From Concrete To Abstract Thinking

Matt Stiles
Nov 23, 2016
7 min read

Cognitive scientists have asserted that there is two ways of thinking: concrete or abstract. Concrete thinking is literal thinking, focused exclusively on facts.[1] For example, a witness reports that a baseball player hit a homerun. A reasonable person concludes, thinking in the concrete, the baseball went over the outfield fence. People engaged in concrete thinking are focused on facts, and literal definitions. Concrete thinking is different from abstract thinking.

Abstract thinking requires the ability to understand subjects on a complex level through the evaluation of theory, metaphor, or complex analogy.[2] For example, a baseball historian watches a famous baseball player hit a record-breaking homerun. The historian concludes, thinking in the abstract, that baseball player deserves to be inducted into the baseball hall of fame.

Will Rogers famously said, “People are getting smarter nowadays; they are letting lawyers, instead of their conscience, be their guide.” [3] I recently had a client approach me about a complicated (happy) problem that he had. On September 29, 2017, during the final game of the 2017 baseball season, Atlanta Brave outfielder, Manuel Gonzalez, hit a record-setting 74th homerun ball. According to my client (who didn’t have the foggiest clue who Gonzalez was), he had reluctantly decided to take up his friend’s offer to attend the baseball game. In the bottom of the 9th inning, Gonzalez hit a homerun into the bleachers, and my client caught it. Since the incident, my client has been besieged with phone calls from journalists wanting interviews, and from other people who want to buy the baseball. According to media reports, Gonzalez wants the ball back for sentimental reasons, but he doesn’t want to pay a lot of money for it. My client’s friend has stated that he believes he is entitled to a share of proceeds from any sale, because he provided my client with the ticket to attend the baseball game. To complicate the situation further, my client is desperate to treat Gonzalez “fairly” and to protect his public reputation. My client came to me for help to make a decision on what to do with the record-setting baseball.

I considered the complicated set of facts, formulated and evaluated seven potential paths forward. While cognitive scientists assert that there is two ways of thinking, concrete or abstract, in preparing for this particular client counseling session, I realized there is another way of thinking; that is, like a lawyer. I’ll explain what I mean by this, but first, here’s how lawyers use both concrete and abstract thinking to solve problems.

Concrete Thinking

The line that draws a distinction between concrete and abstract thinking is blurry, but it does exist. This line is roughly fixed by the demands of practical life. When we hear the words, baseball game ticket, baseball, homerun, caught, we do not have to reflect in order to grasp the meaning. These terms need not be defined. A homerun conveys a meaning so directly that no effort at translating is needed. Terms like baseball and homerun are learnt at an early age, and become inseparably associated with their nature.[4] In a court of law, lawyers and judges are fixated on concrete thinking, which is demonstrated through the legal principle of “standing.”

The law of standing has its roots in Article III’s Case and Controversy requirement. The United States Supreme Court has established that it will only hear cases that have an “irreducible constitutional minimum of standing,” which requires the plaintiff to establish an injury in fact, which is concrete, particularized, and actual, and not “conjectural” or “hypothetical.”[5] The principle of standing is at the core of concrete thinking, and legal reasoning. A lawyer gathers facts, applies the rule of law to the facts to propose a reasonable conclusion. In my client’s case, determining whether he legally owned the baseball, which was a fundamental question to providing my client with counsel, required concrete thinking.

The facts showed that my client was the first person to gain possession of Gonzalez’ baseball when it travelled over the outfield fence. Precedent has established that the host team retains ownership of any baseball that stays on the playing field. However, once the ball leaves the playing field and goes into the spectators’ area, the baseball is considered abandoned property.[6] In 2002, the California Superior Court decided a suit between two people claiming Barry Bonds’ record-breaking homerun baseball. In Popov v. Hayashi, the court held that when a person completes a significant step necessary to achieve possession of a homerun baseball, that person is entitled to it.[7] By applying the law to my client’s concrete set of facts, I could reassure him that once the baseball was hit over the outfield fence it became abandoned property, and since he was the first person to make a significant step to achieve possession (i.e. he caught the ball) it became his.

While this conclusion provided a sound foundation to solve my client’s problem, it didn’t solve it. My client wanted options, which included protecting his public reputation, which would be inescapably affected by his decision. To determine the effect of my client’s decision on his public reputation required abstract thinking.

Abstract Thinking

Abstract thinking refers to the ability to analyze information, detect patterns and relationships, and solve problems on a complex, intangible level.[8] Abstract reasoning requires an ability to formulate theories about the nature of facts, and to be able to understand multiple meanings that underlie an event.[9] For example, abstract thinking realizes that Gonzalez’ 74th homerun was not just a homerun, but a piece of American history, and also a symbol of the competitive accomplishment. Understanding the meaning of homerun is concrete, but the theoretical effect of a record-breaking homerun is something more, it is intellectual. The effect of my client’s decision regarding Gonzalez’ baseball on his reputation was theoretical, more or less speculative. For abstract reasons, there was great interest in my client’s decision. Unfortunately, there was no rule of law to guide my decision. I had to formulate a theory.

