Towards A Taxonomy of Synthesizing
© Copyright 2023 Howard Gardner
Maybe it’s just the air that I’ve been breathing—but “synthesis” seems to be in the atmosphere. The capacity to synthesize, the need for syntheses, and improvement of the quality of syntheses—these are seemingly of interest to many.
Like any buzzword or term, “synthesis” has been discussed, dissected, and mobilized in many ways and for many purposes (for recent examples, see texts by Gardner, Mulgan, Roberts and Lamp). In what follows, I take preliminary steps in what is likely to be a lengthy process. I hope eventually to draw on the knowledge and expertise—as well as the questions and the challenges—of many thoughtful individuals.
First, a preliminary working definition:
A synthesis is an attempt to bring together various ideas, strands, concepts, and materials. The expectation is that such a combination will prove useful—at the least—to oneself; but, one hopes, to others who share similar interests, curiosities, and concerns. A good synthesis enhances one’s understanding of a question, puzzle, phenomenon (or multiples of these). Familiar examples are school term papers, doctoral dissertations, position papers, landscape analyses, executive summaries, and introductory (or advanced) textbooks. But one can easily extend the list beyond the verbal—to chemical syntheses, equations in physics or mathematics, works of art (poems, paintings, dioramas)—indeed any creation or invention that brings together disparate elements in a satisfying and illuminating way.
Of course, it’s important to avoid the situation where just about everything (including the previous paragraph!) qualifies as a synthesis. The ambition of the synthesis, its utility, its portability, and its generative potential, are reasonable criteria to keep in mind. Most dinner parties, book reports, limericks, love songs, treaties, and constitutions are not notable syntheses—but a few might just qualify.
In what follows, it’s useful to keep an x/y axis in mind: the horizontal axis designates the ambition of the synthesis; the vertical axis designates the success of the synthesis.
Two Personal Notes
Early in this century, I developed a scheme—and wrote a book—called Five Minds for the Future (published first in Spanish!) Because of my earlier studies of human cognition, I made clear that these were not minds in the psychological sense. Rather, donning the hat of the policy maker, I outlined five desirable mindsets: the respectful mind, the ethical mind, the disciplined mind, the synthesizing mind, and the creative mind.
In conceptualizing the disciplined mind, I sought to delineate the scholastic knowledge and skills involved in understanding mathematics, biology (and others sciences), economics (and other social sciences), and history (and other humanities)—in other words, the traditional “courses” in school.
In conceptualizing synthesizing and creative minds, I meant to delineate more ambitious desiderata of education. The synthesizing mind does not simply master the disciplinary curricula; it entails putting together materials in ways that draw on many different strands of knowledge and prove broadly informative. And the creative mind goes beyond the other two: it entails achieving genuine breakthroughs in thought and action. Societies justifiably honor most the indisputably creative minds—Albert Einstein, Pablo Picasso, Duke Ellington, Toni Morrison, Virginia Woolf…
Evidently, there is no sharp line between “synthesizing” and “creating.” Yet their motivation and their achievement are typically different from one another; and the cultivation of one differs significantly from the achievement of the other.
As quick—if imperfect—examples: Knowing the facts of Abraham Lincoln’s life and achievement entails disciplinary thinking; placing Abraham Lincoln among other leaders of his era entails a synthesis; and making a film about Abraham Lincoln in which he debates with Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump is a creative effort—even if it does not receive rave reviews.
Almost two decades later, I published a memoir titled A Synthesizing Mind. Though not particularly conscious of it, I have long been a synthesizer; and—equally—I have been attracted to syntheses and to synthesizers. (As an aspiring young writer, I particularly admired historian Richard Hofstadter and literary critic Edmund Wilson. I sought to understand their achievements and, at times, to emulate them). The memoir constituted an initial preliminary—perhaps jejune—effort on the part of a psychologist to explicate the art—if not the science—of synthesizing.
A surprise! I had not anticipated that—following the publication of my memoir—I would become obsessed with the act, the art, the arc of synthesis. Not only was I posed many good questions about synthesis; but I realized that my own field of psychology had depressingly little to say about the process or the achievement of synthesizing. I seemed to encounter syntheses all over; I found myself trying to understand how they came about; how and why they worked (when they did); and how and why they failed (when that was their apparent fate).
