Developing Personal Mastery in Systems Thinking

Senge (1990) first popularized the term ‘personal mastery’, but neglected to include the majority of the systems thinking, opting instead to equate systems thinking with a single framework (system dynamics). Thus ‘personal mastery in systems thinking’ became little more than ‘personal mastery in systems dynamics.’ Three factors lead us to conclude that the prescribed path to personal mastery in systems thinking must change significantly. This chapter posits that ‘personal mastery’ is reflected in the attitudes, skills, and dispositions required of an individual systems thinker (a.k.a., personal mastery). It also sets forth a clear path—made up of three levels—that one can follow to develop personal mastery of systems thinking.


Personal Mastery Then and Now
Personal Mastery (c. 1990) In what is perhaps the most popularized 1 version of systems thinking, Dr. Peter Senge elucidates the importance of personal mastery and its connection to systems thinking in The Fifth Discipline.Senge explains that 'Personal Mastery' is the phrase we use for the discipline of personal growth and learning.People with high levels of personal mastery are continually expanding their ability to create the results in life that they truly seek [1]."He continues: "People with a high level of personal mastery share several basic characteristics.They have a special sense of purpose that lies behind their visions and goals.For such a person, a vision is a calling rather than simply a good idea.They see current reality as an ally, not an enemy.They have learned how to perceive and work with forces of change rather than resist those forces.They are deeply inquisitive, committed to continually seeing reality more and more accurately.They feel connected to others and to life itself.Yet they sacrifice none of their uniqueness.They feel as if they are part of a larger creative process, which they can influence but cannot unilaterally control.People with a high level of personal mastery live in a continual learning mode.They never 'arrive.'Sometimes, language, such as the term 'personal mastery,' creates a misleading sense of definiteness, of black and white.But personal mastery is not something you possess.It is a process.It is a lifelong discipline.People with a high level of personal mastery are acutely aware of their ignorance, their incompetence, their growth areas.And they are deeply self-confident.Paradoxical?Only for those who do not see that 'the journey is the reward.'"[1] Senge wrote about personal mastery somewhat poetically at times.But his poetry exists in the context of his extended work on systems thinking in The Fifth Discipline and The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook [2].For Senge, 'systems thinking' is synonymous with the teachings of a popularized form of a framework called 'System Dynamics,' or 'SD,' which includes such concepts as balancing and reinforcing feedback loops and stocks and flows, etc.So one could conclude that Personal Mastery, stated succinctly, is all of the things Senge describes-such as "continually expanding their ability to create the results in life that they truly seek"-that a skill and competence in System Dynamics can produce.
The problem with this definition of personal mastery-a definition almost entirely based on the single framework of system dynamics, is two-fold.First, even in 1990, there existed many more frameworks and systems ideas than system dynamics.The entirety of complexity, for example, developed at the turn of the century by notable systems scholars (e.g., , Bogdonov [3], von Bertalanffy [4], Angyal [5], Weiner [6], Ashby [7], Weaver [8], and Prigogine [9]) and increasingly more relevant today than ever before, is absent in its influence on the personal mastery of the 1990s.As we will see, the recognition of a much wider boundary of what constitutes systems thinking as well as new discoveries as to the universal patterns that underlie systems thinking (DSRP Theory) means that our understanding of what constitutes personal mastery needed to evolve.And evolve it did.
Personal Mastery (c. 2000) By the year 2000, 'personal mastery' in systems thinking changed from Senge's 1990 treatment.This change was brought on by two notable events: (1) the expansion of the boundary of systems thinking, and (2) the discovery of universals of systems thinking (DSRP Theory) [10][11][12][13].A conceptual framework called the 'Midgley, Francois, and Schwartz Universe' or 'MFS Universe' was developed in 2003 [11,14] to provide an answer to where the boundary of systems thinking could be drawn.The MFS Universe was a bounded universe of all of the nearly 5000+ different methods, concepts, and frameworks of systems thinking.The notion of the MFS Universe casts a wide net (or creates a 'big tent') to include all of the pluralistic ideas of systems thinking.This necessitated the identification of universal patterns of thought and structure (i.e., DSRP) that underlie these systems concepts.At the time, if you had asked how to study systems thinking as a field and a practice, the answer would have included: (1) gain a deep understanding of DSRP, and (2) begin to explore (one by one) the multiple methods, frameworks, and ideas in the MFS Universe.At that time, the field consisted of people and problems, who were utilizing the various frameworks in the MFS Universe-all of which were derived from the universal atomistic structures, DSRP (as shown in Figure 2).The first task, learning DSRP, was reasonably simple because it could be learned in minutes and practiced for a lifetime.Knowing each framework in the field required more time investment to learn and practice.Notably, while any one framework was good at some things, it was insufficient in others.Thus, any given problem required a multitude of frameworks (e.g., system dynamics and soft systems methodology, and critical systems thinking) that were then combined into a mixed-method solution.
This posed two fundamental problems: (1) it required a great deal of initial investment on behalf of the newcomer to systems thinking, and (2) the mixed-method solution was invariably not ideally suited to the problem-solving or system-understanding at hand 2 .In other words, even when mixing methods from the MFS Universe, the resultant solution never quite fit the problem.Especially in a VUCA environment, unique problems and systems often require customized solutions.In today's VUCA world, bespoke models are usually the only option for solving difficult or wicked problems.That's why starting with the first principles (DSRP) allows for the 'mix and match' modularity needed to build custom solutions from scratch.Although it was not always the case, the combination of the significant time commitment required and the resulting ill-fitted solution made the statistical odds of 'success with systems thinking' relatively low.Something needed to change, or newcomer adoption would be the first casualty.
Newcomer adoption wasn't the only issue.First, an increasingly VUCA world required increasingly bespoke solutions, and therefore greater adaptivity and fluidity in one's personal 'problem solving' tool bench.Second, the discovery of DSRP Theory opened up new research directions and possibilities into the essential nature of mental models and the essential differences among them based on a ratio of their specificity in both information-content to structure.Third, DSRP Theory also expanded the boundaries of what constitutes systems thinking again.In other words, we could now ask more than, 'which systems thinking scholars and forms of scholarship (frameworks) comprise systems thinking (i.e, the MFS Universe)?'But rather, 'what types of people are thinking about what types of systems in what types of ways (generally speaking)?'These three events led to the need for another punctuated evolution to occur in what constitutes personal mastery.

