Is the mindset construct and/or its definition defunct?

Questioning the construct of mindset

Educational protagonists of the mindsets elevate this construct as a useful heuristic. The popular construct of "growth and fixed mindsets" is such an example, but its antagonists de-construct this heuristic as lacking in academic rigor and validity.

• Is this a case of throwing out the baby with the bathwater?

Stop with the mindset focus

One critique by Iain Keer

The importance of having a certain mindset to Systems Thinkers (such as Donella Meadows) who says “Paradigms — the mind-set out of which the system arises” — the claim is the same: the mind and our internal beliefs are the source from which things arise. The assumption that follows is always: change the mind/internal patterns and everything will follow. (click on link above to learn more)

• Are these objections to mindset defined in reductionist and linear ways a straw man argument against this concept?

Further critique by Dave Snowden

His article "Melange of potential, not mindset" added further objections about the mindset concept, using the Oxford English dictionary of mindset.?

An established set of attitudes, esp. regarded as typical of a particular group’s social or cultural values; the outlook, philosophy, or values of a person; (now also more generally) frame of mind, attitude, disposition.?

One could debate whether this is a complicated and reductionistic definition, or not. But it certainly lacks features to be considered complex.

Here are the essence of his mindset objections.

• Emergent properties of multiple interactions over time are not causal links
• Cartesian and computation models are something natural science has or is in the process of moving away from and that will mean all of the mindset and mental model stuff will need radical reexamination.
• We need a more radical understanding of people and people in society and the nature of the way they operate and the constraints that apply to their various and many actions.

He proposes attitudinal management of 3As: agency, affordance and assemblement. Read link above to learn more.

What approaches are used to critique paradigms, models and concepts?

Approaches to repudiating, objecting to, and refining old paradigms, models and concepts can take on different forms.

"But ... no "

• This approach is a non-civil non-debate style of invalidating or negating a paradigm or concept. These responses can range from dispassionate deconstruction of defunct paradigms, models or concepts to discrediting to their proponent, like witch hunts.

"Yes ... but"

• This approach evokes a dichotomous, competitive, win/lose style of setting up divisive debates: the oneupmanship of "this and not that." These debates range range from civil discourses addressing healthy disagreements to uncivil combative exchanges creating toxic conflicts.

"Yes ... and"

• This approach promotes an inclusive, cooperative style of co-creating generative dialogues about refining paradigms and concepts: "much more of this and much less of that." This improvement process involves deconstructing and reconstructing a paradigm or concept.

How might thought leaders define mindsets with a complexity lens?

This question beckons the sense-making challenge about how to advance the meaning of mindsets.

• What are the melange of virtues, value structures, dimensions and dynamic depositions (mindsets) that enhance and diminish the melange of potentials?
• How might one define dynamics and state and trait dimensions of mindsets based on an understanding of philosophy, ethics, complexity science, psychology and social sciences?
• What are the characteristic of different kinds of mindsets (ethical, virtuous, open innovation, entrepreneurial, global, sustainability, regeneration, corporate, business, conservative, liberal, libertarian, reductionistic, complexity, agile, systemic, design, etc.,)?

This calls for using complexity, design and holistic thinking along with emotional sense-making to ethically guide the synergistic, second-order transformations in our mindsets and our systems needed to launch #EquityMoonshot.?

What are the limitations of technocratic utopian mindsets?

Technocratic utopian protagonists elevate this mindset construct as a useful heuristic in terms of an unidimensional polarity between linear and exponential thinking. Paradoxically, this framing is reductionistic, because mindset is a dynamic multi-dimensional construct.

Undoubtedly, an understanding of this polarity is vitally important to advance the positive impacts of technology, but it is also naive about the infinite capacities of humans to subvert and destroy the advances of exponential technologies. Furthermore, humans can exploit exponential technologies in immoral and amoral ways that destroy and impede the cultivation of human consciousness, civil societies and civilizations. Technology is not our savior.

Technology is not our savior, but we can save ourselves by the virtuous use of technology to scale up #EquityMoonshot exponential collaboration and learning.