

instance, can be sorted into plastic, metal and wooden items, long and

short items, or knives, forks and spoons. Which is best? The answer, of

course, depends on what you want to do. If you want to turn a hot

coal, the first would be relevant; if you want to prise the lid from a can,

the second would apply; if you want to eat dinner, the last would be

appropriate. In other words, organisation and purpose go hand-in-

hand (Bailey, 1994). An organisation that helps you do what you want

is useful and can have survival value.

Here, we are concerned with kinds of thinking and how they have

been organised. A particular aim is to assess the potential of these

organisations for supporting thought about thinking, especially

amongst those who want students to develop some proficiency in

thinking. In practice, kinds of thinking have been organised in various

ways, ranging from more or less orderly lists to elaborate taxonomies.

Some were constructed to help teachers with an interest in developing

thinking skills in their students. Others arose from, for instance, a

desire to understand the elements of thinking and how they relate

33