![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.unicist.org\/conceptual-thinking\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/03\/Evolutionary-Constructivism1.jpg\")
<\/a><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\nThe unicist evolutionary approach requires using the unicist logic to define the functionality of the concepts and fundamentals that underlie a specific function, developing fallacy-free decision-making and developing pilot test driven reflection processes that ensure the achievement of results.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Constructivism is only meaningful in adaptive environments where the unicist evolutionary approached is used to foster expansion. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The\nUnicist Evolutionary Constructivism<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The unicist constructivism is an evolutionary approach. It is an approach to reality that fosters its evolution. It is based on building upon the functional aspects of a given situation, considering the possibilities of its evolution and the stages in which this evolution needs to take place. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
This process is based on the knowledge of the concepts and fundamentals that define the functionality and the knowledge of the concepts of the restricted and wide context in which the evolutionary process will take place.<\/p>\n\n\n
<\/a><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\nIt is based on the knowledge of the boundaries of an activity that can be expanded based on understanding the functionality and understanding its dynamics and possibilities of evolution. This necessarily requires defining a possible future scenario.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The catalyst of a constructivist process is\nthe management of possibilities and their functional stages. This catalyst\nincreases the efficiency of actions and ensures the functionality of the\nsolutions that are developed. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Constructivist Framework itself is driven by a solution-thinking method, while the maximal strategies are defined by the problem-solving method based on the management of root causes and the minimum strategy is ensured by the pilot test-driven reflection method.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Here you will find the three methods that define the unicist constructivist approach:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
- \n
- Unicist Solution Thinking <\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Unicist Problem Solving <\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Unicist Reflection<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n
1) Unicist Solution Thinking<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Unicist thinking is a solution-thinking approach that is based on approaching problems based on the universal solution given by the ontogenetic map of the concept that underlies the function that is being managed.<\/p>\n\n\n
\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.unicist.org\/conceptual-thinking\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/03\/Thinking-Process-Backward-Chaining-375x281.jpg\")
<\/a><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\nUnicist Thinking implies beginning with a backward-chaining thinking process and recycling the solution until it produces the results that have been defined as possible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Solution thinking implies beginning with the conceptual design of the solution, based on the ontogenetic map of the concepts that defines the process, and ending with the operational solution that can be managed by anyone without needing to know the concepts of what is being done.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It requires having a sound technical analytical knowledge and the knowledge of the fundamentals in order to develop the design of the conceptual solution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Unicist thinking requires an empathic approach to the problem that is being managed in order to be able to emulate its functionality in mind. Solution thinking requires the use of different neural pathways than the one used when making systemic problem-solving approaches.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\nExpansive actions require believing to see<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Expansive actions require providing additional added value to the environment and thus they are implicitly innovative. The innovation is implicit in the additional added value.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Believing to see is necessary for conceptual thinking. Concepts are essential. Therefore, they need to be approached based on abstract beliefs that need to be confirmed in their manifested operational actions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Conceptual thinking implies reflection that goes beyond the sensory experiences of individuals. Homological experiences are the benchmarks to be used to apprehend new action fields.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Believing to see is an approach to the nature of a reality in order to influence future evolution and develop present actions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Backward-chaining thinking is necessary to approach any activity that deals with adaptive systems and complexity. The oneness can only be approached with backward-chaining thinking processes, which are integrated in the unicist reflection process.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
1+1=2 is an arithmetic metaphor for forward-chaining thinking<\/p>\n\n\n\n
2 = Infinite Solutions is an arithmetic metaphor for backward-chaining thinking.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It requires the use of a high level of inner freedom because there are no sensory parameters to confirm the validity of a process. That is why a \u201cbelieving to see\u201d approach needs to be sustained by destructive and non-destructive pilot tests.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Maximal strategies, which allow expansion beyond the present boundaries of an activity, require the use of backward-chaining thinking and using individuals\u2019 beliefs that need to be validated with sensory experiences.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\nSurviving requires seeing to believe<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Conservative thinking requires seeing to believe. That is why when a new concept is being discussed and an individual asks for an analogical benchmark, it is because s\/he is avoiding entering a new field.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Seeing to believe is necessary to deal with operational thinking. When an operation has to be done, it is necessary to deal with credibility based on seeing. Seeing is used in a wide sense, considering all the aspects that deal with sensory experiences to apprehend reality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Seeing to believe is based on the past experiences of individuals to generate the credibility of present actions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Forward-chaining thinking is the secure approach to reality, which avoids having a high level of inner freedom because the external reality is apprehended through sensory experiences. The use of sensory information avoids the need to make decisions based on internal freedom.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
