Reflexology Schools

Abandoned Academic Research Often Lost

Space Probes Speed Up

Now You Can be on Your Way to a Top Ranked College

Are You Prepared to be an Author?

This article discusses the different strengths and weaknesses of analytical and intuitive thinking, which combined may be called holistic thinking. Because thinking is in its nature invisible and abstract, the article uses an analogy by way of representation: the anatomy of the cornea.

At the very center of the cornea are clustered cone cells, which have the function of focusing on objects far or near. Surrounding the cone cells are the more numerous rod cells, which provide peripheral vision. If the cone cells deteriorate, when one attempts to focus upon an object, it disappears; a black spot in the center. But if you lose peripheral vision, even if you retain the ability to focus, it is like observing the world one speck at a time through the means of the focused beam of a flashlight. It is much easier to get around with only peripheral vision than with only focused vision.

This analogy can be convincing when seeking to persuade lawyers that analysis is not the whole universe of thinking. Lawyers are taught to specialize in analytical thinking. They may do this to such an extent that they dismiss intuition as "touchy-feely." That term betrays unawareness of the fact that just as the cone cells are surrounded by more numerous rod cells, so the penetrative power of analytical thinking is only made possible by the provision of context afforded by the intuitive. If you have no intuition of where to look, you cannot focus the concentrated beam of analysis at the right target.

Analytical thinking is historically quite recent, whereas intuitive thinking has been mankinds chief possession since the dawn of time. As far as Western civilization is concerned, the classical Greeks invented analytical thinking; the Romans built really straight roads with it, the Dark Ages lost it, and the Enlightenment rediscovered it. We can partly attribute the triumphs and perils of our modern civilization to the relative imbalance in the importance afforded to analytical versus intuitive skills over the last four hundred years. The current dysfunction of the legal system is also in part a consequence of this imbalance. The broad mission of mediation may be to restore the balance, because we are now in a time when the perils threaten to outweigh the triumphs. Overly analytical people are to a large extent blind; what our society needs is people who can think with a whole eye, which is called holistic thinking only those who are out of touch with feeling call this touchy-feely.

Analytical thinking is powerful. It is focused, sharp, linear, deals with one thing at a time, contains time, is deconstructive, contains no perspective, is subject to disorientation, is brain centered, and tends to the abstract. Analytical thinking is efficient in the following conditions sufficient time, relatively static conditions, a clear differentiation between the observer and the observed. It is best suited for dealing with complexities, and works best where there are established criteria for the analysis (for example, rules of law). It is necessary when an explanation is required, seeks the best option, and can be taught in the classroom to beginners.

Intuitive thinking has contrasting qualities: it is unfocused, nonlinear, contains "no time," sees many things at once, views the big picture, contains perspective, is heart centered, oriented in space and time, and tends to the real or concrete. Intuition comes into its own where analytical thinking is inadequate: under time pressure, where conditions are dynamic, where the differentiation between observer and observed is unclear. It works best where the observer has experience in the particular situation, is difficult to teach in the classroom, eschews seeking the best option in favor of the workable, and is prepared to act on feelings or hunches where explanations are either not required or there is no time for them. Intuition is experience translated by expertise to produce rapid action.

Intuition is limited where the task is complex and uncertain, where the observer lacks experience, or the observation is distorted by biases or fixed ideas. Its weakness is a tendency to produce a fixed attitude or mindset that ignores new data; that is why the analytical thinking of the Enlightenment was so revolutionary. Intuition is ineffective for predicting the stock market, or for discovering that the heart is a pump, or for dissecting a legal problem.

When analytical and intuitive abilities are combined, the result is holistic. In order to effect settlements and resolutions, it is necessary to move people out of a rights/obligations/win-lose mindset into a needs/interests/mutual gain mindset, which is what mediation is all about this requires holistic thinking abilities.

ANALYTICAL
Time
Static
Linear
One thing
Small picture
Focused
Deliberative
No perspective
Classroom taught
Objective
Best option
Needed when explanation required
Deconstructive
Object differentiation
Objective/subjective differentiation
Brain centered
Disoriented
Abstract
Historically new
Lawyers

INTUITIVE
No time
Dynamic
Non-linear
Many things
Big picture
Non-focused
Instantaneous
Perspective
Experience taught
Subjective
Workable option
Needed when action required
Constructive
Pattern matching
No clear objective/subjective
Heart centered
Oriented
Concrete
Historically old
Firefighters

Charles Parselle

Charles Parselle co-founded Centres for Excellence in Dispute Resolution - CEDRS - with Robert Tessier. Mr. Parselle is a widely experienced lawyer with international experience. He was called to the English bar in 1966 and admitted to the California bar in 1983, maintaining a varied litigation practice emphasizing personal injury, real estate, probate, business and employment matters. He tries many cases to verdict, and is able to bring a close understanding of the legal process to bear on the problems of pre-trial dispute resolution. As a consequence, he enjoys the confidence of both plaintiff and defense bars as a gifted facilitator of dispute resolution.

A graduate of Oxford University's Honor School of Jurisprudence, Mr. Parselle is a sought-after mediation specialist with offices in Sherman Oaks, California, who has successfully mediated many hundreds of cases. Frequently published in the Daily Journal, California's leading legal newspaper, he writes and teaches extensively on dispute resolution. A practicing attorney for over thirty years, he combines legal knowledge, practical experience, and understanding of the human condition to serve the needs of parties involved in dispute.

For many years, Mr. Parselle served as general counsel to a multi-national organization with responsibilities including constitutional issues, contracts, intellectual property, taxation, tort and employment claims, and as general counsel to an Australian company specializing in the sale of high-tech security equipment, and as general counsel to an entertainment company in Los Angeles, California, concentrating on intellectual property and employment issues .

His travels have taken him to most of the countries of Europe and Africa, as well as living for two years in Australia, and journeying to China, Hong-Kong, Thailand, Malaysia, Taiwan and India. He was born in Rhodesia now Zimbabwe, in southern Africa. He teaches mediation for the renowned Institute of Conflict Management based in Los Angeles. He brings to the dispute resolution process impeccable academic as well as practical experience, and close knowledge of applicable law and a wide knowledge of different people, cultures and processes.