Mosaic Thinking: An Explination

What is Mosaic Thinking?

(Picture found here)

I first learned the term back in the summer of 2010. However, it came as a shock that no definition for the term exists online, or at least on the first page of my recent Google search. While this term my be called something else, the point of this post is to define and describe the way in which my brain processes information.

First, a definition. According to my computer's dictionary,

-a mosaic is defined as, "a picture or pattern produced by arranging together small colored pieces of hard material, such as stone, tile, or glass," 
-while thought is defined as, "an idea or opinion produced by thinking or occurring suddenly in the mind." 

Simply put, a mosaic thinker is "a person who comes to a sudden idea or opinion by arranging together small pieces of information or memories that relate seemingly unrelated topics."*

Mosaic thinking can best be described using Wikipedia as an example. Let's say there are two friends who are reading a Wikipedia article about apple pie using the same computer. Friend A then realizes that he forgot to turn on the washing machine and leaves the room to do so. Friend B is then left alone with the computer and continues to read the article about apple pie until he gets to the section about apple pie in American culture. Friend B then sees the term World War II underlined and, understanding that it is a link, decides to click this link. This takes Friend B to the article about World War II. Friend B then clicks on several other links after reading a little of each article following the pattern of [Apple Pie -> World War II -> Adolf Hitler -> Adolf Hitler and Vegetarianism -> Bone Marrow -> Haematopoiesis]

At this point, Friend A returns to the room and sees Friend B as gone from a Wikipedia article about Apple Pie to an article about Haematopiesis. To Friend B, this transition makes sense since he witnessed the transitions between articles. However, since Friend A was out of the room during this time, the switch between articles appears to be random. For all Friend A knows, Friend B might have decided to type Haematopiesis into the search bar to go directly to the open article.

Confusion is further created since Friend B would have to explain all of the the steps that he took to get to the article he had just opened. If Friend B gave a short explanation, Friend A might be inclined to doubt Friend B. On the other hand, Friend A might also accept Friend B's explanation, but would still be confused as to how Friend B arrived to the article. Likewise, if Friend B gave a longer explanation, Friend A might be able to follow along with how the apple pie article talked about how soldier during WW2 believed it represented American culture and how the link to WW2 had another link to the Adolf Hitler page due to Hitler's involvement with that war and so on.

While the longer explanation is ideal, the problem arises if two factors were to occur:

1. Friend A forgets some or all of the steps he took to go to the Haematopiesis page and
2. If the computer's history was either deleted or was disabled

These two factors would leave Friend B without the ability to accurately recall all of the steps he too to get to the page that he has open on the computer. Another fault of the longer explanation is that Friend A might not care about the transition or loses interest thus shortening any explanation while enforcing the belief that Friend B looks up weird or random pages on Wikipedia.

Mosaic thinking follows this similar pattern. One could connect seemingly unrelated data to create a meaningful argument or conclusion. The connection between thoughts is similar to the use of equations for a statistical proof where two formulas that appear to be unrelated are in fact related if the person working the equation knows the longhand that relates the two equations together. In fact, anyone who has specific knowledge about a subject already does this when talking to other people who understand the interdisciplinary vocabulary that is common within the field. For example, logicians understand that classifying an object as a book is a necessary contition for this same object to be The Old Man and the Sea.

The problem arrises when the mosaic thinker inadvertently applies a 4D approach** to the related topics. The thinker, who is well versed in the related topics, may assume that the other person that the other person understands his or her conversational shorthand:

Linear Thinker: Did you hear about the most recent story about how the Ebola Virus has made its way to Dallas?

Mosaic Thinker: It has? Are you sure about this?

L: Of course. I saw the story on the news. Apparently it's been in Dallas for ten days now.

M: (Thought Process: [Ebola is in Dallas, TX -> Ebola victim must have traveled to Dallas from Africa via plane if his symptoms only were noticed once in the US -> This means that it is possible that other people have the virus in TX, yet do not show symptoms -> This means people with Ebola could be inside the Dallas airport -> I have a layover flight from Miami to Dallas and from Dallas to Salt Lake City in two weeks -> I should change flights to prevent possible exposure to Ebola -> I need a wifi hotspot so I can connect my iPad to the internet in order to change flights right away -> Starbucks has free wifi and there are thousands of them.])

M: Thats horrible! Do you know if there's a Starbucks near by?

L: That's a weird question. You thirsty or something.

This example demonstrates how the Mosaic Thinker's question about Starbucks makes total sense when placed in context of linear logic, but to the Linear Thinker, the Mosaic Thinker's question would seem as random as if he had asked "do you know what time it is?" It should also be noted that the connection between all of these thought occurs in the span of 3-15 seconds, thus creating the illusion of a spontaneous question.

In addition, what makes mosaic thinking both unique and confusing to the linear thinker is when the Mosaic thinker is able to connect two or more strands of linear thought together to form a conclusion.
For example:

   -Strand A: [I'm tired due to driving for 6 hours straight -> I need Caffeine -> Redbull has Caffeine -> I wonder if the next rest stop has a convenience store? -> The next stop has a Sunoko Station and they sell Redbulls there -> Strand B Conclusion -> I can use the money I save from my membership card to by a Redbull.}

   -Strand B: [I have to fill up on gas pretty soon -> I'm driving on I-90 East in New York state so I'll probably stop at a Sunoko gas station - Strand C Conclusion -> I should use my Price Chopper card when I fill up on gas]

   -Strand C: [ What cards do I have in my wallet? -> I have my credit card and my Price Chopper Membership card -> the membership card offers a discount on gas at Sunoko gas stations.]

As a result, the Mosaic Thinker would confuse any passengers if he or she were to only say the first and last statements from Strand A while taking as little as 3 seconds to conclude all three strands of thought.

This may be a good place to stop considering how long the post has become already. If you liked this post, want me to do another post on this or a similar topic, or just want to say hello, you are welcome to leave a comment or drop me an email.

It's been a blast and I'll talk to you soon.

-T

Notes:

*I shall make note here that the remainder of this post will entirely rely on theory and my own observations due to the lack of external data or published sources to back my claims.

**I will define this term in a future post.