I knew a guy who based all of his decisions on colorful anecdotes he’d amassed over a lifetime of varied experiences. He succeeded at everything he tried. Let me tell you about him.

Let’s pretend I actually did know a person like this, and that I had enough imagination, creativity, and recursion to turn their life into an anecdote about how relying on anecdotes works really, really well. Would you find my conclusion convincing?

Of course not. Turning the famous quote around, the KJR community recognizes that anecdote isn’t the singular of data.

But unconsciously turning a vivid anecdote into a trend or truth is an easy cognitive trap to fall into, even for the wary.

We’re still thinking about thinking – a big subject. Interestingly enough, my haphazard (as opposed to random) research found an order of magnitude more sources listing different forms of fallacious thinking than provided tools for thinking well.

We’ve been exploring some of these over the past few weeks. This week: what I call “anti-anecdotal thinking” but should probably call “anti-anti-anecdotal thinking.”

Start with what anecdotes aren’t: Evidence that some idea or other is valid.

Bigotry relies on anecdotes-as-evidence. The bigot finds something heinous that happened and identifies as perpetrator a member of a group the bigot doesn’t like. The bigot relates the anecdote as proof all members of the group are horrible sub-human beings and we need to do something about them.

Extrapolate from an anecdote and you’re performing statistics on a sample size of one. It’s worthless.

But that doesn’t mean anecdotes are worthless.

Anecdotes are akin to analogies. Using either one to persuade violates the rules of logic. But they’re excellent tools for illustrating and clarifying your meaning.

Anecdotes serve another useful purpose as well: While generalizing from an anecdote is bad statistics, using an anecdote to demonstrate that the seeming impossible is, in fact, achievable can make all kinds of sense, as explained in “Look to the Outliers” (Sujata Gupta, Science News, 2/26/2022):

Northern Somalia’s economy relies heavily on livestock. About 80 percent of the region’s annual exports are meat, milk and wool from sheep and other animals. Yet years of drought have depleted the region’s grazing lands. By zeroing in on a few villages that have defied the odds and maintained healthy rangelands, an international team of researchers is asking if those rare successes might hold the secret to restoring rangelands elsewhere.

The article adds: Statistically speaking, success stories like those Somali villages with sustainable grazing are the outliers, says Basma Albanna, a development researcher at the University of Manchester in England. “The business as usual is that when you have outliers in data, you take them out.

Investigating outliers can offer new and valuable insights.

Anecdotes don’t necessarily describe outliers. But just as “Man bites dog” is news while “Dog bites man” isn’t, there’s rarely much point to relating an anecdote that describes the ordinary.

Combining anti-anecdotal and anti-anti-anecdotal thinking into a single merged thought process is a useful way to explore a subject:

Anecdote: The media would have you believe ransomware is a huge problem. But I talked to a CIO whose company was hit. He told me they just restored everything from backup and were up and running in a day.

Anecdotal thinking: Once again we’re being lied to by the lamestream media! Ransomware is the new Y2K – a bogus non-crisis pushed by IT to inflate its budget.

Anti-anecdote response: Anyone can relate an anecdote. That doesn’t mean it really happened. Even if it did, that doesn’t mean restoring from backups is all any company has to do to avoid being damaged by an attack. We’ll stick with our best-practices program.

Anti-anti-anecdote response: Most likely this is just an anecdote. But it would be worth finding out if an IT shop truly has figured out a simple way to recover from a ransomware attack, and if so, if their situation is typical enough that other companies can benefit from their experience.

Bob’s last word: This week’s punchline is simple. If someone uses an anecdote to try to convince you of something, skepticism should rule the day. But if they use one to try to convince you something is possible, don’t reject it out of hand. It’s as Michael Shermer, publisher of Skeptic magazine advised: “The rub … is finding that balance between being open-minded enough to accept radical new ideas but not so open-minded that your brains fall out.”

Bob’s sales pitch: My formula for deciding what to write about each week includes, seasonally enough, four questions: (1) Do readers care about the subject? (2) Do I know anything about it? (3) Do I have anything original to say about it? And, (4) have I written about it recently?

I have 2, 3, and 4 covered. But it sure would help if you’d write to suggest subjects you’d like me to cover.