My theory was simple. In the age of social media, having a plan to address news in a social media context would be essential. The plan had to be both proactive and reactive. I wanted the plan to be grounded in fundamental virtues, like active listening, transparency, and “taking the high road.” Applying this theory, I recommended that my client actively monitor what is being said about his brand on social channels, and also within search engine results pages. I recommended he listen to what the audience was saying, and to be as honest and open as possible. I emphasized the virtue of transparency. I further recommended that he respond quickly to negative situations, but to appreciate that “trolls” exist, and when confronting one, it’s better to take the high road and to not engage.[10] The proposed path forward was based on a theory, which I imagined.

To solve an element of my client’s problem, I had to think abstractly. I had to analyze information, detect patterns and relationships, and propose a solution, formulated on a theory about the nature of my client’s extraordinary event. Some cognitive scientists argue that methods that develop abstract intellectual abilities weaken habits of practical or concrete thinking.[11] If true, a lawyer must cultivate both abstract thinking and concrete thinking, knowing that each alone falls short of providing an answer.

Thinking Like A Lawyer

In all of the law’s dimensions (burdens of proof, presumptions, standards of review, precedent, etc.), the law, more than any other decision-making institutions, commits itself to accepting, at least at times, suboptimal answers. And it does so in the service to the idea that the best way to get the largest number of correct decisions in the long term is to faithfully apply these formalistic dimensions, taking institutional values especially seriously.[12] So, at the heart of the law’s use of its reasoning is an acceptance that the best decision is not always the best legal decision.

Over two meetings with my client, I identified three important decision-making criteria. First, my client wanted his decision to be “fair” to Gonzlaez. Second, my client wanted to make money from this fortunate event. Finally, my client wanted to protect his public reputation from assertions that he was “greedy.” At the same time, my client wanted to know if he legally owned the baseball, and the tax implications of selling the baseball.

In our final counseling session before making his decision, I assured my client that the baseball was his property. I then presented him with seven options. He ultimately decided to keep Gonzalez’ homerun baseball, donate it to Major League Baseball for public display, and finally to sell it sometime in the future. (I should note this was a deviation from one of the seven options, call it 5.b!) I further counseled my client to procure insurance to protect against the risk of loss, and to develop a social media plan to protect his reputation throughout the process. Finally, I informed him that when he eventually sells the baseball, he would have to pay income tax on the income that he received from the sale. To help my client generate this final path forward, it required that I shift back and forth from concrete to abstract thinking. The situation was layered, and complicated with human emotions, and required mental dexterity.

It has been said that truly practical men should give their minds free play about a subject without asking too closely at every point for the advantage to be gained; because exclusive preoccupation with matters of use and application narrows the horizon as in the long run to defeat itself. It does not pay to tether one's thoughts to the post of use with too short a rope.[13] Lawyering requires largeness and imaginativeness of vision. The direct interest in a homerun should yield organically and gradually an interest in the physics of gravity, and the appreciation for competitive achievement. This organic development is what the term go signifies in the maxim "go from the concrete to the abstract."

The narrowness of lawyers with strong concrete thinking ought to be liberalized. Theoretical thinking is not necessarily a higher type of thinking than practical, or necessarily preferable. A lawyer who can command both types of thinking is of a higher order and more effective than a lawyer who is trapped by only one. Lawyers should aspire to become men who can channel the spirit of the philosopher, but readily use the tools of the engineer. If “thinking like a lawyer” means anything, perhaps it is to have the ability to easily change the filter—to go from the concrete to the abstract, and then back again, when duty calls.

Citations

[1] http://www.goodtherapy.org/blog/psychpedia/concrete-thinking

[2] https://www.verywell.com/what-is-abstract-reasoning-2162162

[3] http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/keywords/lawyers.html

[4] https://brocku.ca/MeadProject/Dewey/Dewey_1910a/Dewey_1910_j.html

[5] http://federalpracticemanual.org/chapter3/section1

[6] Paul Finkelman, Fugitive Baseballs and Abandoned Property: Who Owns the Home Run Ball? 23 Cardozo L. Rev. 1609 (2002).

[7] https://www.quimbee.com/cases/popov-v-hayashi

[8] https://brocku.ca/MeadProject/Dewey/Dewey_1910a/Dewey_1910_j.html

[9] http://study.com/academy/lesson/abstract-reasoning-definition-examples-quiz.html

[10] http://www.forbes.com/sites/jabezlebret/2014/11/04/company-reputation-management-with-social-media/3/#7e4c36b74ae7

[11] https://brocku.ca/MeadProject/Dewey/Dewey_1910a/Dewey_1910_j.html