Creativity Science

By: Gary J. Salton, Ph.D.
Chief: Research and Development
Professional Communications, Inc.


INTRODUCTION 

Video Link

There are at least 100 unique scientific definitions of creativity (1).  There are tens of thousands of books on the subject. “I Opt” technology is able distill all of this knowledge into three distinct components: creative volume, creative quality and creative direction. The research explains how these components can be used to consistently produce superior outcomes.

A companion video both abbreviates and expands this research.  It can be viewed on www.iopt.com or by clicking the link under the icon to directly access the YouTube video. 

THE BASICS
Creativity is a particular kind of result. Regardless of the definition used it always involves novel–i.e., new and unexpected—results. A “result” is just a form of output.  Humans are not gods. They cannot produce something from nothing. That means creativity must always involve the input of something (including concepts, materials, processes, etc.). Finally, to get from input to a creative output (i.e., result) some kind of “process” must have occurred.  Thus, regardless of the specific definition of “creativity” being used we know with certainty that the “I Opt” information processing paradigm will always apply.

Graphic 1
“I OPT” INFORMATION PROCESSING PARADIGM

Input provides the “things” to associate. The more unusual the input that is accepted, the greater the probability of a creative association. The greater the number associations considered, the greater the possibility that one or another will be successful. Thus input governs creativity by affecting the odds of encountering a novel result.

Process is the middle element of the “I Opt” model.  It tells input what to look for and accept.  It tells output what is possible given the input available. There are different kinds of input (i.e., spontaneous vs. purposeful) and different kinds of output goals (e.g., physical versus intellectual). Different kinds of “process” are needed to connect these different input-output relationships. Different processing strategies reflect themselves in creativity's quality and/or character. 

Output is the final stage. A person focused on understanding something is likely to produce a thought-based output (e.g., Newton’s calculus). A person whose interest is a tangible result is likely to produce action-oriented outcomes (e.g., Edison’s light bulb).  While both are creative, their effect on the world is markedly different (i.e., scope of impact, immediacy of benefit, duration of value, etc.). Output governs creativity by affecting its direction. 

Using the “I Opt” information-processing model gives us three distinct points of intervention to affect creativity. These are points of leverage through which we can directly influence the volume, quality and direction of creative efforts.


THE VOLUME OF CREATIVITY
Creativity is a numbers game. The more unusual inputs that are considered, the greater will be the creative volume. “I Opt” styles measure the willingness to accept different kinds of input. Some styles favor creative outcomes. Others forestall them.

People employing the Relational Innovator (RI) and Reactive Stimulator (RS) styles use an unpatterned input strategy. This strategy tends to accept a variety of inputs. Variety increases the odds of novel discoveries. People using the structured input styles (HA and LP) seek out and accept inputs that “fit” with the issues that they are addressing.  This predetermination limits input variability and thus reduces the opportunity for creative ideas.

While the above is true, it is not the whole story.  People do not navigate life using a single style. They tend to pick style combinations to serve as their general behavioral compass. These styles can have different mixes of input preference.  This means that creativity comes in degrees. The exact amount of creativity depends on the relative strength of the specific structured-unpatterned mix of the styles used.

Even that is not the end of the story. Raw input is not the only source of creativity. Even people who heavily rely on structured inputs will encounter unexpected relationships. Existing “things” have dimensions that can serve as new input.  For example, any process has multiple steps that can be altered. But there are fewer dimensions to standard inputs than there are external input varieties.  So there will be fewer creative  “discoveries.” But there will be discoveries.

These various creative routes mean that the volume of human creativity exists on a continuum as shown in Graphic 2. 

Graphic 2
RANGE OF CREATIVE VOLUME

“I Opt” technology measures the likely use of unpatterned input.  This means that the volume of creativity in any individual or group can be reasonably anticipated.  Knowing the position on the continuum gives the professional a point of leverage.  For example, team composition might be adjusted to produce a desired level of creative volume.

In addition, the professional can use the knowledge to guide their interventions. A location on the extreme unpatterned end would suggest that little beyond the comment of “have you got any ideas” would be needed.  Toward the middle of the continuum tools like brainstorming would probably be useful in generating options.  On the structured end of the continuum continuous improvement tools like check sheets, flow charts and cause-effect diagrams could be of value in producing a volume of alternatives. In other words, interventions can be targeted.

Knowing that unpatterned input is the principal (but not only) source of creative ideas is a starting point. Knowing how to measure the likely gradation of creative potential provides a practical tool with which to align people with a particular goal.  Applying these measures to the human assets available means that existing resources can be aligned to best match the demands of the goals being pursued. 

The raw volume of ideas influences the success of any creative effort.  But it is not the only aspect of creativity that  “I Opt” can address.  “I Opt” can also be used to foretell the likely direction that the creativity will take.

 
THE DIRECTION OF CREATIVITY
Creativity is a “connect the dots” exercise.  The input variables supply the dots. The more dots there are, the more possible “pictures” can be created. The actual shape of that “picture” is determined by the output orientation of the dominant individual or group style. 

Styles favoring action-based outcomes (LP and RS) will tend to “connect the dots” in a way that produces tangible results (e.g., products or well-defined methods). Thomas Edison exemplifies this stance with his stream of practical products (e.g., light bulbs, phonograph, motion picture camera, etc.).

Styles favoring a thought orientation (HA and RI) emphasize intellectual contributions—things like systems, plans or new theories. Isaac Newton with his stream of intellectual advances (e.g., calculus, theory of color, gravitation, theory of motion, etc.) illustrates this stance.

Output orientation controls creative direction because it determines focus. Graphic 3 shows the output options as a continuum ranging from “thought” at one end and “action” on the other. 

Graphic 3
RANGE OF CREATIVE DIRECTION

A person focused on “doing” something is likely to try to “connect the dots” in a way that produces a tangible outcome. A person interested in “understanding” will probably focus on the relationships between the “parts” (i.e., variables) and will be found on the “thought” end of the spectrum producing a plan, evaluation or other thought-based assessment.

As with creative volume, there is a mix and match quality to creative direction. In the real world, ideas and actions interact.  This creates the intermediate levels on the continuum. For example, Newton’s contribution was primarily thought-based.  But he also produced a working Newtonian telescope (mirrors rather than lenses magnify the image).  But in general, both individuals and groups will favor one or the other end of the spectrum.  “I Opt” can tell you by how much.

Foreknowledge of the direction of creativity has practical significance.  On an individual basis it can be useful in career planning or task assignment.  On a group basis it can help to design teams that are weighted toward producing a targeted creative output—for example a plan or a product. But there is still one more aspect of creativity highlighted by the “I Opt” lens—quality.




THE QUALITY OF CREATIVITY
Input primarily affects the volume and output influences the direction that creativity will take.  The third element of “I Opt” technology—process—also has a role.  It effects creative quality.

Our “connect the dots” metaphor sees input as providing the “dots” and output guides the image that is imposed on those dots.  “Process” insures that the quality (e.g., the certainty, depth, scope, accuracy, clarity, reliability, consistency, etc.) of the dots and lines meets the standards imposed by the goal. And the driving element of quality is self-imposed personal responsibility.

Personal responsibility comes in degrees and is driven by the way the “I Opt” model works as is illustrated in Graphic 4. 

Graphic 4
HOW PROCESS WORKS

Process tells the input element what input to try to acquire or accept. It tells output what is possible given the input available to work with.  Process iteratively bounces back and forth constantly adjusting input and output. Ultimately it “homes in” on some kind of accommodation.

