This post lays the foundation for a number of posts to come. IMHO this conceptual frame offers more to help understand our current cultural confusion and chaos, does more to unravel the miasma of misinformation, and explains our current seeming inability to discuss matters of disagreement and discontent. To present the really valuable and elegant conceptual framework, I will use a pathetic and simplistic model I developed myself.

My model, used in hundreds of presentations, is a way of engaging with new information and new processes. I gifted it with the acronym PARIS – Presentation, Application, Reflection, Implication, Strategy. First, present new information, knowledge, or ideas. Second, look at ways this idea is applied, using various examples to illustrate. Third, reflect on outcomes and results of these ideas. Fourth, think about the meaning and impact of these ideas. Lastly, or, fifth, if you will, develop a strategy and plan to use these ideas. Simple, straightforward, easy to remember: we will use this PARIS model to explore a much better, much more beneficial conceptual frame – The Ladder of Inference.

Developed by Chris Argyris, I first encountered the concept of the Ladder of Inference through the teachings of Peter Senge. In our presentation phase, let’s look at the model.

Baseline – there are facts. I know we are struggling with the meaning of “facts” in our current cultural reality, but let us simply define facts as “the verifiable things that are happening.”

The first step up the ladder is our subjective, personal observation of “the verifiable things that are happening.” It is raining, and I notice that it is raining by looking out the window. I note that my car window is down.

Next, I interpret what I observe. It is raining and I note that it is making things wet and perhaps it is getting in my car.

Third step up the ladder reveals my assumptions. I assume that it is not good for the interior of my car to get wet. I assume that if something is not done, the interior of my car will indeed get wet – and this is a bad thing.

Fourth step up, I can wait and see what happens or I can take action to protect the interior of my car from the pouring rain. Notice that new information/data is emerging along the way, contributing to my mental processing. I don’t want my car interior to get soaked – something MUST be done.

Fifth, I believe that no one else is going to care about the interior of my car as much as I do, therefore if the car situation is to be resolved, I must be the one to take action. I deeply believe that if somehow, someway the window is rolled up, it will keep the water out.

Sixth, I take the leap of faith off the top rung of the ladder, running out into the rain to roll up the window. As I do so, I receive new data – rain is NOT continuing to get into my car. I observe the rain blocked from further ingress. I see this as a good thing that should continue uninterrupted, solving my problem, keeping my car dry, and adequately dealing with the situation. Now I notice that as I stand there, I am getting soaked.

Okay, silly illustration of process. But it lays the foundation for moving from P – presentation to A – application. Tomorrow I am going to write about a few real situations I recently found myself in that I can better understand and respond to through the lens of the Ladder of Inference. This model has great potential to help us better understand our current political, global, ecclesial, and social realities.