The visible spectrum, the portion of the electromagnetic spectrum that human eyes can detect, is a continuum where different wavelengths allow us to see colors ranging from violet to red.

Different languages have specific words to divide this continuum and designate specific points: here is red, here is yellow, and there is green. These points are what we call colors. In other words, we categorize chromatic values at specific points within the visible spectrum and assign names that help us recognize and remember them.

Out of the millions of potential colors, different cultures establish points within categorical boundaries associated with specific words in their languages. These categorical boundaries allow us to say that this object is red and not orange, or that this range of tones is what we will call yellow in our culture.

Let me emphasize: we take a continuum break it into borders, and everything that exists within those borders is fixed in our minds with an identifying word—red, green, yellow, violet.

Is the way we divide the visible spectrum universal? No. Other linguistic groups divide the visible spectrum differently. Russians, for instance, do not have a single word for blue; their categorical division includes two distinct values: Goluboy and Siniy.

This distinction allows them to describe their surroundings with more precision when referring to what we simply call blue. The way we categorize color influences our perception and the description we make of the world around us.

The understanding we derive from our environment is tied to our physical limits, but—this is a crucial point—it is also shaped by the categories we use to classify and describe it. We do not describe reality; we interpret reality according to our categorical boundaries and judge what we see through that lens.

How Do We Know That Color Perception Is a Social Construct?

By analyzing other cultures. Himba, a tribe living in northern Namibia, exhibit a fascinating trait: their language defines categorical boundaries for the visible spectrum entirely different from ours. For them, water is white, and the sky is black. Some of their primary colors include:

• SURENDU: Used to describe reds, browns, oranges, and some yellows.
• ZOOZU: Covers most dark colors, including black, dark red, dark purples, and dark blues.
• VAPA: Includes what we call white and some yellows.
• BOROU: Encompasses some greens and blues.
• DUMBU: Includes other greens as well as reds, browns, and some yellows.

This does not mean the Himba cannot describe reality accurately using their colors. The question we can ask ourselves is: how does perception differ across cultures when faced with the same fundamental reality, such as color?

Take a look at these color patches. Would you be able to identify the color patch that is different?

For Westerners, all the patches appear to be the same color—green. For the Himba people, however, there is a clear difference, and they quickly identify the patch that stands out.

The explanation is that, unlike us, they have distinct words for these two colors. In other words, there is a categorical boundary that we lack, which makes these patches distinguishable from them. For us, it is nearly impossible to differentiate them because both chromatic values fall within the same categorical boundary we call “green,” even though they are different along the chromatic continuum.

This might seem intriguing, but the following example is perhaps even more surprising.

When we ask the Himba to identify the patch of color that is different in this set, they find the task just as challenging as we did in the previous example. In other words for them, all these patches are indistinguishable—they all appear to be the same color.

We have distinct categories for blues and greens, but they do not. Thus, they might spend minutes staring at these patches but still fail to identify the different ones. For them, there is no categorical boundary separating these two colors; for them, all these patches are the same color: Borou.

Categorical Thinking

We take things that are large, complex, and continuous, break them down, and organize them into categories. We label reality. Categorical thinking offers an advantage when making quick judgments, but the problem with this classification lies in the fact that complex realities cannot always be neatly divided and ordered into categories.

Consider the question: What is the length of a step?

A reasonable answer or estimate might be, “Between 65 cm and 80 cm, roughly a meter.” But how understandable is this answer? If you live in a part of the world where units of measurement are classified within the metric system, it makes sense. Otherwise, you might not understand it at all. From the continuous range of possible step lengths, my culture has created divisions that allow us to make quick, simple estimates. I live in a culture that possesses a category for measuring distances.

Another question: Think of a person who runs very fast. This person is one of the best athletes in the world. How quickly would they need to run 100 meters to truly impress you?

Most people would answer, “Under 10 seconds.” This shows another category for measuring time and making rapid estimates. But in this case, we also have a boundary—a categorical limit. From the infinite variety of speeds at which one can run 100 meters, our minds have anchored that specific time as a benchmark.

In essence, while categorical thinking is a natural and powerful tool, solving complex problems requires us to go beyond our default patterns, question our boundaries, and adapt our categorizations to fit the realities we face.

The Importance of Categorical Limits

The concept of a categorical limit is crucial in understanding the power of categories. Imagine discussing a painter, an artist so extraordinary they work exclusively with only eleven different colors. This description might seem puzzling—why would painting with a limited number of colors make someone exceptional? In our culture, this categorization, this boundary, this categorical limit does not resonate because it is not collectively shared. We do not evaluate the quality of paintings based on the number of colors used.

If there is no category or categorical limit between things, events, or activities, it becomes difficult for us to understand or value those things, events, or activities.

Why is categorical thinking so deeply ingrained in human psychology?