When thinking about thinking, as we have been, you’d think mind-mapping would be the best way to go about it based on nothing more than its name alone.

And it can be. But …

Every time I research the topic I’m left with the indelible impression that its proponents don’t understand topology. There is, for example, this prescription, taken from Wrike’s website:

  1. Choose the topic of the mind map and place it in the middle of the drawing
  2. Come up with three to five+ main ideas, then evenly space them in a circular formation around the mind map topic
  3. Draw a line from the mind map topic to each main idea
  4. Brainstorm supporting details such as ideas, tasks, and questions for each main idea
  5. Draw lines connecting each main idea to its supporting details

To which I’ll add a suggestion: Consider using Post-it® notes rather than a marker to add ideas to the map, and use magnets and strings to connect related ideas rather than drawing lines. Post-its® magnets and strings let you rearrange your ideas if you need to.

Topologically speaking, mind maps and outlines are identical, just as donuts and soda straws are identical. The visualizations differ, but not the underlying associations. Both techniques (outlines and mind maps that is, not donuts and soda straws) result in sets defined by one-to-many relationships.

Outlines do differ from mind maps in that they imply a sequence, where mind maps do not. For outlines this is both a weakness and a strength. It’s a weakness because often, an outline’s sub-topics and sub-sub-topics have no logical sequence – they’re parallel to each other. It’s a strength because when the time comes to explain the subject, the presenter will have to sequence them because of the nature of Time as one of the four dimensions of Newtonian physics.

From a process perspective, mind maps differ from outlines in that they’re more useful for a group exploring a subject – in a word, brainstorming. Different participants can attack different subject areas at the same time without interfering with each other.

At least, mind maps were more useful for brainstorming when everyone could gather in the same room. Mind maps depend on having a large space to draw on. Virtual or hybrid meetings can’t provide this – they’re limited to what will fit on a computer screen, reducing mind-mapping’s brainstorming advantages.

Which gets us to a related but less-well-known approach called Concept Mapping, explained quite well here: https://www.xmind.net/blog/en/concept-map-vs-mind-map/. What concept mapping adds to the party is its ability to handle many-to-many relationships. This is useful because with almost no exceptions, the information needed to fully comprehend a subject includes many-to-many relationships. Many many-to-many relationships, in fact.

As a simple and familiar example, take Cooking. Whatever dish you plan to prepare will have ingredients. That’s a one-to-many relationship, with dish being the one and ingredient being the many. But each ingredient can be used for preparing more than one dish, making, ingredient the one and dish the many.

Put them together and the relationship between dish and ingredient is many-to-many, and neither outlining nor mind mapping gives you the tools you need to represent it.

Concept mapping does.

Which led me to this brilliant insight: Concept mapping and the Entity/Relationship Diagrams familiar to professional data designers are one and the same thing.

Sadly, the brilliant insight wasn’t mine: The credit apparently belongs to Ron McFadyen and dates back to at least 2008: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiOvfDK2_D2AhUPXc0KHfncC2IQFnoECAcQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fazslide.com%2Fconcept-maps-for-data-modeling-ron-mcfadyen_5a7963751723dd2cfaa4179e.html&usg=AOvVaw1R_5IAQj5BnXMHa9IVmCZ6

Oh, well.

Which tool should you use to think through whatever it is you’re thinking through? I figure it this way:

  • Use mind maps when it isn’t just you thinking things through. They’re visually more interesting than outlines, and while they’re limited in depth, they’re the easiest of the three to grasp at a glance.
  • Use outlines when it’s just you and you need to explore a subject in depth.
  • Use concept maps when technically accurate and complete, in-depth representation matters more than at-a-glance interpretation.

Bob’s last word: Don’t limit yourself to just one of these techniques. As a general rule, start out with either an outline or a mind map. Use that as a starting point to create a concept map.

How to explain your thinking to someone else? That’s an entirely different rabbit hole – one that depends on who you’re going to explain it to, why, and in what circumstances.

Bob’s sales pitch: Ever need a sympathetic ear (just one) and an independent pair of eyes (two) to look at your situation? Not every consultation has to be a team working for weeks. If a one-hour Zoom conversation is all you need, I’ll be happy to help, too. Get in touch (Contact – IS Survivor Publishing ) and we’ll figure out what makes sense.