On Ambiguity Tolerance
by BradfordThe 10 Signs of Ambiguity Tolerance is a blog entry at The Design Matrix. Mike Gene begins by reminding us that we do not all think alike and that this can manifest itself when ambiguity is evident. In support of his ideas Mike provides a list inspired by Kirton's Behaviour descriptions of adaptors and innovators. Quoting:
Let me draw from Adaptors & Innovators – Why New Initiatives Get Blocked by Dr M J Kirton and outline 10 signs of ambiguity tolerance.
1. Seen as thinking tangentially, approaching tasks from unsuspected angles; undisciplined, unpredictable.
2. Could be said to discover problems and discover less consensually expected avenues of solution.
3. Tends to query a problem’s concomitant assumptions; manipulates problems.
4. Does things differently.
5. In pursuit of goals liable to challenge accepted means.
6. Capable of detailed routine (system maintenance) work for usually only short bursts. Quick to delegate routine tasks.
7. Often challenges rules. May have little respect for past custom.
8. Appears to have low self-doubt when generating ideas, not needing consensus to maintain certitude in face of opposition; less certain when placed in core of system.
9. Appears insensitive to people when in pursuit of solutions, so often threatens group cohesion and cooperation.
10. Provides the dynamics to bring about periodic radical change, without which institutions tend to ossify.
December 23rd, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Umm, Bradford, that's not "a list of ambiguity tolerance indicators." These are descriptors of an innovator. I understand that MikeGene wants to equate ambiguity tolerance (his main shtick) with innovation, but these are two different things. Innovators can be intolerant of ambiguity.
Comment by olegt — December 23, 2008 @ 2:48 pm
December 23rd, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Olegt, I changed the sentence.
Comment by Bradford — December 23, 2008 @ 2:58 pm
December 23rd, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Bradford,
Could you explain how, say, #6 relates to tolerance of ambiguity?
Comment by olegt — December 23, 2008 @ 3:44 pm
December 23rd, 2008 at 4:54 pm
olegt:
From olegt's link:
Of the two contrasting personality types those characterized by tolerance of ambiguity would be the more creative group less inclined to be comfortable with routine. Hence they would have a greater tendency to delegate routine tasks and when having to devote their own time to detailed routine work would prefer to do it in short bursts; something typical of those doing a task that is somewhat distasteful or not up their alley.
Comment by Bradford — December 23, 2008 @ 4:54 pm
December 23rd, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Mike indicates he's talking about "an ambiguous situation or ambiguous set of facts". Allow me to eliminate ambiguity by confirming that we all agree that that's what we are talking about, and not ambiguity in the sense Wikipedia defines it, which specifically refers to "a word, term, notation, sign, symbol, phrase, sentence, or any other form used for communication". Obviously situations and sets of facts are not forms of communication. (I don't know anything about "ambiguity tolerance", so I can't tell whether this confusing ambiguity is fundamental to that term or something Mike snuck in.)
Personally, I think "uncertainty" is what Mike's really talking about: situations or sets of facts that leave us with no clear answer. Is that what "ambiguity" means in this context, or does it imply something more?
I apologize for asking, but I hate ambiguity in my communications because it causes misunderstandings. On the other hand, uncertainties are what science is all about, eliminating those that can be eliminated and characterizing those that cannot.
Comment by don provan — December 23, 2008 @ 5:03 pm
December 23rd, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Bradford wrote:
You are making the same leap of logic as MikeGene: you equate tolerance of ambiguity with creativity. These are different things.
Comment by olegt — December 23, 2008 @ 5:17 pm
December 23rd, 2008 at 5:40 pm
Olegt, note that the link you provided mentioned that "levels of tolerance of ambiguity are correlated with creativity… It did not detail the correlation but I find this part revealing:
Creativity thrives in conditions allowing for unstructured and uncertain information. Creativity makes new structures and certain innovations out of these conditions. Creative people use fragmented and incomplete information to insert their own complete, unfragmented innovations. Ambiguity is fertile ground for creativity.
Comment by Bradford — December 23, 2008 @ 5:40 pm
December 23rd, 2008 at 5:59 pm
That's fine, and I think scientists are an excellent example of people that thrive on fragmented and incomplete information. I'm just worried that you or Mike are confusing ambiguity in the sense of uncertainty with ambiguity in the sense of poorly defined. I bring this up because I've found that many ID proponents do, in fact, seem to thrive on the poorly defined, and it wouldn't surprise me at all to discover that it was because they confused unclear concepts with unclear situations.