1 + 1 = 2 is an arithmetic metaphor for forward-chaining thinking.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Minimum strategies, which need to ensure survival, require forward-chaining thinking and using the sensory experiences to believe.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\nDoing within adaptive systems<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Actions are the demonstration of a decision. There are unconscious, intuitive, and conscious decisions. All actions include all the aspects but when we talk about \u201cDoing\u201d we imply actions ruled by conscious behavior.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Influencing adaptive systems requires integrating \u201cbelieving to see” and “seeing to believe\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But it has to happen following the ontological evolution law. An individual needs to believe to be able to see and then confirm what has been seen to validate the belief.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Managing adaptive systems implies beginning to apprehend the possibilities that can be achieved. To do so, it is necessary to use backward-chaining thinking to apprehend the solution in its oneness. Therefore, the first step in dealing with adaptive systems requires the use of inner freedom to apprehend the actual reality. It requires \u201cbelieving to see\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This allows development a maximal strategy that makes expansion possible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
After the concept has been grasped and used to develop a maximal strategy, it is necessary to ensure survival by developing minimum strategies. Minimum strategies are operation-driven and use forward-chaining thinking as a tool that requires sensory experiences to confirm the validity of actions. Therefore, it requires a \u201cseeing to believe\u201d approach.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The level of inner freedom required is minimal because actions are driven by sensory experiences.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Doing implies having the necessary inner freedom to be able to \u201cbelieve to see\u201d and the necessary discipline to follow a method to do, based on \u201cseeing to believe\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Businesses require \u201cbelieving to see\u201d to be defined, because they happen in the future that cannot be perceived through sensory experiences, and \u201cseeing to be believe\u201d in order to be administrated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In business \u201cseeing to believe\u201d is a fallacy.
In operational activities \u201cbelieving to see\u201d is a utopia.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n2) Unicist Problem\nSolving: Root Cause Management<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Introduction<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The discovery of the intelligence that underlies nature and the structure of concepts that regulate the evolution of living beings and drive human actions opened the possibility of managing the root causes of problems.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The consequence of these discoveries is that the root causes of problems are defined by the dysfunctionality of the fundamentals that integrate the concepts that underlie the entity or action that cannot fulfill their purpose.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This approach became possible due to the use of unicist logic to define the nature of things by emulating the structure of the triadic intelligence that underlies nature. Thus, root-root causes became possible due to the knowledge of the unicist ontology of the entities that are being managed. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
This unicist approach to causality has a different purpose than that of the philosophical approaches of Aristotle, Kant, Hegel, Russell, and others who tried to find the validity of the causality of things while the unicist approach is fully focused on understanding causality to generate value.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Dr. Ishikawa, who developed the root-cause management for industrial processes, introduced the use of the fundamentals of processes to identify and discover root causes. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\nThe Unicist Logic applied to Problem Causality<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The unicist logical approach to problem solving was developed to deal with complex adaptive systems such as social, economic, and business processes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
On the one hand, the unicist management of causality in complex adaptive systems is based on the inexistence of univocal cause-effect relationships and the exclusive disjunctions \u201cOR\u201d among their elements, which are substituted by bi-univocal relationships and the conjunction \u201cAND\u201d that integrate their elements.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
On the other hand, these complex adaptive entities are not integrated by variables, which are based on univocal relationships, but by objects, which are autonomous adaptive systems that assume a role\/function in these systems.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\nThe Unicist Management of Causality<\/h2>\n\n\n
\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.unicist.org\/conceptual-thinking\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/03\/Problem-Causality-375x281.jpg\")
<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\nThe unicist management of causality is based on the unicist ontology of the complex adaptive systems that describe their nature and define the concepts and fundamentals that regulate their evolution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A problem exists when a functionality, that\nhas been defined as possible to be achieved, cannot be fulfilled.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The unicist approach to problem-solving defines three types of causes that are integrated in the concept of problem causality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
- \n
- Triggering causes:<\/strong> that define the operational causes that generate a problem.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Necessary causes:<\/strong> that define the root-causes of the problem.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- The limit causes:<\/strong> that define the boundaries of what is possible to be achieved.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\nThe Structure of Problem Causality<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Limit causes define the limits of the\nsolution that can be built. They define the necessary knowledge to achieve the\nsolution and the functionality of the system that has to work to make them\nefficient. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
It has to be considered that the unicist approach to problem causality includes the wide and restricted contexts of problems in order to develop a solution. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The wide context influences strongly the\ndefinition of the limit causes because of the power needed to influence it. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The restricted context provides the catalysts to deal with root-causes and establishes limit-causes when its influence is dysfunctional.<\/p>\n\n\n
\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.unicist.org\/conceptual-thinking\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/03\/Problem-Causality3-375x281.jpg\")