VUCA Systems and Problems Require An Adaptive Toolbench
In the 30 years since The Fifth Discipline was published (1990), both systems thinking and personal mastery have changed.When The Fifth Discipline was published 30 years ago, the internet was in its infancy.The very first internet browser was created by Tim Berners Lee in the same year (1990) and Netscape, the browser that popularized what most people think of as the internet, wouldn't exist for another four years (1994).Amazon, too, was founded four years later (1994).Today's world is more globalized, as a result of the increasing interconnections and it is therefore more VUCA 3 than ever before.
As a result, the problem solvers toolkit must facilitate thinking that is adaptive, agile, flexible, and fluid.We must also identify the patterns in problem solving that help us avoid 'recreating the wheel.'The four underlying patterns of systems thinking, DSRP, provide universal atomic structures and elements that are foundational to an adaptive approach.DSRP structures and their elements are the modular, fractal, recursive, simple rules that lead to the emergent property of bespoke models for targeted problems.
When The Fifth Discipline was published 30 years ago, the now popular term emotional intelligence wasn't a thing, nor was it a common household word, nor a desired skill of Fortune 1000 CEOs, nor was it a field of scientific research.When The Fifth Discipline was published 30 years ago, there was no 'Future of Jobs Report.'Today, the World Economic Forum publishes this influential report detailing the skills (personal mastery) people will need to succeed in our changing world.In 2020, the "Top 15 skills for 2025" [15] included: 1.
Analytical thinking and innovation 2.
Active learning and learning strategies 3.
Critical thinking and analysis 5.
Leadership and social influence 7.
Technology use, monitoring and control 8.
Technology design and programming 9.
Troubleshooting and user experience 13.

Service orientation 14.
Systems analysis and evaluation 15.