Styles favoring structured input and action output (the LP style) self-assign the most personal responsibility.  Structured input means that the LP “knows” what is needed.  Action output means that the outcome will be clear-cut and visible to all. The LP defines exactly what they want as input and accepts a specific output as an achievable goal.  So, if something goes wrong it “must” be due to a personal shortcoming. This is a lot of motive to make sure that everything is sorted out before they act. The resultant quality of work is likely to be high.

Next in line is structured input and thought output (the HA style).  Structured input means that there is responsibility for selecting the “right” input.  But thought output always carries a degree of ambiguity.  A slight miscalculation or a random variable may have compromised the output. Any damage will be minimal since no action was taken.  Any personal shortcoming is mitigated by these factors. The level of self-assigned responsibility is still strong but is lessened.

Unpatterned input and action output (the RS style) occupies the next position. Action output means that success or failure will again be clear-cut and visible. However, unpatterned input provides a good “reason” why an accepted goal was not achieved.  In addition, unpatterned input means not much was invested in preparation. The level of self-assigned responsibility moves down a notch. Failure still “stings” but does not seriously threaten the evaluation of personal self-worth.

Last in line of self-assigned personal responsibility is unpatterned input and thought output (the RI style). Unpatterned input means that not much was invested in seeking out particular inputs. In addition, the ambiguity and lack of direct consequence associated with thought output reinforces the personal shield. Under these conditions a “process” that quickly produces highly speculative ideas using only partially defined logic is rational.    Failure is not personal. This translates into an uneven quality of the creative output.

Self-assigned responsibility gives rise to the potential for blame.  “Blame” is an assignment of personal responsibility for a negative outcome. As shown above, the degree of self-imposed “blame” will vary.  No one has to impose it. It is embedded in the “I Opt” style elections.

Once again, everyone has varying elements of each “I Opt” style in their repertoire.  That means that there will be a mix and match quality to self-imposed personal responsibility on both an individual and group basis as shown in Graphic 5. 

Graphic 5
CREATIVE QUALITY CONTINUUM

Variation in self-imposed responsibility and blame potential causes people to differ in the effort they expend in assuring that a creative initiative is “right.” That gives rise to the difference in creative quality. But that is not the only implication.  “Blame” is personal and carries a potentially high emotional component.

An individual holding high levels of self-imposed responsibility  (LP) can “feel” disproportionate anguish over the “failure” of an initiative.  A person falling on the other end of the spectrum (RI) might simply dismiss even serious breaches.  Put those people on the same team and a possibility of team tension is inherent. Since emotional reactions are not rational the “cause” of any such problem is unlikely to be obvious. This is one of the prime causes of “dysfunctional teams” that just do not seem to work regardless of what is tried.

“I Opt” technology gives the professional a means of guiding organizational direction as well as a tool for managing at least some of the emotional elements of team operations.   This is no small advance. 



 "I OPT" AND CREATIVITY
The “I Opt” lens has exposed an entire calculus for creativity.  Three continuums of volume, direction and quality give the organizational professional a wide range of options. “I Opt” scores and technology give the practical tools with which to measure and predict likely outcomes of this selection for any particular group.  The professional need only combine these elements with their understanding of local conditions to produce consistently superior performance results.

There is also an opportunity for the academic in this analysis.  The self-imposed responsibility and “blame” aspects of the process element of the “I Opt” model provide a natural link to psychology.  The exploration of this channel is beyond the competence of this writer but its promise is obvious. It is a matter worthy of pursuit by someone better equipped in the field of psychology than is this author.



BIBLIOGRAPHY
Meusburger, Peter (2009). "Milieus of Creativity: The Role of Places, Environments and Spatial Contexts". In Meusburger, P., Funke, J. and Wunder, E.. Milieus of Creativity: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Spatiality of Creativity. Springer. ISBN 1402098766, 9781402098765.

Chole’s Journal #2: Getting Smarter with “I OPT”

By: Chloe (aka "OE"--Shannon Nelson's daughter)
Official Corporate Mascot
Professional Communications, Inc.

I am almost 8 and one-half now. I’ve grown up a lot. But I think I remember most of the important stuff that happened since my last blog. I think I will try to update it.

THE BIG FIRE
The first thing I remember is that there was a AWESOME fire. The offices where I worked for my first 18 months burned down. Mommy, Umpah (my name for Dr. Salton) and Carolyn had to work real hard. Things at the office were a mess. I was still real little so Mom and Esther decided that I should stay home. Esther would take care of me and do some work from my house.

If I was older I would have been worried. But it turned out to be really cool. We spent a lot of time learning new stuff. I learned how to tie my shoes. It’s is hard when your little. Your fingers don’t go where you want all of the time. And there are a lot of steps. You got to put the laces in the right place, twist them, fold them and pull them. One little mistake and nothing works. Esther said that making mistakes was okay. She said if I practiced I would learn. She was right. But it took a real lot of practice.

We also had a bunch of tea parties. It was fun doing complicated things just right. Esther and I had good talks at the party. Mommy and I sometimes had tea parties after work. I did not know it at the time but I was learning lots of things at the party. Now I know that I was learning social skills. That’s when you and someone else do something together. You can tie your shoes alone but you can’t have a tea party by yourself.

Mom told me that tea parties and tying shoes are kind of the same thing. She said I was learning procedures. These are just regular ways of doing things. Procedures make things easier. Then you have more time for really important stuff. Mom said that this was an LP strategy. She told me that she used it a lot. That gave her more time to take care of me. Now that’s like REALLY important stuff.

I worked with Esther during the day and Mommy at night learning procedures. There were lots of them. Buttoning your shirt. Eating soup with a spoon. Brushing your teeth. Getting video games to work right. Tons and tons of stuff. But all of the while Esther and Mom were sneaking in new stuff that had nothing to do with procedures. They were teaching me analysis. That is how things link to each other. It started with reading.

Me and Esther read a lot of books together. Then we would take walks. We saw frogs and worms and beetles and lots other creepy crawlers. Mom would read to me at night and on weekends. Some of the books had interesting stories about things other kids did. Mom said that books are fun. But they are also a way to learn about real things—frogs and beetles and things I could do if I wanted to. I got real interested in learning how to read. But it was a lot harder than tying shoes or tea parties or buttoning your shirt.

I know now that you need a different way of thinking to read. The procedures Mommy told me about are like real easy. You just figure out how to do things once. Then you do the same thing over and over and get the same result. Reading was different. The letters in the words changed all over the place. At first you could figure out some words. But you couldn’t put them together into a story. To do that you need to know ALL the words. I was still to little to do that.

Esther took care of me for about a year. Then Carolyn quit PCI to go back to school. It was time for things to change again. I was now big enough to go to school all day! And was I ever ready! I was going to learn to read, play with other kids and learn about all kinds of stuff. Yea for me! I was really excited.

GOING TO SCHOOL!!
At school they used phonics to teach me to read. You just sound out words. At first it was hard. I made lots of mistakes. But I remembered that Esther said it was okay to make mistakes. Umpah told me that the reason reading was hard was that I had to learn to think in a different way. He said that with procedures you just needed to learn each part and then do them one after the other. All you have to do is remember. But with reading you have to be able to figure out how one thing leads to another.

Umpah told me that the phonics I used was really a system. He said this was a lot harder than a procedure. I had to learn the sounds letters made. Then I had to put the sounds together to make words. There are a bunch of letters that go together in lots of different ways and made different sounds. Since I already knew how to talk, once I could sound out a word I knew what it meant—most of the time. But then I had to put the words together into sentences that made sense. No wonder it takes a long time to learn to read. It is REALLY hard for a little kid.

I now know that what I was doing was learning to use what Umpah calls analysis. I was learning how to link one thing to another. Squiggles on a page became sounds and sounds became words. Then words went together to make sentences. Sentences went together to make stories. That’s a lot of stuff that has to go together just right.

