certainty vs certitude

the necessity of well-formed questions

“certitude leads to violence”

Oliver Wendel Holmes

The violent clashes, framed as justifiable because of freedom of speech and expression, have grown more intense in government and the public in recent times. ‘Certitudes’ driving confrontation between polarized populations of people are no longer separated by degrees of difference but more often than not, by irreconcilable chasms.

It isn't easy to see anything coming out of this dynamic that is beneficial to the public good or public safety. Commonly, public reactions begin with strongly held beliefs that have not been vetted through self-reflection or fresh, open inquiry. Certitudes are based on inquiries that took place prior to and in contexts different from immediate situations.

The basis for these preestablished certitudes comes from a variety of authorities and origins. Mostly they come from sources that define ‘what’ to think — not ‘how’ to think. For example, formal education, societal norms, spiritual beliefs, political parties, or identity groups all provide certitudes. Consultants are paid to provide certitudes in contrast to advisors or professionals who are paid to help gain ‘certainty’, which is substantially different from certitude.

What to think is instilled in us through ‘training’ not ‘learning’. Businesses, governmental organizations, military agencies, and others primarily focus their time and resources on training. Training in what to think is good of course, in many areas of human endeavor where reflex is essential, but only when constantly scrutinized and upgraded.

Having absolute confidence in what one knows is positive when not framed as mere opposition to other belief systems. Training within domains of human activity is essential when augmenting human capacity but not acceptable when used to replace or annihilate the outcomes of other’s training. The point is to find ‘common ground’ and to reach ‘high ground’ rather than push one another from their ‘home ground’.

Scientific certitude — that which is ‘true’ — is fundamental to technological advancement. Socially agreed upon certitude – that which is ‘real’ — is fundamental to social progress or conflict. Ideal certitude — that which is desirable — when treated as indeterminate leads to common action, while when treated as deterministic leads to imposed acceptance.

The kind of violence associated with the clash of certitudes may not have increased over time as is often perceived, but the constant eruption of violence or the threat of violence is disturbing, to say the least. Better strategies are needed for progress to take place — a more systemic strategy.

Reactive behavior induced by ‘certitude’ is not the same as ‘certainty’, which comes through pro-action. Certainty emerges through a process of answering ‘well-formed’ questions competently. Constructive certainty comes from having asked questions that bring clarity and transparency to action-based inquiry.

Action-based inquiry, integrating both training and learning, provides the best chance for desired change. Rather than suffering imposed change through coercion or force, change is welcomed as desirable in the certainty of a proposed formulation. Competency for ‘inquiry for action’ and ‘taking action’ depends on integrating both how to think and what to think — systemic thinking. Training and learning from a systemic perspective form two paths to certainty as shown below.

training + learning

Foundations of certainty — your stance or “bottom turtle’ — determine the solid ground upon which you stand. Certainty emerges from your clarity of stance and clarity of your approach. Both become apparent when you begin your assessment by engaging with well-formed questions based on your fundamental stance as shown below.