Persuasion and negotiation
The recognition of these types of necessary skills belies the requirements of an increasingly VUCA world.People need a panoply of skills to thrive, and not merely analytical skills but emotional and prosocial skills [13,[16][17][18], and a general disposition toward adaptive and fluid thinking.This adds another dimension to the idea of 'personal mastery' such that purposeful efforts to balance the analytical (IQ) and emotional (EQ) skills were now on the collective 'radar' of skills needed to navigate the increasingly complex world around us [17][18][19][20][21][22][23].
When The Fifth Discipline was published 30 years ago, systems thinking (ST) was a relatively new term and was made synonymous (mistakenly so) with system dynamics.At the time of publication of The Fifth Discipline, it was not clear that there were universal underlying structures (DSRP) to thinking and systems thinking, whereas today, we now know that these structures exist and are universal in mind and nature [10].Systems thinking itself has changed dramatically in the ensuing 30 years.Indeed, the realization of DSRP now makes it clear that the underlying patterns of systems thinking (item #14 on the list above) are the cornerstones of every one of the items on the Top 15 Skills list.These skills cannot be developed and mastered without DSRP, as shown in the research showing that metacognition improves effectiveness in all domains [10,17,19,20].
All of these and more changes belie the importance of updating our understanding of what constitutes personal mastery and how to achieve it.This also changes the boundaries of who needs personal mastery in systems thinking and what types of systems are included.

Any person, Any System
When we talk about personal mastery, we're talking about people.People who have interests.It shouldn't matter who you are or what system is of interest to you for you to benefit from developing personal mastery in systems thinking.This is why we say that systems thinking isn't for certain types of people, it's for any person and systems thinking isn't for certain types of systems either, it's for any system.Systems thinking can be usefully and meaningfully applied by any person [13] from a first preschooler to a PhD, in the boardroom or in the classroom, from a rocket scientist to a citizen scientist, from a quantum mechanic to an auto mechanic, from pharmacist to farmer, and from quilter to skateboarder.Systems thinking can also be usefully and meaningfully applied to any system.Whether the system you are talking about is VUCA (volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous) or drop dead simple.Whether the system you want to understand is: simple, complicated, complex, chaotic, or stochastic; large or small; local or global; important or fanciful; political, economic, social, technical, personal, private, public, etc.-systems thinking applies.Systems thinking can be equally applied to how we distinguish a coffee cup and to how we fight Covid-19.
important that problem solvers, systems thinkers, innovators, policy makers, business people, and the general public at large become capable of solving wicked problems.Only a minority of problems can be solved by off-the-shelf frameworks because the majority of problems we face require bespoke, customized models or 'built-for-the-task-at-hand-models.' Thus, we cannot rely on one-size-fits-all frameworks when tackling today's problems.
Personal Mastery (c.2020) (modular, incremental, do-it-yourself developmental models that aid personal, emotional and prosocial attitudes, dispositions, and habits); and (c) the far more massive domain of models that we call 'knowledge.'All are essential in the development of 21st Century Personal Mastery and it is recommended that one proceeds in the order they were mentioned.Over the last 15 years, it has become increasingly clear-in theory, in practice (both our own and others'), and in research [24][25][26][27]-that a base combination of DSRP and jigs is a best practice.See Appendix A for a step-wise list of how we suggest a person tackles such mastery on an incremental, daily basis.
The term, 'use case' refers to the way users (in this case, systems thinkers) go about using systems thinking.A particular use case does not imply that it is effective per se, only that it is one way in which people are using it.There are several possible use cases for example: 5 (1) they use a specific framework, (2) they use a mix of frameworks, (3) they use DSRP, (4) they use DSRP + a framework, (5) they use DSRP + a mix of frameworks, or (6) they use none of the above.In this paper, we are suggesting certain use cases as being more effective in developing personal mastery than others.
We explained that the suggested 'use case' c. 2000 was 'DSRP + MFS mixed-methods.'The use-case we prescribe today (2020 6 ) is 'DSRP + jigs.'In other words, rather than utilizing a single framework or mixed method approach (say, for example SWOT Analysis and/or soft systems methodology), successful practitioners [24][25][26][27] use deep first principles (DSRP) and jigs in their practice to address the problem at hand.The result is a model that is customized to the particular problem, bearing little to no resemblance to off-the-shelf frameworks.Today, when asked, how should I undertake a study of systems thinking as a field and a practice?The answer is: (1) gain a deep understanding of DSRP, and (2) begin to explore (one by one) the 44 known cognitive jigs [28].While the MFS Universe exists, and while numerous specific concepts and learnings can be beneficially accrued from it, some large-scale frameworks seem over-engineered for any given problem, which leads to biases such as shoehorning effects.This is why a new approach, reliant on underlying structures such as DSRP and cognitive jigs offer a more viable approach to the types of problems faced in a VUCA world.