I also learned about math in school. When I was really little it was just counting. Then I learned about addition. Next about subtraction. Then came multiplication and division. Now I’m learning about fractions. Talk about analysis! Everything is linked to something else. It’s AWESOME. I love it!

I think I am beginning to understand why Esther uses a lot of analysis. It helps you figure out stuff and make the right choices. But most of all, it is FUN! You know about things before they happen. You know things that other kids don’t. Even grownups treat you better. They want to hear what you have to say. And they really listen. Sometimes I am even able to get them to follow my advice! Knowing about HA stuff kind of makes you feel like a grownup even when you’re still just a kid.

Mom says I’m growing up fast. But I know I have a long way to go. In math there’s something called Algebra. Lots of kids say it is hard. But I figure I’ll be able to do it. All I got to do is to pay attention to how things fit together.

There is are gobs of other stuff to learn. At school we studied the solar system – another system. We studied biology and learned about environmental systems. We studied evolution and learned about how everything – plants, animals and even whole galaxies—turn from one thing into another. There are systems all over the place. I’m going to be working on analysis for a while. But I don’t mind. Its fun and a lot of the things you learn are really cool.

I’ve been in school a long time. I’m now in 3rd grade. When I started it was okay. We got to play a lot. As the years went by things began to change. At my school the kids tutor each other. When I was the tutor I had to explain something to younger kids. Then the light went off! That HA analysis stuff helped me put things into words other people could understand. The HA strategy wasn’t just about how to think. It was also about doing stuff.

Well, that’s about where I am. I’m understanding more and more. And I’m pretty happy about it. I understand why Esther likes the HA style. I see how Mommy uses her LP style to get a lot of stuff done. And I even see why Umpah likes using the RS style—its really exciting and just a lot of fun.

STILL MORE TO COME!
But Umpah tells me that there is more to come. Umpah invented the “I Opt” system (another system!) that I’m using as a lens for these blogs. Umpah is really, really, reeally old. He knows lots of stuff so I listen to him – most of the time. Umpah says that when I get old—maybe even a teenager—that I’ll begin to explore something called an RI style.

Umpah says that you get lots of ideas when you use RI. I told him I get lots of ideas now. He said that these ideas are important. But he say that I’ll be getting different kinds of ideas when I learn about the RI style. He said that I’ll be getting ideas that no one ever thought of before. Never before! Not ever! Boy, I can’t wait to try that out!!

I figure that I’m a pretty lucky girl. I have lots of friends to play with. There are lots of grownups who like me and help me when I need it. I’m learning lots of new stuff all of the time. And, since I am a junior Organizational Engineer, I know how I know things.

I’ll blog again when there is more to tell. But now I’ve got some homework to do and I’ve got to setup a weather station Umpah gave me. He says that if I pay attention to the numbers I’ll be able to figure out weather systems---another system!! Even in my time off I’m learning about systems! I’m sure glad I’m a kid and have time to learn all of this stuff. There sure is a lot.

Human Information Processing Development

By: Gary J. Salton, Ph.D.
Chief: Research & Development
Professional Communications, Inc.


INTRODUCTION
People are not born with the full complement of information processing skills. They are developed over time. The means by which a human develops this capacity has many dimensions. Physical maturation, hormonal changes, psychological processes, emotional reactions and “intelligence” are among the host of variables involved.(1)

The fact that human beings develop as information processors is typically acknowledged but not explicitly addressed. This paper attempts to remedy this condition. It does this by focusing on the sequence that the various information-processing capacities evidence themselves with individual growth.

Once a capacity is initiated it does not operate exclusively. Capacities that have already been established continue to be exercised and refined. The picture becomes one of increasing information processing complexity as the individual matures.

The paper uses deductive logic rather than evidence-based research. The reason is that the “I Opt” survey tool requires a 6th grade reading level. In addition it has not been fully validated for a non-adult population as it has for adults.(2) However, deductive logic is a disciplined system. There is criteria by which it can be judged to be sound (the premise is true) and valid (i.e., conclusion follows from its premise). The reader can make this judgment without assistance. 

PHASE I: REACTIVE STIMULATOR
The first task any infant is figure out what is changeable in their world. In other words, they have to identify the variables and how they behave. The “I Opt” Reactive Stimulator (RS) style is an ideal strategy for this purpose. The input of this strategy is unpatterned and the output is action. Anything that captures interest is potential input – this applies whether the subject is adult or child. 
 For the adult RS, pursuing an “interesting” variable is guided by an objective or goal. For a the infant there is no “goal.” Anything that captures interest is a potentially relevant variable worth pursuing. The infant pushes, pulls, smells, tastes and feels in an indiscriminate fashion. In this process they discover the range of variables and get an idea of how they behave. But that’s not all that happens.

In this discovery process the concept of cause and effect becomes evident. Things behave as a result of something happening to them. The child pushes a ball and it rolls. They pull a string and the attached duck approaches. Effectively, every infant discovers a crude version of Newton’s second law. This is the raw material of any definition of “intelligence.”

Logically, the RS process MUST be the first stage. There is no other option. Unless variables are identified there is nothing to work with. As the inventory of variables grows, the child begins to assemble the capacity to enter a second stage—the Logical Processor.

PHASE 2: LOGICAL PROCESSOR
Grasping a spoon is at first a random activity. Somewhere along the line the child learns that grasping the spoon, filling the bowl with food and moving it to the mouth is an efficient way of satisfying hunger. The child has effectively invented a process or procedure.

The “I Opt” Logical Processor (LP) style best characterizes this process. The LP strategy uses a structured input and an action output. The processes and procedures require particular variables (e.g., a spoon and food). Once these are available they can be strung together into a procedure (i.e., the manner in which a process is executed) that produces favorable outcomes with a high degree of reliability.

The LP style applies equally well to the adult as to the child. The relative certainty of outcome is the same in both cases. For the adult, the complexity of the processes and procedures increases. But the same attention to detail, the same intense focus and the same methodical approach applies in both cases.

Knowledge of the variables is a precondition for any process. Therefore he LP process MUST follow the first stage RS. The reason that it is second rather than a later stage is that it automatically provides the “room” to purse developments that offer less immediate, longer-range benefits. Gaining command of life facilitating procedures (e.g., eating, sleeping, basic social navigation, etc.) provides the opportunity for the child to expand options. It is a natural second step.

However, the accumulation of variables, processes and procedures carries a price. They must be managed. For example, which specific procedure is applicable in this particular situation? What situational variables are relevant? Handling the inventory of rapidly accumulating knowledge requires a new facility. As this inventory accumulates the next facet of information processing begins to appear. 

PHASE 3: HYPOTHETICAL ANALYZER
Sooner or later the child is confronted with the problem of arranging some kind of accessible inventory of variables and procedural options. This condition demands intellectual organization. The way that this is done is best represented by the “I Opt” Hypothetical Analyzer (HA) style.

The HA style uses a structured input similar to the procedurally-oriented LP. This means that particular (vs. random) elements of the environment are sought and used. But the output moves from the LP’s “action” to a “thought” orientation. In other words, an HA activity can be engaged in without affecting anyone else.

HA style development begins as an organizing procedure. The child begins to arrange things in some kind of order. This process is most visible when applied to variables. For example, toys are arranged in some kind of order. Less visibility, the child also begins arranging procedures. For example, teeth are brushed before climbing into bed. Ultimately the child begins extending this process into a purely intellectual realm. This is most easily illustrated by extending the bedtime example.