One result: The scores of blogs in this series (link here)… including the present effort to synthesize what I’ve learned so far about synthesis.
Addressing Reservations
Needless to say, when one announces that an area has been under-studied, predictable reactions ensue. When describing my current fascination with synthesizing, I frequently encounter the following reactions:
Oh, everything is synthesis. You have to study everything and that’s not possible. Limit your objectives and find the appropriate means and metrics.
Synthesizing is easy. It’s like 2 +2 = 4, nothing complicated. [This is where Geoff Mulgan’s point about it shedding new light is important—a worthy synthesis allows you to see things in new ways and to effect unanticipated connections and/or distinctions).
Synthesis is incredibly complex, and there’s no point in studying it unless you can break it down. And that’s where the already developed knowledge about memorization, categorization, and analogizing can handle the task adequately. (In a sense, that’s what I seek to delineate in the next section of this essay).
Much of what is written about in education already entails a concern with synthesizing: needs, capacities, curricula, and pedagogies. See, for example, the ubiquitous label “interdisciplinary.” We just don’t happen to invoke or involve that Greek name.
I don’t accept these reservations, but they need to be taken seriously and addressed, as I seek to do in this essay.
How I Think About Synthesis
To explore this area, one needs to locate some “dry land”. For my prototype, I have in mind chiefly the kind of scholarly synthesis in which I (and most of my synthesizing colleagues) engage. Poets, policymakers, playwrights, and politicians might think quite differently about the process and the products!
To iterate:
You need a project—as a handy example, you want to summarize what you have learned about the act of synthesizing. In my case, I have worked largely in areas which I am familiar with (e.g., history, social science); but I’ve also examined syntheses in areas with which I have much less familiarity (e.g., diplomacy, poetry, drama, painting style, financial investment).
You need a method (or methods)—in this case, studying various syntheses, figuring out how they work (or don’t work), engaging in efforts to synthesize, and observing your process. Especially valuable are detailed case studies of attempts at synthesis—which succeeded and why, which failed and why, which achieved partial success, and how they might be improved. Such syntheses ought optimally to be drawn from a variety of fields: as ambitious (and well-known) examples, in biology, the theory of evolution—along with the so-called “modern synthesis” (evolution and genetics); in history and politics, the understanding of the causes of the French Revolution, the major facets, and their resolution; in poetry, the composition of T. S. Eliot’s The Waste Land (an example from a century ago, one that went through many drafts and has been much analyzed). And, as comparisons, attempts that failed—wholly or in part—for various reasons, and why.
Taking a critical stance on one’s own efforts to effect a synthesis, you hope to ascertain which of your efforts make sense to you, and which are not convincing. In the latter case, you can try harder, put the effort aside for a while, or even abandon the effort. (This has happened to me several times—and dating back to the pre-digital era, I accumulated boxes full of notes, unintegrated and dis-integrating).
Possessing a well-honed critical faculty is an asset, but it’s no substitute for evaluations by “critical friends.” Here, you turn to individuals who wish you well but are not reticent to indicate where you have fallen short, where you have re-invented the wheel, or where you do not make sense. Even in the case of a modest blog, I regularly share it beforehand with trusted friends, and the final product is presumably enhanced as a result. A special premium for those individuals who are themselves deft synthesizers (e.g., some editors) but also keen analysts and critics!
Finally, when you have done what you feel you can do, you “post,” “publish,” “issue,” or “execute” your synthesis … and presumably move on to the next assignment…
Manuscript of T S Eliot's The Waste Land, with Ezra Pound's annotations
Ezra Pound recommended that T S Eliot amend or delete two lines in The Waste Land that he thought resembled William Blake too closely, commenting ‘Blake. Too often used’.
(Source: British Library)
Of course, syntheses differ in ambition and achievement. In a previous blog, I distinguished between little, middle, and big synthesis. And that metric is worth keeping in mind in what follows.