Jigs versus Frameworks: Displacement not Replacement
Jigs do not replace frameworks nor do they replace the MFS Universe.But they do displace them in terms of centrality and perhaps importance.That does not mean that frameworks are not useful and necessary-they absolutely are.Frameworks are especially good tools for very specific content areas, systems, or problems (i.e., if you have a population-based problem and your quantification of that population has construct validity, system dynamics is a fantastic tool).But frameworks are also, by definition due to their specificity, less flexible.And, in a world where problems are more VUCA, this lack of agility can be debilitating.Frameworks are useful, sometimes even optimal.But some of the time, they require a degree of shoehorning.For the field of systems thinking specifically, the frameworks in the MFS Universe are important.But, DSRP and jigs make the importance of frameworks tertiary, rather than primary.The primary 'go to' tool should be the atomic structures and elements of DSRP and the molecular structures of cognitive jigs.This is different from what we advised 20 years ago.
This shift in thinking has taken 20 years and has been debated for the last 8 years or so.It is not taken lightly.At the same time, there are countless situations where a framework was used because of the sunken costs of the time involved in learning the framework.System dynamics (SD) is a great example: It takes some time to learn SD.It takes even more time to get good at implementing it.So, naturally people prefer to use the tools they have when a problem arises.But SD, which is great at solving for population models, isn't always the right tool for other types of problems.This leads to examples of poor implementation when only one aspect of SD fits the problem (usually feedback loops).Thus, when asked, the problem solver will say they used SD, but on further analysis they only used the concept of a [qualitative] feedback loop (which is a jig!), which is only a small part of the SD approach.If we pay attention to the users' use-patterns as an indication of what was useful, we see that the relatively quick and flexible jig-like structure of a qualitative feedback loop was all they needed.This example shows us the power of jigs: they are more versatile because they are lighter weight, more agile and adaptive, easy to learn and easy to deploy.This is a good example of how frameworks are shoehorned (i.e., 'every problem is a nail' or 'preloaded') and/or overengineered (i.e, bulky, cumbersome, over-specialized to a specific purpose but generalized in its claims of utility).SWOT (not typically thought of as a systems framework) is another great example of a framework that relies too much on specified content to be applicable.But it points out another thing.SWOT is actually easy to learn.In fact, its ubiquitous popularity and use stems from how easy it is to learn.Many graduate students in business and policy learn SWOT and then see it as their go-to tool.Occasionally it's the right tool for the job, but sometimes it leads shoehorning-trying to make a square problem or system fit into a round framework.Unlike SD (which is much more general and abstract), SWOT is extremely content-specific.SWOT is a more general framework that is popular because it is simple, and unambiguously specific in its content (i.e., whatever you are looking at, there are Strengths, Weakness, Opportunities, and Costs).The issue is that, while these concepts can be generally applied as a lens to nearly any situation, to what end?Of what utility?SWOT is applied, over and over again, by generations of graduate students in policy and business, despite the fact that it is just one, extremely limiting perspective that frames every problem as a SWOT.SWOT points out problems in frameworks that are different than those highlighted by the system dynamics example.Where systems dynamics is overengineered, SWOT is lightweight, thus leading to its (over) adoption.Where systems dynamics, to be used properly, requires a significant time investment and steep learning curve, SWOT's high-perceived reward (really the comfort of having done something) to low time-investment ratio is what keeps it popular.While system dynamics, somewhat akin to a jig, is general in nature (within the scope of population models), SWOT is extremely specific.This specificity of content creates bias and makes SWOT the king of all shoehorned frameworks.It should be pointed out that SWOT is a derivative of the 2x2 table, which is a jig of ubiquitous utility.
These two examples -SD and SWOT-are good examples of why more emphasis on jigs is needed.
Table 1 provides an overview of the dimensions of difference between frameworks and jigs.Obviously, there are frameworks that 'buck the trends' we mention below, but we offer that they are either the exception rather than the rule, or they are actually jigs.

Modularity
Frameworks are not easily combined with one another (i.e., they often don't 'play well with others')...