<\/a><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\nThe Maximal Strategy<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Necessary (root) causes explain the functional causes that are defined by the dysfunctionality of the underlying concepts and fundamentals. The unicist approach analyzes the functionality of the fundamentals of the maximal strategy of the entity that define its efficacy and of the minimum strategy that define its efficiency.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This conceptual analysis of the\nfundamentals needs to establish measurable standards to define which of these\ndo not achieve the necessary threshold to ensure the functionality of the\nsystem.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Minimum Strategy<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The triggering causes define the\noperational causes that generate a problem. They are defined by the problems in\nthe field of operational efficacy and in the field of operational efficiency. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
It has to be considered that the approach\nto efficacy cannot include the \u201cinterpretation\u201d of human actions because it naturally drives towards hypothetical\ncauses. The approach to efficacy needs to be based on the description of the\nactions that generate problems because they are dysfunctional and their\ncomparison with the actions that are needed. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The approach to efficiency needs to be\nfocused on the quality assurance aspects of the systems that have to ensure\ntheir functionality. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\nDifferent Levels of Solutions:<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The unicist approach to problems defines\nfour levels of solutions that can be achieved according to the level of\nknowledge of the problems. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
It has to be considered that people who need to avoid risks cannot deal with problem causality and substitute the knowledge of problems with pre-concepts that allow them to avoid facing the risks of developing solutions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The four levels of solutions are:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
- \n
- Repairs<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Palliatives<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Systemic Solutions<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Adaptive Solutions<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.unicist.org\/conceptual-thinking\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/03\/Problem-Causality1-375x281.jpg\")
<\/a><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\nRepair <\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The natural response of people when an urgent problem appears is to repair it, based on the negative consequences that need to be avoided. This is the short-term energy-saving action to face the solution of problems.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
If the root-problem is not being addressed,\nthe problem will reappear when the root-causes act. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Palliatives<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The natural response when people do not have the knowledge of problems is the use of palliatives to mitigate the consequences of problems. This is the short-term energy-saving action when there is a lack of knowledge to solve problems.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The problem will continue to be mitigated by the palliatives that have been installed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Systemic Solutions<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
It is the necessary approach when the problems deal with the efficiency of the processes. In this case, it solves the root-causes of the problem, but if the lack of efficiency was produced by dysfunctional efficacy, the problem will reappear due to the entropy of the solution. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
This is an action that naturally drives\ntowards finding the root-causes that includes both the problems with efficacy\nand efficiency. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Adaptive Solutions<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
This is the approach to developing structural solutions for problems. It drives to research the fundamentals of efficacy and efficiency and find a solution that integrate the problems, their restricted context and their wide context.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It is the most energy-saving action because it hinders the reappearance of problems. It requires working within the boundaries established by the limit-causes and it ends with a structural solution based on the functionality of the fundamentals of the problem and an operational solution that ensures operational results.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Synthesis <\/h2>\n\n\n\n
As concepts and their fundamentals define the root-causes in adaptive environments, it is necessary to know the structure of concepts to deal with the rout-causes to build solutions. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The unicist approach is an upgrade in problem-solving that integrates a unicist logical approach that allows managing the root-causes of problems in complex adaptive environments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This approach simplifies the development of solutions based on the knowledge of the root-causes and avoids establishing goals that cannot be achieved through the knowledge of the limit-causes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Unicist Knowledge Groups (K-Groups) were developed to manage the root-causes in social and institutional environments. They are homologous to the original Quality Circles developed by Dr. Ishikawa.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n3) Unicist Reflection<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Unicist reflection is an approach to complex human adaptive systems to understand their nature, define the possibilities to influence them, apprehend the algorithms that allow exerting influence, and generate added value.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Unicist reflection has no relationship with other introspective approaches like religious introspection, transcendent meditation, yoga or other technologies that have been developed for different purposes.\u00a0Unicist Reflection has been developed to deal with complex human adaptive systems, such as businesses, to develop scenarios, diagnoses, and strategies to achieve possible results.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Reflection covers five stages:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Business Problem Solving<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
0 \u2013 Focus on the solution<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n
1 \u2013 Dealing with projections
<\/strong>\u2013 Beta brainwaves suffice
\u2013 Destructive pilot tests<\/p>\n\n\n\n2 \u2013 Dealing with Introjections
<\/strong>\u2013 Alpha brainwaves are needed
\u2013 Non-destructive \u2013 Destructive pilot tests<\/p>\n\n\n\nUniversal Problem Solving<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
3 \u2013 Dealing with integration
<\/strong>-Theta brainwaves are needed
\u2013 Non-destructive pilot tests<\/p>\n\n\n\n4 \u2013 Dealing with communion
<\/strong>\u2013 Gamma brainwaves are needed
\u2013 Results validation<\/p>\n\n\n\n
- Necessary causes:<\/strong> that define the root-causes of the problem.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Triggering causes:<\/strong> that define the operational causes that generate a problem.<\/li>\n\n\n\n