An established 8PM bedtime is initially a non-issue. For the child it is a given. A universal. A fixed constant. But then information flows in from a playmate. Their bedtime is 8:30PM. Suddenly it is discovered that the bedtime constant is really a variable. The parent begins to hear justice pleas. But that is not the end. This apparently inconsequential bit of new knowledge proceeds to ramify through a lifetime.

The child has discovered that constants are sometimes not really constant. What other seemingly fixed items can be changed? They need a way of testing things. They soon discover that the question of “why” satisfies this need.

They ask “why” and get reasoning as a response. A causal sequence (i.e., “be-cause” = “by the cause of”) is typically offered. For example, “you have to go to bed so you can be ready for school tomorrow.” It will not be long before the child figures out that there is no school on Saturday. With that insight the rationale for an 8PM bedtime has lost some of its validity. They have gained new knowledge directly applicable to their life. Parents begin to hear reasoned arguments. Life gets more complicated for everyone.

The adult using an HA strategy employs the same technique. Logical streams are tested against each other to establish validity. New knowledge is gained when inference permits a logical extension into previously unexplored areas. This is a kind of “in the box” thinking which discovers previously unrecognized relationships between known items. The value of this “in the box” kind of knowledge can be considerable.

For example, Michigan State University researchers fashioned a new anti-malaria vaccine by combining a disabled cold virus with an immune system-stimulating gene.(3) Both the virus and gene were known. Combining these “known's” produced new knowledge. For someone with an exposure to malaria this new knowledge is a “life or death” gain. There is nothing trivial about "in the box" thinking.

The combined RS, LP and HA styles are all that is needed in a stable environment. The processes of life would proceed. Incremental improvements will be enjoyed in the form of a continuous improvement gathered through the application of HA knowledge extensions. But an additional capacity is needed to realize major advances or to successfully confront significant environmental dislocations. That strategy is the idea-oriented Relational Innovator or RI strategic style. It is the fourth information processing strategy in the human developmental sequence. 

PHASE 4: RELATIONAL INNOVATOR
The Relational Innovator or RI style combines the RS style’s unstructured input with the HA’s thought-oriented output. The absence of structure means that any variable that captures attention is potential input. Since input is not restricted, unexpected relationships (i.e., creativity, originality, etc.) are a natural outcome.

The RI output is thought-based strategy. New associations, systems, schemes, networks and other forms of variable organization can be created without the threats inherent in action. In other words, things can be proposed without “doing” anything. Because the both input and output are unrestricted there is a higher probability that the ideas will be of a quantum or profound nature. The RI strategy produces natural “out of the box” thinking.

Adults employing this style are often responsible for major changes. They are the people who offer new systems of thought (e.g., Albert Einstein), create entirely new classes of products or services (e.g., George Washington Carver) or influence the social structure of entire societies (e.g., Gloria Steinem of the early woman's movement). They can alter the variables the RS considers, the procedures the LP employs and the analytical structures of the HA. They are natural “game changers.”

Children can begin to deploy this strategy once they have gained some command of the HA strategy. The unpatterned input of the RS strategy acquired at the onset of life gives rise to unusual connections. This is the source of the often-recognized “creativity” in young children. But it is creativity without consequence. An unusual connection (i.e., a new idea) does not necessarily translate into a useful result.

To have a material effect the new idea must be framed in terms of a system, theory or some other organized framework. The child’s experience with the HA style provides knowledge of what constitutes “adequate” causal (i.e., cause and effect) reasoning. For example, a child might be able to envision herself as a fairy princess and trans-mutate a frog into a prince. This is deemed “pretend” because there is no specification on how this feat is to be accomplished, why the chosen process works or evidence (i.e., action) that it has in fact occurred.

Contrast this with Einstein’s proposition of the space-time dimension where space can be “bent” and time can be slowed or even stopped. At its inception this was as an outlandish of an idea as our fairy princess. The difference is that Einstein was able to fit his ideas into a framework—the Theory of Relativity. This caused his ideas to be taken seriously between the theory’s publication in 1905 and its confirmation by Arthur Eddington in 1919. Without Einstein’s what causes what and why explanation Eddington would never had undertaken the arduous confirmation (i.e., measuring the shift of star position during a solar eclipse).

The child accumulates an inventory of the “why’s” while expanding their HA capacity. At some point the child asks whether the “why’s” they know are the only possible “why’s.” Or they might encounter a situation that has no “why.” That is the point at which they begin to explore speculative alternatives of the RI style.

The environment determines the extent to which speculations are pursued and the depth with which they are specified. This environment includes schools as well as home, neighborhood and other situations in which the child can find themselves. But mother nature does not leave important things to chance. She uses biology to insure that everyone has at least some RI capacity.

The “rebellion” characterizing the teenage years is the tool by which that is accomplished. The child begins to reject the prescriptions of the parents and often their teachers. With this the established frameworks of navigating life are discarded (usually a temporary condition). Since life must go on, they child has to fashion some kind of alternative.

Mother nature provides by creating a compelling need for the child to immerse themselves in cohort specific relations. Peer associations become a primary guide. But peers carry the legacies of their different past environments. The relatively simple family world is replaced by a disjointed and perhaps chaotic milieu of shifting friends and associates each carrying a different message.

Puberty thus automatically provides a totally new environment in which things must be “sorted out.” This is a thought-based activity. Analytical HA capacities can handle some of this. But the typical chaos (both biological and social) is likely to generate totally new and unexpected (for the adolescent) relationships. With this the opportunity to explore the RI capacity automatically arises. Everyone leaves adolescence with at least some RI capability.(4) 

THE HIERARCHY OF STYLES
There is none. The hypothesized sequence with which the various styles develop does not in anyway suggest their relative importance. All of the styles are required for both the individual and for the human species to continue to exist and prosper.

The value of a particular style depends entirely on the situation in which it is applied. A surgeon would do well to have a substantial disciplined LP capacity. An entrepreneur benefits from a responsive, action-oriented RS ability. The high idea-oriented RI capacities of professors are well suited to their knowledge creation role. Engineers and scientists need a substantial HA capacity to figure out the complex issues that they confront daily. So which is the “more important” societal strategy? The obvious answer is that they all are.

In final analysis the order in which the strategic style capacities are developed says nothing about their value in adult society. Those who attempt to define one or another style as inherently more worthy are simply displaying their ignorance. 

BIBLIOGRAPHY AND AUTHOR NOTES
(1)The author wishes to acknowledge the contributions of Jean Piaget as well as many other pioneers in this subject area. The author has undoubtedly benefited from and assimilated elements of this knowledge in the course of his education. However, he has not studied them and they were not explicitly referenced in the development of this theoretical extension of “I Opt” technology. Scholars will undoubtedly find parallels and distinctions. To the extent that these contribute to the advancement of knowledge, they are welcomed – whether favorable or not to the author’s interest.

(2)Soltysik, Robert (2000), Validation of Organizational Engineering: Instrumentation and Methodology, Amherst: HRD Press.

(3)Michigan State University (2011, September 29). Modified vaccine shows promise in preventing malaria: Vaccine uses immune-stimulating gene. ScienceDaily. Retrieved September 29, 2011, from http://www.sciencedaily.com­ /releases/2011/09/110926131810.htm

(4)The Relational Innovator (RI) hypothesis invites empirical testing. It suggests that children whose “rebellion” is characterized by encountering the most unexpected or disjointed (not good or bad, just variables that do not fit in with past experience) will tend to develop greater RI ability. They simply will have more practice and thus develop a greater command of the strategic style.

Chloe's Journal #1: Growing Up With "I Opt"

By: Chloe (aka "OE"--Shannon Nelson's daughter)
Official Corporate Mascot
Professional Communications, Inc.
First Published: February 27, 2005

I was born into an organization. Mommy and Daddy were both their when I arrived on June 27, 2003. When I was four weeks old Mommy took me to work. Mommy works at a company called Professional Communications Inc. and they do Organizational Engineering. I was appointed Official Company Mascot.