Content
Frameworks are by definition content-dependent rendering them less adaptable or agile... Jigs are content-agnostic and can therefore be used for any problem or situation.

Off-the-shelf vs Bespoke
Whereas frameworks promise off-the-shelf utility, they are often too content-dependent to be less flexible in how they can be implemented..
Jigs are, somewhat paradoxically, custom off-the-shelf tools.They are so basal that they fit the problem rather than fitting the problemto the model.They are wildly flexible.

A Path to Personal Mastery Today
For most folks we have worked with over the years in our roles as researchers, practitioners, and educators, they desire an explicit path that provides guidance on precisely what they should do and in what order.Obviously any step-wise order is suggestive at best.There are many ways to learn systems thinking and develop one's personal mastery.However, we have found in both research and experience, that starting at the base of the inverted triangle in Figure 4 is one of the best ways.See Appendix A for a step-wise list that follows the ideas in Figure 4. Once you have started your journey, you will soon see that DSRP, jigs, and sliders, as well as many of the frameworks described in the Chapters of this Handbook will start to form a tool bench. 7hen it comes to personal mastery, we use the word path in multiple ways.First, there is the general path set forward by Figure 4 (start with DSRP, then jigs, then sliders and frameworks, knowledge, etc.).That provides a theoretical basis for personal mastery.Second, there is the step-wise list in Appendix A which provides what so many people have told us they desperately need: a step-by-step list of recommended tasks for developing competence and confidence in systems thinking.
But there is a third meaning of the word path that is the most important of all: burning a neural path.
Much of what systems thinking involves is going against the cognitive grain.What we mean by this is that while your brain is actually hardwired to do DSRP, it does so primarily in fast mode [29] which means it makes a lot of errors/biases.And, for most of human history, fast mode was reasonably accurate, because 'coarse graining' with all the precision of a chainsaw was 'good enough' and speed was beneficial.In a VUCA world, 'fine graining' with the precision of a knife or scalpel is often required when solving complex problems.Taking a bit more time to pause, avoid your immediate reaction, and think it through, is often rewarded.In other words, practice 'ready-aim-fire,' instead of 'fire-ready-aim.'So, we are all fighting thousands of years of evolution to slow our thinking down a bit.On top of that, we are also fighting against dozens of years of social and educational training that has encouraged, incentivized, and rewarded certain pathways (mindless memorization of facts, extrinsically motivated behavior, linear thinking, etc.).Cabrera refers to this as 'LAMO thinking' [30]-Linear, Anthropocentric, Mechanistic, and Ordered.The net-net is: you are fighting against thousands of years of evolution and dozens of years of social and educational training to gain personal mastery in systems thinking.We liken it to going for a hike in the woods.

DSRP: First Level Personal Mastery
Systems thinking is not a process but an outcome-it is an ends, not a means.Systems thinking is a complex adaptive system (CAS) and therefore systems thinking is an emergent property of a complex adaptive system.We must focus on the simple rules and agents that bring about systems thinking.There is a basic idea behind all complex systems-that simple rules and agents lead to collective behavior and emergence.If systems thinking is an emergent property, then those aspiring to be better systems thinkers must focus their efforts where they have influence: executing the simple rules.The discovery of these simple rules (which go by the acronym 'DSRP') is supported by empirical research findings [10,11,13 The Part-Whole Systems Rule S := (p↔w) A System (S) is defined as part (p) co-implying a whole (w) The Action-Reaction Relationships Rule R := (a↔r) A Relationship (R) is defined as action (a) co-implying a reaction(r) The Point-View Perspectives Rule P := (ṗ↔v) A Perspective (P) is defined as point (ṗ) co-implying a view (v) Table 2: The universal structural simple rules of thought [13].
Informational agents, using these simple interaction rules comprise the emergent property of systems thinking.Thus, in order for a person to systems think, or develop mastery in systems thinking, they must mix and match, combine and recombine these rules and the emergent property of that complex adaptive system is systems thinking.This is what makes it possible for DSRP to be so fluid and adaptive where other approaches will not be.
Among numerous other skills and abilities [10], the Cognitive Flexibility that characterizes all 15 numbered items in the World Economic Forum's Future of Jobs Survey 2020, requires that systemic thinking be truly adaptive in order to result in the kind of agility needed to think about a bewilderingly diverse set of topics, issues, problems, and domains.Indeed, it might be said that systems thinking is uniquely capable of such adaptability and agility, flexibility and fluidity.Importantly, these four skills underlying systems thinking can be taught and learned.They can also be measured on a continuum, based on the degree to which an individual possesses each of the four things: making distinctions; organizing systems; recognizing relationships; and taking perspectives, using an edumetric test called the Systems Thinking & Metacognition Inventory (STMI) [21].
In the same way that atoms make up molecules, atomic structures (DSRP) make up molecular structures called 'jigs' which are important to personal mastery because they are often used as 'templates' of thinking-thinking structures that are time and user tested (sometimes over millennia).Metaphorically speaking, if adaptive, fluid, sophisticated, systemic thinking is the end goal of personal mastery, then DSRP is the concrete foundation and jigs are the floors and walls and roof.

