Back in the early 1980’s, a Bible study group I was in came across 1 John 2:19:
They went out from us, but they were not really of us, for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out in order that it might be shown that they all are not of us.
A woman, let’s call her Mary, spoke up and said she had been thinking about this verse for a while and was wondering if it meant we could lose our salvation. “Mark,” our group’s resident Navigator and expert at all things scripture, asserted that this was impossible because Philippians 1:6 states:
For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus.
Inability to Accept Any Point of View Other Than Mine:
A heated discussion ensued, with Mark citing more scripture and getting angrier and angrier. Mary held her ground and wouldn’t bow down to Mark’s great expertise. Mark ended up storming out of the house, slamming the front door as he left. Mark’s wife just sat there. The look on her face said it all – she just wanted to disappear.
Why was Mary comfortable in raising a point that might question her very salvation, while Mark was such an authoritarian? It turns out that some people really don’t like complexity and uncertainty. They’re so sure they’re right, they just don’t see the need to consider other possibilities. Others have the sometimes-annoying ability to see multiple points of view. How can this be?
“Integrative Complexity (IC)”:
One possibility is that we’re internally rigged to think the way we do. Social psychologists have coined the term “integrative complexity” (IC) to describe the structure of how we process complex sets of information. High IC people have flexible, broad thinking that recognizes multiple interpretations of issues. They see connections and dynamic tensions between perspectives and perceive how divergent dimensions are connected. Low IC is characterized by rigid, black-and-white thinking, intolerance for ambiguity and uncertainty, a desire for rapid closure, and failure to recognize the validity of other viewpoints.1
A person’s IC could be seen in how they address the question, “Is it o.k. for Christians to gamble?” A low IC response might be: “No, because God’s word says gambling is wrong.” A higher IC response would be something like:
It depends on the circumstances. A friendly wager on a football game, where the loser has to take the winner out for dinner, is probably harmless. Meeting with the guys for poker night, where everyone has to kick in $5 to play, is probably equally harmless. However, if gambling is taking food out of the mouths of one’s family, a major problem is indicated. If someone has an all-consuming desire to get something for nothing, it is wrong. The addictive nature of gambling necessitates that it be treated with sensitivity.
A scoring manual has been developed to evaluate IC reflected in statements like these using a scale from 1 to 7.2
The Effects of Stress and Depression on How We React to Other Points of View:
Some research suggests that IC is a manifestation of our personality. High IC people are generally moderate, independent, flexible, and high in initiative and self-objectivity and possess good social, decision-making, and information processing skills. They tend to be more extraverted, gregarious, socially adept, and motivated to lead. People who are low in IC tend to be more authoritarian and dogmatic. IC can be decreased by uncontrollable events. For example, one’s IC lowers when experiencing life stressors and during the last few years of life. A person’s IC also drops significantly during periods of depression.3
You may be realizing that IC could have lots of implications in our country today. We will look into some possibilities in my next post.
1 A good introduction to integrative complexity can be found in: Békés, V. and Suedfeld, P., 2019, Integrative Complexity, in Zeigler-Hill, T. K. Shackelford (eds.), “Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences,” Springer International Publishing. [link]
2 See Baker-Brown, G.; Ballard, E.J.; Bluck, S.; DeVries, B.; Suedfeld, P.; and Tetlock, P.; 1992, The Conceptual/Integrative Complexity Scoring Manual, in: Motivation and Personality: Handbook of Thematic Content Analysis, edited by C.P. Smith, p 400-418, Cambridge University Press.
3 Points in this paragraph was derived from the following: Tetlock, P. E.; Peterson, R.S. and Berry, J.M.; 1993, Flattering and unflattering personality portraits of integratively simple and complex managers, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 64, p. 500–511; Coren, S. and Suedfeld, P.; 1995, Personality correlates of conceptual complexity, Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, Vol. 10, p. 229–242; Schroder, H.M.; Driver, M.J.; and Streufert, S.; 1967, Human information processing: Individuals and groups functioning in complex social situations, Holt, Rinehart and Winston; Mian, Z.K; Khan, R.R.; Zahra, A. and Perach, F, 2022, Impact of depression on the integrative complexity of teenagers in Pakistan, International Journal of Social Sciences and Management Review, Vol. 5, No. 1, p. 75-87, https://doi.org/10.37602/IJSSMR.2022.5106.
Commentaires