MY INITIAL STRATEGY: THE EXCITING RS
As soon as I was able to crawl, Dr. Gary Salton made an Apprentice Organizational Engineer. I am now 18 months old, able to walk and am gaining increasing language capability. I have decided to use the Blog to document my journey to maturity using my knowledge of Organizational Engineering as a lens.

When I arrived at work I was using a Reactive Stimulator (RS) strategic style. I was entirely focused on "doing things" and wanted them quickly. When I cried, I wanted my diapers changed. Or, I wanted food. There was no need for perfection, just performance. I was using an unpatterned method for input. I was responsive to anything that caught my eye. Action was my favored output—typically "grab it." It was uncoordinated action, but action nonetheless. This is classic RS.

My original RS strategy did me a lot of good. I learned about a lot of things in my environment. I discovered that if you pulled a wire out of a wall you could disable an entire computer system. I discovered that buttons did things. If you pushed the one on the Uninterpretable Power Supply you could turn all of the computers off at once. These were valuable lessons. They are also directly relevant to my job as an apprentice Organizational Engineer.

I also discovered that the people who worked with me knew a lot of nifty stuff. Umpah (my name for Dr. Salton) knew all kinds of good stuff to do with toys. Esther read to me a lot and showed me that words made sounds I could understand. Carolyn knew a lot of good games like "row, row, row your boat." Mommy—well she’s just Mommy – she knows everything.

My RS strategy gave me a lot of good info about the world. It also helped me to discover that people could tell me things and do valuable things. The problem was that RS is less than dependable. Sometimes I got what I wanted, other times I didn’t. It was exciting but I knew that there had to be more.

MY NEXT STEP: THE DISCIPLINED LP
As I was navigating life with my RS strategy I noticed something. There seemed to be a pattern in stuff. Esther always opened the book the same way. Her fingers always moved from left to right as she pointed to words. Umpah always had a few M&M’s in his breast pocket that I could get if I got him to lift me up. The games Carolyn played were a lot of fun but you had to play them a certain way to really have fun.

I’m now beginning to generalize on my RS experience. I’m still a bit of an RS—there is too much interesting stuff in the world not to pay attention to it. However, I’m getting more interested in getting exactly what I want on a more regular basis. My knowledge of "I Opt" tells me that the Logical Processor strategy is the way to dependably get what I want. Being an apprentice Organizational Engineer really helps in setting your life course.

My first professional experience with LP happened when I debriefed Steve and Nicole, two of the consultants who use "I Opt" technology, on our new Advanced Leader Report. I sat on Nicole’s lap and watched her going through the report. She turned the pages over. She did not throw them on the floor like I did. When she got done, I grabbed the report and began doing the same thing. WOW! Did I get the praise from everyone around the table. Doing things "right" has a payoff!

On a personal basis, I discovered that rituals are nice. Mommy and I go through the same routine every time I go to bed. Mommy does this and I do that. It is a process. This gives me assurance that everything has been taken care of and that it is safe to go to sleep. That is important. At my age you cannot be sure what sleep means. It could be dangerous. The ritual gives me comfort that the outcome will be the same as last time.

I am leaning a lot of other processes and procedures everyday. At school I learned about the song circle—it is a lot of fun to do things in unison with other kids. I learned that if you hold a pencil in a particular way you can draw more good stuff. I am now learning about the mouse and keyboard. If you do things in a particular way you can get Elmo to play games with you on his website. I figure I have a ways to go to really command the LP strategy but I am on my way. Things get better every day!

I do have an observation on the LP acquisition process. It is important to tell me what to do. Telling me not to do something does little good. There are too many things not to do. Excluding a few of them by "disciplining me" does not really help. Umpah tells me that there is something called the behavioral cascade. He says that some behaviors automatically exclude others. He says that if I learn the right thing to do, the wrong things will just disappear. You cannot do right and wrong things at the same time and in the same place. I think that this is the way kids ought to learn. It is efficient, effective and fun. I am coming to believe that this is what Organizational Engineering is all about.

I have long way to go to become a good LP. However, I am eying Esther. You can see she tries to figure out stuff before she does anything. She says she is "analyzing" things. I am not sure what that means but it looks hard. I will keep my eye on her. Maybe it will be useful when I finish with this LP stuff.

A CONFESSION
Since I am only 18 months old, I sometimes have a hard time getting my thoughts on paper. I have enlisted Umpah and Esther as scribes. They help me get my thoughts in order and get them on the Blog. However, these are really my thoughts and I plan to share more of them later. Right now, I have to go play with Elmo and watch Barney on TV.

Alcoholism Recovery: Organizational Factors

By: Gary J. Salton, Ph.D.
Chief: Research & Development
Professional Communications, Inc.


INTRODUCTION
This analysis looks at the environment within which the 12-steps of the Alcoholics Anonymous process are executed. Sponsorship, the 12-Traditions, and the established processes of the AA organization form a core of this recovery framework. Without this framework, it is likely that the 12-step effectiveness will be seriously compromised.

This study is part of a three research blog series. The statistical
foundation for the series can be found in the Evidence-Based research listing on www.iopt.com. A study of the 12-Steps is available in the Applied Research listing on www.iopt.com. A video summary of all three research blogs in this series can be found in the "Coffee Break Videos" section of www.iopt.com or by clicking
the icon on the right.


THE PROCESS
There are a host of processes that are brought into play within the AA organizational framework. Cultural conventions on how to behave, meeting rituals and even humor play a role. However, in terms of altering a person’s information processing profile (i.e., worldview) several things stand out.


Public Disclosure
The AA process carries an implied encouragement to publicly disclose past wrongs. This begins with the ritual salutation of “My name is X and I am an alcoholic.” Disclosure proceeds in the informal interactions with others attending the meeting. It can culminate in broadcasting past transgressions in explicit detail from a speaker’s podium. The anonymity mandated by the AA steps and traditions protects the person. These revelations will not return to haunt the recovered alcoholic. Disclosure is made relatively safe.

Disclosure reduces the binding force of their current worldview. The alcoholic's initial input>process>output pattern protects the alcoholic from the full force of any pangs of guilt. For example, the Reactive Stimulator (RS) “I Opt” strategy can create a protective field. The RS’ inattention to detail helps mask the impact of the consequences of negative behavior. The RS’ tendency to focus on transient variables (e.g., situations, events, issues, relationships, etc.) continually divert attention. Without disclosure it is likely that people relying on an RS strategy will maintain their protective worldview. With disclosure there is less to protect.

Public disclosure clearly has other psychological effects. However, the above is sufficient for illustrative purposes. The net effect of disclosure is to lower the risk associated with change regardless of the dominant style. A lowered risk translates into improved odds of recovery. It is an important organizational component of the recovery process.

Meeting Attendance
At its core the AA relies on a variant of the “wisdom of the crowd” approach. The 12-steps can be seen as direction that is devoid of content. This makes sense. Pre-specifying exactly what to do and when to do it could help some and destroy others. However, the process of direction without content puts a premium on guidance. Without it the odds of success would greatly diminish. The “crowd” attending the meeting helps provide that guidance and support.

First, the people attending the meeting are at all phases of recovery. The probability of encountering someone at roughly the same stage of recovery is high. This means that relevant advice and counsel is always readily at hand. In addition, it is likely that multiple perspectives will be available. Options and ideas can be mixed, matched and melted to help meet immediate needs.