Cognitive Jigs: Second Level Personal Mastery
Without knowing it, humans have used cognitive jigs for millennia (e.g., analogies, metaphors, similes [31], lists, tables, graphs, and others of equal utility).Jigs are content-free molecular structures that can be combined and recombined (modularity) to create new bespoke models of understanding and problem solving.Their unique structure, dynamism, and utility of cognitive jigs makes them an ideal tool for solving problems in an increasingly VUCA world.Jigs are molecular-level, content-agnostic structures that can be applied to any domain or problem because they are built on a foundation of the atomic structures and elements of DSRP.When compared to content-heavy frameworks, jigs are more accessible, applicable, and agile.The unique dynamism of cognitive jigs, borne of their modular, fractal, content-free, adaptive, structure, make them imminently useful in solving problems in such a way where the tool fits the problem rather than the problem being shoehorned to fit the tool.They are likely one of the most valuable and accessible cognitive structures available to humans.Of particular note is the fact that it is possible to discover new jigs as we navigate new situations, issues, or when we are building new ideas.
We have provided herein an inventory of jigs (N=44) known to date, but it is likely that there are many more.The current inventory of jigs, provides a foundation for the future search and discovery, organization and development of new jigs as powerful systemic tools to help us meet the challenges ahead of us.
To better understand the potential and power of Jigs, ask yourself these questions: 1.
How often do you use metaphors, analogies and similes? 2.
When and where did you learn these ways of thinking?3.
What would it be like if you couldn't think in these ways? 4.
How difficult would it be to explain things to people if you didn't have names for them (analogies, metaphors and similes)? 5.
What if there were more equally useful structures that you could use?
First, all humans use metaphors, analogies and similes a lot.Some cognitive scientists [31,32] offer evidence of their universal usage, concluding that humans use them constantly.Second, note that these conceptual structures are taught in grade school or even earlier.For question #3, it would be difficult to imagine a world in which humans did not use such structures to understand things and navigate the environment.Question #4, tells us that we would use many of these structures even if they had no explicit names and we were not conscious of their use.However, being aware of their use and being able to reference them by name makes shared understanding of things much easier.Imagine if, like Shakespeare did [33], you mentioned to your friend that the "World is a Stage" and they wouldn't stop arguing with you that the world is, in fact, not a stage.Without the concept of a metaphor things would almost always be taken literally.Finally, the answer to question #5 reinforces the importance of becoming aware of jigs, developing mastery of known jigs, and advocating for the discovery of new jigs.
What is a Jig?
What is a Jig?We extend the dictionary terms-that include physical jigs, a type of dance, a trick or game, and fishing and mining techniques, to offer a new type of jig-a cognitive jig.The following definitions provide insight into the difference between dictionary terms and what we mean by 'cognitive jig.' jig /jig/ n.

[physical jigs]
A device that holds a piece of work and guides the tools operating it in order to provide repeatability, accuracy, and interchangeability in the manufacturing of products.A jig is often confused with a fixture; a fixture holds the work in a fixed location.A device that does both functions (holding the work and guiding a tool) is called a jig.Jigs or templates have been known long before the industrial age.There are many types of jigs, and each one is custom-tailored to do a specific job.Jigs are a form of template in that they can be a shaped piece of metal, wood, card, plastic, or other material used as a pattern for processes such as painting, cutting out, shaping, or drilling.Jigs therefore serve as a model for others to copy.

