5 Levels of Thinking

This week I was having a conversation with my boss, our elected Commonwealth’s Attorney, about the concept of Five Levels of Thinking.?This is an idea that has taken different forms over time.?For example, one variation was developed in the 1950s and was called the van Hiele Model of Geometric Thinking and was intended to describe different stages of how young people understand geometry.?It starts with visualization and, at this stage, a child is looking at the shape of a geometric figure as a whole and either comparing it to another item in life or categorizing it in broad terms.?At the next stage (called analysis), the student begins to start analyzing and naming the properties of geometric figures, even though they don’t know the relationship between the properties or see a need for proof of the facts discovered empirically.?As the child advances to the next level of thinking (abstraction), they develop the ability to create meaningful geometric definitions and create simple arguments to justify their reasoning.?The next level is formal deduction and the student can provide deductive geometric proofs.?The highest level of thinking, rigor, involves students who understand the way mathematical systems are established, they use all types of proof and can describe the effect of adding or removing an axiom on a given geometric system.

This type of model is based on the overall premise that when two people with differing levels of experience in a field look at the same image or concept, they are, at some level, seeing two different things.?The novice may see what is just at the surface, while the expert starts to see a complex intricacy that rests beneath and the connection between what they are looking at and a broader system.?The general idea is that at a at higher level the student grows into showing strategic thinking such as indictive reasoning.?Similarly, Bloom’s Taxonomy on higher order thinking (which has more levels than the van Hiele Model,) talks about moving from remembering, to understanding, to applying, to synthesizing, to evaluating, to creating.

This begs the question of whether our thinking as prosecutors develops in a similar way over the arc of our career and, if so, what we can take away from that??For example, consider when you first became a prosecutor and how you looked at cases that were given.?If you were like most new prosecutors, you wanted a firm set of rules to guide the decisions you made.?To some extent standard dispositions and formulas for what you should do with a case were a godsend.?If you had a trial, you may have exclusively relied on templates for your direct examinations in an effort to make sure you didn’t exclude an element.?Not only is there nothing bad about that experience, but it is a necessary predicate to our growth as a prosecutor.?

As you gained a little more experience though you probably started to look at your cases differently.??Maybe you started relishing some of the game theory in litigation.?Instead of objecting just because the opposing side’s question violated a rule of evidence, perhaps you started thinking about whether your objection actually gained you any ground in litigating your case.?As time goes on this type of strategy starts to gain a different breadth and you start thinking about how the other side will react to what you do.?You start to view yourself in the position of the defense attorney asking how you would attack your own case if you were them and then considering how you could prevent such a pitfall in the first place.

Then at some point you start making choices about a case outside of its particular set of facts.?You start asking yourself bigger picture questions such as what are we trying to accomplish more broadly as a criminal justice system and how does the handling of this case fit into that??Or perhaps you start to look at challenging cases that once intimidated or didn’t interest you and you start to ask how that case could develop you into a better litigator.?We become less myopic in how we view outcomes, from what we think is a “win” to seeing more complexity in what we are doing.?The case moves far beyond bad guy breaks law and gets punished into something more complex.?But here is the thing about learning – as much as we want to, we can’t skip ahead in life and get the more advanced lessons before we master the basics.?I’ve written a couple times about how I wish that earlier in my career when undergoing a frustrating case, that I had understood how those moments were contributing to who I would become as?a litigator a decade later.?By the same token, often times life has a way of giving us opportunities when it is right for us, not when we think we want it.?As much as we all want to try the “big cases,” nothing can be more damaging to a prosecutor or the community than giving a trial attorney something they aren’t ready for.

I think there are two big lessons that we can take away from a concept like the five levels of thinking.?The first is one of epistemological humility – knowing that we don’t know everything yet – no matter whether we are a brand new prosecutor or a 20-year veteran of our profession.?I think this is difficult for prosecutors.?We are by nature exceedingly confident people.?But if I look back at the breadth of my career and would wish for one change, it would have been to be a little more humble about my sense of rightness.?From how cases are handled to disagreements with coworkers, I’ve found that over and over again I’ve been absolutely certain about how I think something should be done and time has proven me either incorrect or shown that life (and the decision) was a lot more complex than I made it out to be.?The second big lesson is about the importance of patience and the rewards that it can pay.?Early in my career I wanted to advance as a litigator a lot faster and so I would become impatient with my assignment and always looking for the next opportunity, rather than enjoying where I was and understanding the role it would play in who I would become.?As goal-focused as I am, there is value in relishing what the present has to offer rather than always being focused on the future.

This week may we embrace both humility and patience and the role they can play in helping us fulfill our potential as prosecutors.?Have a great week my friends.