The meetings also offer a supportive social control element. The relationships established during the meetings carry with them mutual expectations. Positive behavior can expect to be rewarded with approval. Negative behavior is likely to be met with sympathetic corrective counsel. This support further strengthens the odds of success.

The meeting format itself is serves to aid recovery. Typical formats include open discussion, Big Book study and 12-step study. Speaker meetings are also offered. Each format gives insight into another dimension of recovery. The active participation of “crowd” members (i.e., the attendees) insures that the framework will not become stultified. The insights can help evolve a positive “worldview.”

The average AA member attends 2.4 meetings per week(1). In early stages much greater frequency is recommended. The often quoted “90-90” or attending 90 meetings in the first 90 days of recovery suggests the importance of the meeting. Frequent attendance maximizes the opportunity for the processes embedded in the meeting to take hold.

The meeting effects are probabilistic in nature. Just as in Las Vegas, the outcome of a particular encounter or event is unpredictable. But the outcome of a series of events becomes a virtual certainty. But however frequent, meetings are brief and interrelationships of personal issues can escape attention. Sponsorship addresses this element of recovery.


SPONSORSHIP
Dr. Bob and Bill W. (the creators of AA) discovered that helping others is a central element to one’s own recovery. The number of members involved in direct support activities testifies to the validity of their finding. The AA reports that 79% of AA members have a sponsor. 73% of the members acquired a sponsor in the first 90 days(1). This kind of penetration could not be achieved without mutual benefit. The sponsorship role is simply too taxing and lengthy to rely on pure altruism to support it.

The sponsor’s task is broad and intrusive. It extends from providing emotional support in the wee hours of the morning through helping to interpret the AA steps and traditions. It involves guiding the new entrant through the customs and practices of the AA. It can even involve arranging ways for the new member to get to the meeting itself. Altruism alone is unlikely to support this kind of sponsor commitment. There must be something “in it” for them. That thing is the sponsor’s own long-term sobriety.

So there is a motive for both the sponsor and sponsee to participate in the relationship. Now the question is why does a particular new entrant and a specific potential sponsor both agree to enter into an actual relationship? At least part of the answer can be found in their ability to “connect.”

The concept of “connect” is not well defined. In general terms it means that the people involved use a similar frame of reference. This allows them to communicate without the need to analyze, assess, define or otherwise scrutinize the meaning of each others words. Applied to the sponsor/sponsee relationship “connecting” means that both people can focus on recovery. The transaction cost is minimized for both parties.

GRAPHIC 1
THE INFORMATION PROCESSING PROCESS

At its core the “frame of reference” reflects a similarity in information processing strategies. The fit is defined by the basic “input > process > output” model. For example, one person might need great detail so they unambiguously understand “input.” The other might favor understanding using only the central situation elements. The detail oriented person wants “facts” while the other is content with analogies and metaphors. A “disconnect” at this level yields built-in frustration for all concerned.

“Process” interprets the input. One person may rely on rigorous logic. The other might use “gut feel” or some other form of spontaneous assessment. What one person sees as adequate evidence the other could see as speculation. If the parties differ, it is likely that neither will “make sense” to the other.

Finally, targeted “output” must mesh. One party might focus on action—getting something done about the immediate situation. The other might be thought oriented—attempting to plan, assess or otherwise establish some kind of path. What one party sees as a necessary investment of time and effort that other might view as useless and wasteful dawdling.

The variables of “input > process > output” permeate a person’s worldview. They evidence themselves in ordinary conversation on even trivial matters. Characteristic combinations of these variables have even entered the language. “Nit picker”, “space cadet” and “egghead” are only a few of the thousands informal categorizations commonly used to recognize these different frameworks.

“I Opt” technology has well-articulated, quantitative methods of assessing the “worldview” fit between people. It involves measuring the overlap of the profiles of two people. The degree of variance can be measured and interaction outcomes predicted.

GRAPHIC 2
MEASURING STRATEGIC PROFILE COMPATIBILITY

The AA program handles the challenge of meshing people in a different way. They use an iterative process. Casual conversations and intermittent meetings provide enough information for each party to judge their “fit” with each other. The ability of either party to withdraw from the relationship is a built-in corrective mechanism for errors in judgment.

The above is sufficient to show how sponsorship works into the basic “I Opt” model. “Connecting” is a matter of aligning strategic style profiles. And while AA has a process that automatically aligns profiles, alternative recovery programs are not equally endowed. They use counselors in place of sponsors. The “fit” between a particular counselor and specific client is a matter of chance. Professional methods and techniques can help compensate for disjoints. However, on average these are likely to be inferior to the natural affinity of the AA’s mutually selected sponsor/sponsee relationship. These alternative programs would do well to consider using “I Opt” technology in pairing counselors with clients.


THE 12-TRADITIONS
Table 1 lists the 12-Traditions as published in 1949. Organizationally they can be seen as a system of firewalls that protect the recovery mechanisms that are built into AA. In other words, they do not directly affect information-processing transactions. Rather, they assure that those processes will continue to operate so long as the scourge of alcoholism persists.

TABLE 1
The Twelve Traditions of Alcoholics Anonymous

It is beyond the scope of this paper to cover in detail how these traditions work together to protect the AA as an entity. However, it may be worth outlining them in general.

Traditions 1 (common welfare), 2 (no temporal authority) and 5 (single purpose focused on an individual) protect AA from being redirected towards other or additional ends. They keep the focus on the single goal of helping individual alcoholics.

Tradition 3 (no admission standards) prevents anyone from “stacking the deck” by admitting certain kinds of people and excluding others. Traditions 4 (local group autonomy), 6 (no endorsements), 7 (self-support) and 10 (no opinions) bar the establishment of relationships which could be used as channels to redirect or control AA by outside forces. Without a channel, no force can be exerted.

Traditions 8 (non-professional), 9 (no hierarchy), 11 (no promotion) and 12 (absolute autonomy) act to prevent the emergence of individuals who might gather enough power to change organizational direction. These traditions limit the ability to “take over” AA from the inside.

These traditions give a sense of the extent of the effort needed to keep an organization focused on a single objective. These same forces will operate on any organization of any type. Periodic redirection may be a good thing for some. For example, it could allow a firm to change to meet new environmental challenges.

In AA’s case, this is not needed. The 12-Steps themselves are without content on exactly “what to do.” Their content can flex to meet individual, local and general conditions. The processes outlined in this paper are themselves not fixed and can similarly flex. The ability to adjust is built into the very fabric of the AA. There is no need to build an organizational guidance or enforcement mechanism. Automatic adjustment is literally interwoven into the very fabric of AA.


SUMMARY
This applied research blog has outlined the processes that are integral to the success of the 12-steps. Disclosure weakens the bond that ties an individual to a particular worldview. Meetings provide both information and supportive control mechanisms that help an individual maintain sobriety.

Sponsorship is a mutually beneficial relationship. It provides the guidance and support needed establish new worldviews for the sponsee and helps the sponsor refine and extend their own worldview. The Traditions act like a shield to protect and preserve the AA as an entity within which these tools of recovery can operate.

Looked at in information processing terms, the AA is a masterpiece of organizational engineering. It proceeds to systematically alter the way the world is perceived, evaluated and acted upon in a predictable manner. It has a “wisdom of crowds” foundation. It contains tools (i.e., steps) that are directional but without content. This gives the “wisdom of the crowd” a channel within which to work.

The AA provides processes that systematically weaken the hold of dysfunctional worldviews (e.g., disclosure), provide immediate support (e.g., meetings) and guidance for creating long-term positive worldviews (e.g., sponsorship). Finally, it contains a system that protects these processes and insures that they will persist.