So much for background. Here’s my initial attempt to create a taxonomy of the kinds of investigations that are needed and desirable—if we are to enhance our understanding of synthesis: They can be roughly ordered in terms of the disciplines on which one draws; the education and training of synthesis; the use of synthesis; and the future of synthesis.
Taxonomy
The mental processes involved in synthesizing
This is routinely the work of psychologists—for example, those who study the positing and refinement of cognitive schemata. Also relevant are the ways of assimilating the world: those who have narrow bandwidth, like individuals who have autism, are much less likely to synthesize—or even desire to synthesize—than those who have broad, though possibly superficial or excessive, bandwidth. (See, for example, the work of Gary Klein on decision-making).
There may also be personality differences that make it more likely that one can be a synthesizer—perhaps between introverts and extroverts, or individual’s distinctive profiles on the “Big Five” Personality traits.
The actual media/symbol systems that people use to aid their synthesizing efforts
As it happens, when I undertake a synthesis, I create linguistic taxonomies and move the parts around (example: this blog); Anthea Roberts creates diagrams, visual images, cartoons, and manipulates those graphic entities; many of my colleagues are partial to mind-mapping.
Historical and philological studies of synthesis
Examination of synthesizing by the Greeks (Aristotle, especially); the Bible and other sacred texts; Encyclopedias of the 18th and 19th centuries; libraries, indexes, decimal systems; also philosophers like Hegel (and Kant and the American pragmatists) who sought to explicate synthesis. Valuable contributors here are historians of science—see, for example, Lorraine Daston, Gerald Holton, or Thomas Kuhn. Such scholars identify major shifts in thought—what they entailed, what brought them about, and how they affected future practices. See also James Vincent on the emergence of various measurement systems.
Studies of master synthesizers or examples of master syntheses
A fine example of this work can be found in the studies of Charles Darwin and of Jean Piaget carried out by psychologist Howard Gruber—historians of science have done this with respect to other outstanding synthesizers (e.g. studies of Robert Woodward, a master organic chemist). And as mentioned, decades ago, I was particularly influenced by the synthesizing capacities of writers Richard Hofstadter and Edmund Wilson.
The educating, training, development of synthesizing ability
This was a chief goal of educational psychologist Benjamin Bloom, who considered synthesis the highest of his “educational objectives.” Regrettably, for reasons I’ve not been able to determine, he dropped this objective. But there are now educational enterprises (e.g., London Interdisciplinary School) that are directly targeted toward the inculcation of synthesizing ability. And there will doubtless be more!
The development of synthesizing capacities in children
Such work depends on the efforts of developmental, cognitive, and educational psychologists. Those most likely to be able to discern the emergence and growth of synthesizing are keen observers of children, such as Alison Gopnik and Frank Keil, legal scholar Scott Hershovitz, or educational psychologist Susan Engel.
The biology and neurology of synthesizing
I have in mind studies of the development (and eventual consolidation) of neural connections—the field currently called connectomics; the fate of these connections in later life is of particular importance to me! Computer designed-turned neuroscientist Jeff Hawkins develops relevant models; note speculation that some synthesizing capacities may be enhanced with age and experience (e.g. popular writings of Arthur Brooks.)
Studies of educational or business centers
Looking at centers that seek to cultivate synthesizing capacities (whether or not they use that descriptor): IBM in the 1950s, Xerox PARC in the 1970s, Google’s Deep Mind today; in universities, Cambridge University—particularly physics—in the early 20th century. Rockefeller University —particularly biology/medicine later in the 20th century; Santa Fe Institute on complexity theory; skunkworks (subject of a book by Warren Bennis and Patricia Ward Biederman, Organizing Genius). See also The Media Lab at MIT and other institutions studied by colleagues at Harvard Project Zero around 2000—e.g. here.
Professional training
The training of political, and intelligence figures—Geoff Mulgan is a leader in this endeavor. The study of what people can accomplish alone (Philip Tetlock on super-forecasters), or together, in various kinds of groups (see Scott Page on the need for cognitive diversity in teams); the challenges in proceeding from information to analysis and planning to action; learning from what went well and what went badly (or was terminated, for whatever reason).