[cognitive jigs]
A common conceptual structure or templatic mental model that can be used and reused for a particular cognitive purpose in order to provide repeatability, accuracy, and interchangeability in cognitive tasks.Cognitive Jigs are, to a large extent, content or information agnostic, meaning that any given jig could be used for a variety of cognitive tasks or across a variety of topical areas.Cognitive jigs allow us to not have to 'reinvent the wheel' when performing common cognitive tasks.

ORIGIN:
The term jig is mid-16th century and of unknown origin; the term cognitive jig was coined by Derek Cabrera to communicate the practical and tactile use of cognitive jigs as a way to identify, use, and reuse cognitive patterns (mental models) that are common or repeatedly used.Cabrera gives various discovered jigs common, basic, and memorable names such as 'Barbells,' 'P-circles,' 'R-channels,' and 'Part-parties.' Analogies, similes, and metaphors are cognitive jigs.To date, 44 cognitive jigs have been formally identified, but Cabrera estimates there are hundreds more.Cabrera identifies the degree of content-agnosticism of a jig as an indicator of its universality.The more a jig is content agnostic, the more universal it is, and perhaps the more difficult it is to discover.[13,34] Jigs are reusable structures of knowledge and thinking that increase cognitive efficiency.Think of a jig as a common conceptual template that can be used over and over again in your thinking.Where did the term 'jig' come from?A jig refers to "a device that holds a piece of work and guides the tools operating on it" [35].Carpenters use jigs to do repeated operations that would otherwise (without the jig) take a lot of time and effort (see Figure 5), making jigs practical because they save cognitive time and effort.You've Already Been Using Jigs for a Long Time.
While the term 'jigs' may be new to you, there are three common jigs you are already familiar with: (1) Metaphor Jig: Figure 6 illustrates the underlying structure of a metaphor;when we say that A is something it is literally not, as in A is B or All the world's a stage [33] 8 .(2) Simile Jig: A simile states that A is like B, not literally the same as B as shown in Figure 7.For example, the difference between a metaphor and a simile is a small change to the information in the relationship from is to is like.(3) Analogy Jig: Like metaphors and similes, an analogy is not entirely content-agnostic because the primary relationship is content-specific and defined (is like), whereas everything else about the structure is variable and can take any content.Figure 8 illustrates this structure: Now that you have a sense of what a jig is, how they work, and how useful they can be, let's explore a jig that is less familiar but equally useful.
(4) P-circle: The 'Perspective Circle' jig is a simple common structure that looks at a view from multiple points creating a 'circle of perspectives' around any item, phenomena, situation, event, or system.Figure 9 illustrates this structure: When one realizes how simple and sublime jigs can be, they see that these diminutive cognitive structures can pack a punch.It is easy to imagine a whole society of humans who know what an analogy is, because we live in a society where every grade schooler is taught the power of analogies and metaphors.Imagine, for example, a time where P-circles were every bit as familiar, part of our common language, and common usage.Imagine a time when you could say to nearly anyone on the street, "you may want to P-circle that" in the same way you could say, "that's gotta be a metaphor for something."There are dozens more jigs of equal simplicity and near-global utility, and there are presumably many more to be discovered.