It is difficult to see how “experts” sitting at a desk could devise an AA type system. From the perspective of this writer it could only be done by iteration. Identifying needs, trying out options, adopting successful methods and correcting failed ones appears to be the ideal strategy for addressing seemingly intractable issues. That is what Dr. Bob and Bill W. confronted in the 1930’s. Over 75 years later their work still stands.

Those working to improve the functioning of organizations would do well to study the why and how of the AA organization. This paper is an attempt to contribute to this effort. Defining what is happening and why gives insights into a unique organizational structure whose success is demonstrated by its longevity. Lessons have been learned and there are undoubtedly many more yet to be discovered.


REFERENCES

(1) Alcoholics Anonymous 2007 Membership Survey. Alcoholics Anonymous World Services' General Service Office. 2008. http://www.aa.org/pdf/products/p-48_07survey.pdf. Retrieved 8-7-2010.

12-Step Alcoholism Recovery: "I Opt" Insights

By: Gary J. Salton, Ph.D.
Chief: Research & Development
Professional Communications, Inc.


INTRODUCTION
This blog looks at the Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) 12-Step process through the lens of Organizational Engineering theory. The analysis here relies on logic. That logic is founded on Organizational Engineering theory and “I Opt” measurement. These tools have met all 8-levels of academic validation. It is not speculative foray into opinion. It is guided by an articulated framework that can be challenged and tested.

This study is part of a three research blog series. The statistical
foundation for the series can be found in the Evidence-Based research listing on www.iopt.com. A study of AA organizational factors is available in the Applied Research listing on www.iopt.com. A video summary of all three research blogs in this series can be found at www.iopt.com in the "Coffee Break Videos" section or by clicking the icon on the right.




RESEARCH FINDINGS
Evidence-based research found a systematic relation between the length of sobriety and the strategic profile being used. A strategic profile is the combination of strategic styles being used to navigate life. Graphic 1 replicates the central graphic of that study.

Graphic 1
STRATEGIC STYLE PROFILE BY LENGTH OF SOBRIETY

All of the systematic relationships shown in the graph are backed up by significance statistics. The general picture is a reduction in the spontaneous RS style accompanied by an increase in structured approaches. In Phase 1 the disciplined action-oriented LP increases dramatically in strength. In the next phase the analytical HA bounds to higher levels.

The modest decline in idea-oriented RI is seen as a derivative effect. The decline in RS and increase in LP/HA reduces the “raw material” (i.e., random input) needed to supply the RI. Effectively, the RI is “starved” into a lower level of usage.


THE 12-STEPS
The 12-steps are a core of the AA process. The “Big Book”(1) frames them in readily understandable colloquial terms. However, they can also be understood in the more dispassionate terms of Organizational Engineering theory and “I Opt” measurement technology.

Step 1: We admitted we were powerless over alcohol—that our lives had become unmanageable (2)
This step is a confession of the belief that biochemistry is in control of behavior. It is also an admission that the rational control mechanisms of navigating life have failed completely.

This step prepares the person for change. Accepting powerlessness and confessing unmanageably opens the individual to all options. This includes a complete change in the way they are navigating life—their worldview.

A willingness to abandon the existing way of navigating life is a precondition for recovery. The reason is that preserving any element of the failed behavior pattern may be creating a refuge for the biochemistry to regain control. There can be no sacred and untouchable areas.


Step 2. Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.
Step 1 opened the door into the unknown. Step 2 involves installing a belief that there is a way to control the biochemistry. This belief is the beginning of the needed change. Accepting the existence of a “way out” reduces the anxiety associated with the unknown. It becomes the motive for continuing the process.

The AA grounds this step on a widely accepted belief—a higher power. Referencing this authority cuts the time needed to install the needed belief. It also general. It applies to all educational levels, ages and genders. However, there will be cases where this does not work. When this happens other methods (e.g., scientific evidence, logic, referencing experience, etc.) might be used. The key is installing the belief that there is a way out. Without this belief there is no reason to change.


Step 3. Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him.
This step involves acceptance of an unspecified change to come. The vehicle used to establish acceptance is trust. Framing the impeding changes as coming from a higher power greatly eases acceptance for those who believe in a higher power. Who is going to argue with God?

The difficulty of this step is hard to overstate. Biochemical dependency creates a self-focus. This is often stated in pejorative terms like “selfish.” This may be true. However, anyone facing life-threatening circumstances is likely to take a self-centered posture with regard to the threat. For the alcoholic, an inability to satisfy their craving is the equivalent of a life-threatening situation. This self-focus makes it hard to relinquish control to any other party. God is one of the few parties that can be trusted

The AA uses God as their trustworthy source. The “brain washing” techniques used in the Korean War demonstrate that there are other ways of accomplishing acceptance. Further, there is a lot of variation in human psychology. Anything will probably work some of the time for some of the people. However, whatever is substituted for “God” had better be pretty powerful if it is to work on wide scale in civil society. No substitute comes readily to mind.


Step 4. Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves.
The issue of defining exactly what is to change begins with step 4—the moral inventory. A “moral inventory” defines behavior as “right” or “wrong.” This is not always an easy. For example, a behavior may be judged “right” if it is directed toward someone who as caused harm. Exactly the same behavior directed toward an innocent party might be declared “wrong.” Right and wrong are inherently relative judgments. The concept only exists in a social fabric and that social fabric changes by individual.

Step 4 overcomes the relativity of good and bad by focusing on actual past behavior rather than abstract concepts. The rights and wrongs identified will be relevant to unique circumstances of the particular individual. The result is that the framework arising from this process is “tailored” to the individual’s unique needs and circumstances.


Step 5. Admitted to God, to ourselves, and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.
The moral inventory defined wrong behavior in general terms. This step requires defining the “EXACT” nature of wrongs. Outside of the hard sciences (e.g., physics) there is no such thing as an “exact” conceptual framework. That means that this step can only be satisfied by referencing hard, tangible behaviors. It is not yet time for abstract concepts.

The admission to God and oneself can be seen as taking responsibility. It might be possible to get away with avoiding the God part. However, admitting “to ourselves” is necessary. This admission locates the cause. The cause is the thing that has to be addressed. This step targets the needed changes precisely.

Step 5 is also the beginning of a social control support system. The person being told of the “wrongs” is not likely to be a stranger. This step places them in a position to exert positive pressure (i.e., support). Deviations can be met with sanctions (e.g., expressions of disappointment can be seen as mild sanctions). Both the positive pressure and sanctions are forms of social control. The individual is no longer alone in their quest.


Step 6. Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character.
A willingness to accept change is not the same thing as a willingness to actually engage that change. To this point only things that should NOT be done have been specified. What is to be done is undetermined. It is the beginning of a trip into the unknown.

Taking this step is a statement of faith (i.e., trust) that the outcome will be favorable. It prepares the individual for the suffering to come. This makes them better able to withstand it. Without this step the odds of being overwhelmed by the coming difficulty increase.

God once again acts as AA’s reassuring figure. If God is omitted the step will probably require some substitute. The confidence that trust brings must be gathered from some other source. No general alternative source comes readily to mind.


Step 7. Humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings.
Any “defect” believed to remain could become a refuge—a built in excuse. This step implies that an agency is going to act on behalf of the afflicted person. “Shortcomings” will be removed. What will be left is a blank slate on which a new structure can be build. Confidence is again enhanced.

What is important is that the person believes that they are fully positioned for change. The AA uses God to insure a clean slate. There are probably other ways to create this belief. However, the AA strategy has the merit of quickly reaching the vast majority of people who do not disbelieve. The remaining atheists might be convinced of the “clean slate” using other methods. The important thing is to leave no refuge (i.e. excuse) for avoidance.