Comment by don provan — December 23, 2008 @ 5:59 pm
December 23rd, 2008 at 6:24 pm
Bradford wrote:
Correlation between two things does not mean that they are identical. For instance, physicists (theorists in particular) tend to dress poorly, as anyone who has been to a physics conference can attest. But not everyone wearing jeans and a sweater is a physicist. Likewise, tolerance to ambiguity does not make one an innovator.
Comment by olegt — December 23, 2008 @ 6:24 pm
December 23rd, 2008 at 7:11 pm
olegt:
I agree that tolerance to ambiguity does not make one an innovator. To be an effective innovator one needs another quality- an aptitude for imagination. You're born with this although it can be either developed or stifled. I've noted as I get older that some cultures produce greater innovations than others. Some cultures produce artists but few outstanding theoretical physicsts. In reading about Helmholtz, the German physicist of the latter 19th century, the author of a book stated that physicists of that era in Gemany were akin to rock stars. I suspect this was an exageration but do note that many outstanding physicists of that time and the early part of the 20th century (Planck, Einstein, Heisenberg, Pauli, Schroedinger…) came from those cultural values. Surely they had great ability but I suspect it was combined with some unique personality types. Anyway, I profess no expertise about ambiguity tolerance but find it interesting nonetheless to muse about such things.
Comment by Bradford — December 23, 2008 @ 7:11 pm
December 23rd, 2008 at 10:53 pm
Aw heck, I have to give myself an early Christmas present – the fun of replying to some of my critics.
Olegt:
First of all, drawing attention to ambiguity tolerance is neither a shtick nor my “main shtick.” In reality, ambiguity tolerance and intolerance exist (it is something psychologists have studied since the 1950s) and it would do us well to acknowledge them and determine their role in these debates. But my objective was far more modest, as I explained in the blog entry:
Second, you assert that ambiguity tolerance and innovation are different. Sure, ambiguity tolerance is a personality trait and innovation is a thing or act. But while the two are different, they are closely related. Ambiguity tolerance is associated with creativity, and innovation is an expression of creativity. For examples, here is a study that showed this relationship:
I simply took Kirtin’s list of personality traits (actually 10 of the 15) and labeled them as signs of ambiguity tolerance because I think they do indeed reflect ambiguity tolerance. If you think this is an erroneous leap, you would have to show that the ten personality traits listed by Kirtin are NOT likely to exist in people who have high levels of ambiguity tolerance. In other words, you need to show the list is fundamentally flawed. That, and that alone, would provide a substantive critique of my post. In the future, I may come up with my own list, so if you can displace any of these personality traits, I would be interested. But I think most will stick.
Don:
You are right in that I was not talking about "a word, term, notation, sign, symbol, phrase, sentence, or any other form used for communication." I was referring to ambiguity tolerance as social scientists understand it:
(From the same link as above)
“Situations or stimuli” is essentially the same is my “situation or set of facts.”
Comment by MikeGene — December 23, 2008 @ 10:53 pm
December 23rd, 2008 at 11:24 pm
Let's look a little closer at the study you cite, MikeGene.
The researchers measured the correlation between ambiguity tolerance and several traits:
The authors conclusion?
Is there a correlation between ambiguity tolerance and innovation? Yes, and I already said so. Is it significant? Not unless you equate fluency with innovation.
At any rate, your rabbit/duck tales are a sign of great ambiguity tolerance. Passing them for ability for innovation is, well, innovative.
Comment by olegt — December 23, 2008 @ 11:24 pm
December 23rd, 2008 at 11:43 pm
Hi Olegt,
Actually, it's not "tales" – it's an apt metaphor. You can only see the Duck. I see your Duck too. But I also see that the same Duck looks like a Rabbit. More and more so as new data come in.
Indeed. The dictionary define innovation as follows:
1. something new or different introduced
2. the act of innovating; introduction of new things or methods.
That is a good description of my approach and arguments.
But let’s get back to the topic.
I noted that “I simply took Kirtin’s list of personality traits (actually 10 of the 15) and labeled them as signs of ambiguity tolerance because I think they do indeed reflect ambiguity tolerance. If you think this is an erroneous leap, you would have to show that the ten personality traits listed by Kirtin are NOT likely to exist in people who have high levels of ambiguity tolerance. In other words, you need to show the list is fundamentally flawed.”
