•
In this book we have been critical of the way that archaeology is run. In an age of highly defined specialisms there is a widespread intolerance for ideas that originate outside of ‘official’ university-based frameworks. We found archaeology unwilling to evaluate the findings contained in this and our previous book Civilization One. Nevertheless we welcome criticism or debate.
Many academics are unaware that there are different sorts of thinking styles. They assume process-driven thinking is the only valid way to approach ideas. There is also a general assumption that if a new theory collides with a preferred paradigm it must be wrong. The way people think has been studied very closely in recent years. Awareness that there are different approaches to thinking and deduction can lead to better judgements.
Ned Herrmann was an internationally-recognized expert on creative thinking who developed a comprehensive four-part Whole Brain Model: this is now used by major corporations everywhere. It divides the brain into four quadrants. This produces a metaphor leading to a very insightful application in the Herrmann Brain Dominance Instrument (HBDI). The brain is divided left to right, with the structured thinking left-brained and free-flowing thinking right-brained. These produce quadrants that can be simplified as follows:
A Top left – Analytical, formula based, factual, focused, technical
B Bottom left – Procedural, practical, process, routine, conservative
C Bottom right – Feeling, people-centric, sensory, caring, spiritual
D Top right – Synthesiser, big picture, rule-breaking, innovative
This non-judgemental model shows preferred thinking styles in working environments proved across a million people. Most people have ability in all quadrants but retain a dominant sector. Individuals with a marked strength in any quadrant may doubt people in another – particularly opposite quadrants. It is also hardly surprising that some fields of activity attract individuals with the same working style. Accountants and academics are often strong in the A – top left category whilst entrepreneurs, explorers and artists are in the D – top right quadrant.
Our thinking styles predominate in the D category; synthesising the big-picture: lateral thinking is central to our work. We also score well in the A category because we have to verify and quantify ideas. Really good academics will also be strong in both areas but many have a very low tolerance for big-picture thinking. If archaeologists learned that evidence comes in different forms, they might perform better. The term ‘pseudoscience’ is used as a term of abuse by those wishing to protect preconceived ideas. Alexander Thom spent 50 years undertaking detailed examinations of Megalithic sites – only to be have some lightweights apply the ‘pseudoscience’ label to him.
If you are not toeing the conventional line you are a pseudoscientist. This is academic mudslinging that rejects those who hold a reasoned counter-view. We expect some people to label our evidence as pseudo-science – but it is not. We might be wrong on a number of points (time will tell) but there is nothing in this book that is not reasoned argument based on checkable facts.
Science is surely the best thing ever invented. It is a pity that so few people in academia actually use the real principles of science. Maybe guys, there is a better understanding of the past to be uncovered. But you will never know if you keep your eyes squeezed shut.