Synthesizing by algorithms, deep learning, and other kinds of computational mechanisms
Clearly this is happening, much of it already done much better by computers/AI/ Deep Learning/ChatGPT than by humans—but the work is only as valuable as the materials—the models—that have been presented.
In evaluating computer-generated analyses and syntheses, the deep question remains: “Who decides?” Whether the results of an analysis, or a synthesis, a set of recommendations should simply be followed—a very different kind of synthesis or “meta-synthesis” may be needed, entailing perspectives, values, ontologies, world-views, or unintended consequences.
The value of synthesis
Geoff Mulgan contends it is valuable for policymaking. Anthea Roberts’ work on RRR is an example of policymaking in relation to complex problems.
The pathology of synthesis
Not all syntheses work, and certainly not all of them work well. I’m particularly interested in syntheses that seek to incorporate everything—the psychological writings of Ken Wilber, for example—and in syntheses that may attract attention but unravel under closer examination. A recent biography of Buckminster Fuller (Inventor of the Future by Alec Navala-Lee) portrays an individual whose words and sketches were often greatly admired but often did not survive careful scrutiny. It’s notable that Fuller admired the Canadian media scholar-turned-guru Marshall McLuhan and vice versa.
Closing Note and Acknowledgment
What I have set forth here represents my current thinking about the fascinating and challenging process of synthesizing—so far by human beings, but recently joined by powerful computational algorithms.
A few commented that this bulging blog seems like a budding book. Perhaps? But for now, I just want to launch the conversation and help to keep it going.
For comments on earlier drafts, I am much indebted to Lynn Barendsen, Shinri Furuzawa, Kirsten McHugh. Danny Mucinskas, Anthea Roberts, and Ellen Winner.
For an earlier blog that introduces the concept and study of synthesis, please see here.
References
Bennis, W. G., & Biederman, P. W. (2007). Organizing genius: The secrets of creative collaboration. Basic Books.
Bloom, B. (1984). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Addison Wesley Longmans.
Brooks, A. (2022). From strength to strength. Portfolio.
Crandall, B., Klein, G. A., & Hoffman, R. R. (2006). Working minds: A practitioner's guide to cognitive task analysis. MIT Press.
Daston, L. (2017). Science in the archives. University of Chicago Press.
Engel, S. (2022). The intellectual lives of children. Harvard University Press.
Gardner, H. (2005). Five minds for the future. Harvard Business School Press.
Gardner, H. (2020). A synthesizing mind. MIT Press.
Gopnik, A., Meltzoff, A. N., & Kuhl, P. K. (1999). The scientist in the crib: Minds, brains, and how children learn. William Morrow & Co.
Gruber, H. (1981). Darwin on man. University of Chicago Press.
Hawkins, J. (2021). A thousand brains: A new theory of intelligence. Basic Books.
Hershovitz, S. (2022). Nasty, Brutish, and Short: Adventures in Philosophy with My Kids. Penguin.
Holton, G. (1988). Thematic origins of scientific thought: Kepler to Einstein. Harvard University Press.
Keil, F. C. (2022). Wonder: Childhood and the Lifelong Love of Science. MIT Press.
Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press.
Mulgan, G. (December 1, 2021). The synthesis gap: Reducing the imbalance between advice and absorption in handling big challenges. Available at: https://www.geoffmulgan.com/post/the-synthesis-gap-reducing-the-imbalance-between-advice-and-absorption-in-handling-big-challenges.
Nevala-Lee, A. (2022). Inventor of the Future: The visionary life of Buckminster Fuller. Harper Collins.
Page, S. E. (2018). The model thinker: What you need to know to make data work for you. Basic Books.
Roberts, A., & Lamp, N. (2021). Six faces of globalization: Who wins, who loses, and why it matters. Harvard University Press.
Tetlock, P., & Gardner, D. (2015). Superforecasting: The art and science of predicting. Crown.
Vincent, J. (2023). Beyond measure: The hidden history of measurement from cubits to quantum constants. W W Norton.
Wilber, K. (2017). A theory of Everything. Shambhala.