Convergence and Divergence

Convergence and Divergence

The second insight relates to the two fundamental modes of analysis. At any point in the analytic process, from the very beginning to the very end, we are in one of two modes: convergent or divergent.

Convergence means bringing together and moving toward one point. Whenever we take a narrower view of a problem, focusing our mind on a single aspect of the puzzle or eliminating alternative solutions, we are in a convergent mode. Convergence is the opposite of divergence, which means to branch out, to go in different directions, from a single point. Whenever we take a broader view of a problem, whether by examining evidence more thoroughly, gathering new evidence, or entertaining alternative solutions, we are in a divergent mode.

While divergent thinking opens the mind to new ideas and thoughts, convergent thinking closes the mind by viewing a problem ever more narrowly until it focuses on—and produces—a single solution. An apt simile is a camera lens that can be adjusted to broaden the field of view around a subject (divergence) or to zoom in till the subject fills the aperture (convergence).

Both divergence and convergence are necessary for effective problem solving. Divergence opens the mind to creative alternatives; convergence winnows out the weak alternatives and focuses on, and chooses among, the strong. Without divergence, we could not analyze a problem creatively or objectively; without convergence, we would just keep on analyzing, never coming to closure. It is therefore vital to effective problem solving that the analyst be prepared and able to shift back and forth between divergent and convergent approaches easily and at will, using each mode to its best effect as the problem-solving process dictates.

What is more, our conscious awareness of (1) the diametrically opposite roles of convergence and divergence and (2) which mode we are in at any given moment in the analytic process will, by itself, greatly enhance our ability to solve problems.

Unfortunately, it is extremely difficult for humans to shift back and forth between these two ever-opposite, ever-warring approaches. Most of us are not inherently good divergers; divergence is not one of our instinctive processes. Indeed, most of us habitually resist divergence —sometimes passionately, even angrily.

One unambiguous symptom of our convergent tendency is the difficulty most humans have in trying to brainstorm. Most people use the word “brainstorm” to mean sharing ideas about something, as in “Let’s get together tomorrow morning and brainstorm your proposal for the new project.” “Brainstorm” has thus come to mean “discuss” and usually amounts to nothing more than each of the participants presenting and arguing over his or her individual views. That is not what I mean when I say “brainstorm.” By brainstorm, I mean the freewheeling process of generating ideas randomly and spontaneously without worrying about their practicality. It’s usually done in a group of people. The fact that most people are resistant to brainstorming (in my experience, resistance appears to rise with one’s level of education) tells us how deeply rooted and dominant the convergent tendency is in our mental machinery and, by the same token, how damaging it can be to effective problem solving.

Have you ever read a book or article or paper on how to converge? Have you ever seen a TV program on “New Horizons in Mental Convergence”? How many courses have you heard of that teach convergent techniques, what we might call “ways of getting to the point”? None, of course. Humans don’t need to be taught how to converge. It comes naturally. But, there are literally hundreds of books, articles, videotapes, lectures, and courses on how to diverge, how to open the mind, how to brainstorm, how to generate creative alternatives. What does that tell us? That divergence doesn’t come naturally; we have to be taught how to do it. It tells us that, when it comes to diverging, humans are in trouble and need help.