Our brain, constantly exposed to an overwhelming flow of information, seeks ways to simplify, organize, and make sense of the world around us. Categories function as mental filters, grouping elements with similar characteristics to facilitate their processing and storage. This tendency to categorize is innate and has been essential for our survival.

From an evolutionary perspective, categorization allowed our ancestors to react swiftly to potential threats and opportunities. For example, imagine early humans on the African savanna: the ability to instantly distinguish between predator and prey was critical for survival. There was no time for detailed analysis; the brain needed to quickly classify incoming stimuli and activate the appropriate response—fight, flee, or ignore.

Categorization served as an efficient mental shortcut that conserved cognitive resources. These quick judgments helped humans:

1. Avoid danger – Recognizing something as a predator could mean the difference between life and death.
2. Identify resources – Grouping plants or animals into edible and inedible categories was crucial for survival.
3. Navigate social interactions – Understanding categories such as ally, rival, or stranger helped early humans manage group dynamics and cooperation.

Characteristics of Categorical Thinking

Categorical thinking simplifies the complexity of reality into manageable “boxes” or mental categories. These categories can be personal (based on individual experience) or cultural (shared frameworks, such as how colors are classified). The main characteristics of categorical thinking include:

1. Rapid Decision-Making. By placing a situation into a familiar category, the brain can quickly retrieve relevant information and make decisions without analyzing every detail. For instance, upon recognizing a “snake,” a quick categorization triggers the appropriate response—fear and avoidance—without needing to evaluate every characteristic of the snake.
2. Predicting the Future. Categories provide expectations about how things or people will behave. If something is categorized as a “dog,” we anticipate certain behaviors, such as barking, wagging its tail, or needing care.
3. Cognitive Load. Grouping information into categories lightens the mental effort required to process continuous stimuli, allowing the brain to allocate resources to other tasks.
4. Facilitating Communication. Categories create a shared language, enabling efficient communication. Saying “It’s a dog” instantly conveys a range of characteristics without requiring a detailed description.

The Importance of Thinking Styles in Solving Complex Problems. As strategists, we increasingly encounter complex problems that demand nuanced approaches. Recognizing the type of thinking applied to these challenges is vital for effective resolution.

Categorical Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

Categorical thinking processes information from reality by relying on rigid classifications and fixed categories. This approach simplifies the complexity of the world by dividing it into clearly separated groups. It often views the world through binary oppositions, such as “black or white,” “right or wrong,” or “good or bad.” While this type of thinking can provide clarity in certain situations, it is inadequate for addressing the intricacies of complex problems.

When exploring complex problems, be cautious of:

1. Binary Approaches Oversimplifying reality by dividing it into extreme opposites, leaving no room for nuance or intermediate perspectives.
2. Conceptual Rigidity Organizing information into fixed categories makes it difficult to shift perceptions once something or someone has been classified.
3. Excessive Simplifications Ignoring multiple factors or key variables to reduce complexity often leads to superficial understanding.
4. Ambiguity Reduction Avoid exercises that provide false certainty by reducing ambiguity and structuring information too rigidly. While clarity is valuable, it should not come at the cost of ignoring grey areas.
5. Quick Decisions Resist the temptation to rely on categorical thinking for swift decision-making in complex situations. These decisions might feel secure but often lead to simplistic and ineffective solutions.

Complexity involves multiple variables, interactions, and layers of meaning. Therefore, it requires flexible ways of thinking that allow for adaptation to different circumstances and consideration of a variety of perspectives. A more structured and closed mindset, such as categorical thinking, is insufficient for managing the uncertainty and grey areas present in complex problems.

Systems Thinking, Creativity, New Perspectives, and Managing Uncertainty

Flexible thinking, such as systems thinking, is particularly important because it helps recognize the interconnections between various factors within a complex problem. Instead of simplifying the causes, this approach observes how different variables interact, allowing for the development of more comprehensive and realistic solutions. In this way, systems thinking can address problems that require simultaneous adjustments across multiple aspects, rather than offering direct or one-sided solutions.

Moreover, creativity and innovation are essential for solving complex problems. A rigid approach tends to limit the ability to generate new ideas, as it clings to predefined, limited solutions. In contrast, a more open and flexible mindset enables the exploration of novel and unconventional options, fostering imagination and the development of alternatives that may not have been considered before.

Finally, flexible thinking favors a greater openness to diverse perspectives. While categorical thinking polarizes and excludes other viewpoints, a more adaptable approach considers that problems can be analyzed from multiple points of view. This is essential for creating comprehensive solutions that incorporate the contributions from various fields of knowledge and the opinions of all involved stakeholders.

Managing uncertainty, adopting systems thinking, utilizing creativity and innovation as problem-solving tools, and maintaining openness to new perspectives make our solutions more resilient, and aligned with their goals, motivations, and challenges. These will be the focus of my next blog post.