Analytical vs Holistic: A Perspective on Two Models of Cognition

In my previous post, I had elaborated on the distinction between analytical and holistic thinking. Analytical thinking involves a philosophical perspective that aspects of the world are strictly independent of each other, and each thing exists in the context of its own nature and existence. It establishes that absolute, abstract rules govern the nature of reality. In contrast, holistic thinking involves an interconnected philosophical modality in which all things exist in relation to one another. In this case, truth is relative to what other factors are present in relation to the person, place or thing.

What intrigues me (among many other things) of these two contrasting cognitive modalities is that they are just that, contrasts. Be that as it may, these contrasts are attempting to establish a mechanism for absorbing and storing information about the external environment. Of course, which strategy is adopted is contingent upon the culture with which the individual belongs to. Because of this, is it imperative to say whether one cognitive model is correct while the other is incorrect? Indeed, both are two sides of the same coin, and attempt to function in a way that is advantageous to the individual. The conclusion I have come to is that neither approach is inherently wrong, but is rather an aspect of cultural evolution that has resulted due to various aspects of the environment. Analytical thinking is advantageous in certain contexts (identifying specificities of individual things and identifying individual characteristics) and disadvantageous in others (determining the collective whole of an environmental situation). Obviously, this is also true for holistic thinking, yet true in opposite circumstances.

Presumably, these two modes of thinking are not purely black-and-white within the individual mind. Rather, I would presume that all individuals have the capacity to use both analytical and holistic thinking. Of course, it seems obvious to conclude that one leans more towards one than the other (this author himself being more holistic), but one need not conform to only one system of thought. Indeed, it appears that one does not if not found in an extreme cultural context. Asian-Americans often use both analytical and holistic thinking when attempting to solve a problem (Heine, 2016). As such, I propose that a middle path between both cognitive capacities is what is most advantageous to the individual. However, this conclusion may wax and wane in regards to the context of the culture one is in.

                                                                              References

Heine, S. J. (2016). Cultural Psychology (3rd ed.). United States: W.W. Norton & Company Inc.