Can you show the list is fundamentally flawed? Are you saying the ten personality traits listed by Kirtin are NOT likely to exist in people who have high levels of ambiguity tolerance?
Comment by MikeGene — December 23, 2008 @ 11:43 pm
December 23rd, 2008 at 11:51 pm
MikeGene wrote:
You're mixing a lack of correlation with a negative correlation. All I need to do is to show that the ten personality traits listed by Kirtin are not necessarily likely to exist in people with high level of ambiguity tolerance.
I have already asked Bradford about trait 6. It seems completely orthogonal to ambiguity tolerance. Your thoughts?
Comment by olegt — December 23, 2008 @ 11:51 pm
December 24th, 2008 at 12:26 am
Hi Olegt,
That’s all you would need to do if I had maintained that the ten personality traits listed by Kirtin are necessarily likely to exist in people with high level of ambiguity tolerance. I never made such a strong claim. I simply co-opted the traits listed by Kirtin and listed them as signs of ambiguity tolerance. It’s a starting place and an approximation. If you have a problem with that, you’ll need to do more work than argue against a straw man. You’ll need to show that ambiguity tolerance is associated with a completely different set of traits, thus demonstrating that my list is wrong.
Trait 6 is not the best sign, as it does seem orthogonal (remember, I did not write these and picked 10 of his 15 to make a list). Like I said, someday I will probably come up with my own list.
That being said, Bradford’s reply to you seems more than reasonable to me – “Of the two contrasting personality types those characterized by tolerance of ambiguity would be the more creative group less inclined to be comfortable with routine. Hence they would have a greater tendency to delegate routine tasks and when having to devote their own time to detailed routine work would prefer to do it in short bursts; something typical of those doing a task that is somewhat distasteful or not up their alley.”
There’s a lot of stuff out there about the relationship between ambiguity tolerance and creativity. And of course, both creativity and ambiguity tolerance exist on a sliding scale.
Anyway, it’s late and I have to go off and wrap presents and tomorrow is Christmas Eve. I just joined in briefly to point out that the only valid criticism of my blog entry would be one that disputes these are characteristics of ambiguity tolerance and provides a more accurate list.
Merry Christmas to all!
Comment by MikeGene — December 24, 2008 @ 12:26 am
December 24th, 2008 at 1:00 am
Good, we agree that 6 is orthogonal to ambiguity tolerance. Here is my full take on the 10 traits:
1. Correlated.
2. ?
3. Orthogonal, if not anticorrelated: a skeptic is often hostile to the orthodox position.
4. Orthogonal: a maverick may have strong opinions.
5. Anticorrelated: challenging accepted means is opposite to tolerating them.
6. Orthogonal, as already discussed.
7. Anticorrelated, same as 5.
8. Strongly anticorrelated: we're talking certitude!
9. Orthogonal? Weakly correlated?
10. Orthogonal. This is innovation.
P.S. Merry Xmas to all!
Comment by olegt — December 24, 2008 @ 1:00 am
December 24th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
It occurs to me that ambiguity intolerance might explain a wide range of reactions I see in ID supporters. For example, some supporters seem petrified by the very idea that morals or free will don't have a defined source. We see this in regularly recurring claims that morals and free will can only exist if they come from a known source.
On the other side of the coin, ID supporters often object to scientific theorists, exactly those scientists working in areas involving almost nothing but ambiguity. While I'm sure you are impressed by the ambiguity tolerance of string theorists, other ID supporters seem ready to disregard people working with so much ambiguity that it puts them far outside the limits of conventional thinking.
ID theory itself is a different matter, of course. Here we find that the ambiguity stems largely from the theory itself rather than what the theory deals with. Indeed, most of the arguments here at Telic Thoughts revolve around the fixation on the single possibility of an unknown intelligent origin and a denial of the ambiguity that shows us that unknown unintelligent origins are equally good explanations.
And all this is while trying to convince us that there's far more ambiguity in the biological evidence than there actually is. Which brings me to my last question: When studying tolerance of ambiguity, have any researchers explored people that see ambiguity where there is none or create unnecessary ambiguity where it's not useful? The Wikipedia entry is short, so I can't judge how perception of ambiguity and creating or eliminating ambiguity is addressed by prevailing theories. One might guess that the theories assume that ambiguity is constant and that the subject's perception of ambiguity is always reliable.
Comment by don provan — December 24, 2008 @ 4:26 pm