Step 8. Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all.
In earlier steps the “wrongness” of behavior was admitted. This step adds to that the consequences of that “wrongness.” This strengthens the will to correct the condition. Agreeing to make amends further steels the individual to actually confront these consequences of their prior actions. Will power (i.e., commitment) is strengthened


Step 9. Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.
This step translates a semi-private endeavor into a public one. Making amends also implies that the transgressions will not be repeated. This diminishes the probability of future retaliation by those who have been damaged. Earlier steps helped the individual clean their personal slate. This step helps clean the social slate.

Another affect of this step is to strengthen social controls. People that were harmed were close enough to actually be harmed. This strongly suggests the presence of social links. Making amends announces the coming of a new behavioral posture. The display of a new posture will likely meet with approval. Reversion to the old posture will likely produce sanctions. A network of social controls that support the recovery effort has been created.


Step 10. Continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong promptly admitted it.
This is a maintenance function. It helps ensure that any slippage will be recognized and corrected. The typical AA response to slippage is to return to the step appropriate to its remedy. Retracing the steps from that point onward reinstalls or reinforces the framework and control system.


WHAT HAS HAPPENED?: Construction of a Positive Framework by Corollary
The focus of the first 10 steps was on things that should not be done. So where is the framework on what should be done? The answer can be found in the corollary (i.e., a natural consequence) of the things to be avoided.

Any “wrong” is produced by a behavior. Correcting that “wrong” requires that the offending behavior be replaced by another behavior (e.g., withdrawal is a form of behavior). For example, a wrong might have involved abusive behavior. Abusive behavior requires a relationship that must have been in place for that behavior to have occurred. If any relationship is to persist, that wrong behavior must be replaced by something.

Whatever replaces the wrong behavior is probably an improvement. Strategies that work are likely to be reused. Situations that repeat are likely to elicit a similar kind of response (e.g., kindness replacing abusive behavior). This generalization of behavioral options happens because it is an efficient approach. A person does not have to continually rethink and re-decide.

Reused behaviors become a pattern. They are logically connected by the fact these behaviors all occur within the same life. The patterns become a behavioral structure. They were built on the carcass of the old structure (i.e., the identified “wrongs.”). Therefore they automatically replace rather than modify or amend that old structure.

This process has not only changed behavior. It has changed a worldview. A worldview is created by the information processing strategy being used. It is determined by what is paid attention to (input), how that input is interpreted (process) and what is done with it (output).

Input>process>output is the general model for information processing. However, the model works equally well in reverse—different output (i.e., behavior) means that interpretation or understanding (process) must change. A change in process (e.g., understanding) can require that a person seek new kinds of input (e.g., attention to the feelings of others).

There is an “I Opt” strategic style (a pattern of behavior) that exactly matches the kind of change produced by the first 10 steps—the "I Opt" Logical Processor strategic style. Its input tends to be tangible facts—a behavior is a fact. It processes these using strong logical structures that provide a precise behavioral guide. Finally, its output is actual behavior—not sentiments, concepts or wishes.

This outcome is exactly what the first 10 steps call for. And this is exactly what the numbers in the evidence base research show actually happens. The “I Opt” Logical Processor (LP) style rockets up 43% in strength as a person matures from short to mid-term sobriety.

But there is a piece still missing. What about circumstances not yet encountered? How can the framework be generalized to equip the person to meet future challenges? This question is answered in Step 11.


Step 11. Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God as we understood Him, praying only for knowledge of His will for us and the power to carry that out.
This step turns the focus from behavior to knowledge. This requires using a new strategy. There are no facts and specifics that were used to feed the LP strategy. What is now needed are conceptual links broad enough to embrace any situation, anywhere and at any time.

Step 11 does not specify how this is to be done. However, the prior steps have laid a groundwork. A framework of “what to do” (the LP strategy) is in place. The mediation, reflection and deliberation called for by this step is likely to center on the principles contained in this behavioral framework.

These “principles” are the general properties that the elements of the structure have in common. For example, a more patient and less forceful attitude may characterize multiple parts of the structure created. A principle naturally flowing from this might be that patience achieves more than force.

The next step is to link the principles together into a system. Values are a logical way of accomplishing this. Values are just the rank order of beliefs. For example, one part of the behavioral structure might require diligence at work. Another part may involve honoring family commitments. In the case of conflict, a particular value system might call for work obligations be sacrificed in favor of family obligations.

The result of this process is a general conceptual map. The first 10 steps focused on the immediate. This step has created a framework for the future. To do this it drew on another tool for navigating life—the “I Opt” Hypothetical Analyzer (HA) strategy. This approach uses the relationships between things as input. Like the LP, it processes this input using well-defined logical structures. But its output is conceptual (e.g., plans, judgments, assessments, etc.) rather than action.

The evidenced-based research is compatible with this view. The analytical HA strategy jumps 36% as people move from mid to long-term sobriety. In this period the behavioral LP strategy does not move at all. This makes some sense. There is no need for additional LP strength. The present level is enough to produce behavior that maintains current sobriety. The HA leap is a response to the need to create a structure capable of handling the long-term future.

The combination of the LP handling the short to mid-term and the HA handling the long-term produce a completely new worldview. Many others have noted that this kind of change often accompanies recovery. “I Opt” technology is able to explain exactly why and how this change occurs as well as measuring its effects.


Step 12. Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to alcoholics, and to practice these principles in all our affairs.

This step is both a refinement and maintenance activity. “Carrying this message” is a communication activity. The thing to be communicated is the desirability of and path towards sobriety. Every exercise of this step will involve confronting someone who has a different worldview (i.e., a different way of accessing and understanding the world). Getting the message across to a particular potential recruit requires talking their language.

The person who has progressed to Step 12 has developed their own worldview. To translate it into the language of the targeted alcoholic requires both clarity and depth of understanding. Every experience will act to further both. Step 12 has created a “built in” continuous improvement function.

Distinct from but closely tied to the refinement function is maintenance. Reaching out to others is a reminder of both the journey that has been traveled and the value of what has been learned. Every encounter offers a vivid picture of what had been the sponsor's pre-recovery circumstance. Offering counsel provides continual reinforcement of the value of the AA process—a maintenance activity.


SUMMARY
The 12-Step system is remarkable. It is a system of self-determination. There is no “preaching.” There is no pre-packaged formula. Following the steps leads a person to construct their own control solution.

In pure information processing terms the AA process functions to adjust all of the components of the “I Opt” model in a staged sequence. The immediate need for sobriety is met by methods that increase the capability in the disciplined, behaviorally oriented LP strategic style.

Then the steps change focus and direct the individual toward the analytical, thought-based HA style to provide for sustained sobriety over the long term. In this process the recovering alcoholic gains a new worldview that is compatible with conducting a sober and productive life. It is a remarkable demonstration of effective organizational design.

While the 12-Step model is the core of AA, taken alone it probably will not work. The process requires a particular environment within which to function. The 12-Traditions and the established processes of the AA provide this environment. These are the subjects of the companion application blog that can be read at http://garysalton2.blogspot.com.


REFERENCES
(1) Alcoholics Anonymous: The Story of How Many Thousand Men and Women Have Recovered from Alcoholism. Alcoholics World Services, Inc. 1939. p. xxvi. ISBN 1-893007-16-2. The “Big Book” is the Alcoholics Anonymous “bible”. It can be referenced free of charge at http://www.aa.org/bbonline/.

(2) Alcoholics Anonymous (June 2001). "Chapter 5: How It Works" (PDF). Alcoholics Anonymous (4th ed.). Alcoholics Anonymous World Services. ISBN 1893007162. OCLC 32014950. http://www.aa.org/bigbookonline/en_bigbook_chapt5.pdf.