Table of Known Jigs
Speaking of similes, universal jigs are like the Elements in the Periodic Table of Elements (in chemistry) in that the initial ones are relatively easy to identify but subsequent discoveries become increasingly more challenging.There are currently 44 known jigs identified in the Table of Known Jigs, but there are likely many more.Discovering a new universal jig is difficult because a jig is content-agnostic, and when a jig has relatively small amount of specified content (as in the case of metaphors, similes and analogies) that content is extremely general in nature (e.g., terms such as 'is,' 'like,' 'similar to,' etc).So Jigs have low levels of specified-content, but in the rare cases when the content is specified, it is extremely general as is seen in similes, etc.
Although time will tell, it is likely that the maximum number of jigs is an order of magnitude in the hundreds, perhaps thousands, but it is doubtful that it is tens of thousands.In other words, the order of magnitude is far less than the number of frameworks or knowledge itself (which is effectively infinite).In addition, it is quite possible that there is a form of intra-disciplinary jig-jigs that are used within disciplines.Hypothetically, discovering these jigs could enhance how we turn novices into experts in a particular discipline.If one includes intra-disciplinary jigs, the order of magnitude may be much higher but the ratio of information-content for these types of jigs will also likely be higher.It should also be noted that jigs are quantitative patterned structures.Note also that visual mapping techniques (such as Plectica and many others) are more advanced and have exponentially more users (like Facebook, Twitter, etc.).This means that discovering jigs-both in the general population and in a disciplinary population of mappers and maps-will become a relatively easy, automated, pattern-recognition task.
The Table of Known Jigs (Figure 10), organizes jigs according to the level of content specificity they possess (labelled as the Content Agnostic Ratio (CAR) number that is shown as ascending from right to left) and also by the degree to which D, S, R, or P are explicated in the jig (labelled as their 'atomic number' and shown as ascending from top to bottom).The CAR number is a ratio of a simple count of the minimal number of identified objects in the jig (denominator) and the number of these objects with specified content that cannot be altered without altering the jig (numerator), reported as a decimal number.The generalizability of the content is also considered in determining if something is a jig.The highest CAR number is 1.0 which means that 100% of the jig is content agnostic.
The atomic number of a jig is based on the number of atomic structures (DSRP) that are explicit in the jig (i.e., those that can be readily seen in a structural mapping of the jig).The atomic number is a fraction of the number of explicit atomic structures (numerator) shown over the total number of atomic structures (denominator), which is always 4 to represent distinctions, systems, relationships and perspectives.Thus, if a structure has an atomic number of 1/4 then it is merely a single atomic structure itself and therefore not technically a jig (these are signified in the top left corner of the Table of Known Jigs) and shown in Figure 11.But, if a structure, like RD is proposed, it would be assigned an atomic number of 2/4 because this jig reminds one to distinguish (D) the relationships (R) we make, such that 2 of the 4 structural patterns are explicated by the RD jig.

DSRP Script
DSRP Script is a symbolic scripting language that has several advantages.Unlike DSRP Maps, which are nonlinear, DSRP Script allows the user to create a string of characters that mimics the structure of DSRP Maps.This allows for inline communication, as in written documents, email, text or social media commentary.In addition, DSRP Script allows users to quickly detail the structure of a mental model (especially jigs) using only the symbols available on any keyboard.Certain symbols in the script are attained using strikethrough (command + shift + x) or underline (command + u).The □, ○, ∀, and ⤳ symbols are special characters.For example, the structural formula for an analogy jig is: (○-○)-(○-○) which simply says that there are two related elements forming two systems ( (○-○) and (○-○) ) that are themselves related by a content-specified relationship (in this case the -signifies the content 'is similar to').Figure 12 illustrates how to read an entry in the ) and there could be as many more as desired to n (...).These points are applied across (*) any chosen structure (□).In this case the □ represents any of the DSRP structures containing any content whatsoever and the underlining (□) represents that whatever is underlined is the view from the point(s).Note that the structural formula for the P-Circle Jig, unlike that of the Analogy Jig, does not show any of the symbols in red.This means that the structure is entirely content-agnostic.It makes no difference what content one puts into the jig.In fact, the jig could accept entirely randomized content.This is one of the chief defining features of Jigs-that their Content Agnosticism Ratio (CAR) is quite high (especially given the general nature of any specified content) and therefore that the structure is universal.

Glossary of Known Jigs
There are currently 44 known jigs 9 as shown in In the same way that atoms make up molecules which make up more complex structures (i.e., matter-solids, liquids, and gases), atomic structures (DSRP) make up molecular structures (jigs) which make up compound structures (frameworks).The distinguishing factor, as illustrated in Table 4 above, is the ratio of information-content to structure.Such atomic structures (DSRP) have no information-content; whereas molecular structures (jigs) have relatively no information-content and are made of multiple atomic structures and; compound structures (frameworks) tend to be larger conceptual structures with a near 1-to-1 ratio of information-content to structure.Compound structures (frameworks) are always made up of a combination of atomic structures (DSRP) but also often contain one or several molecular structures (jigs).
Frameworks: Third Level Personal Mastery  13, shows three frameworks from different fields.One, soft systems methodology is considered part of the traditional 'systems thinking' field and is included in the MFS Universe.The other two, are not.SWOT is a well known framework in the management and policy arenas.Third, the [Linnaean] species concept is the most popular framework for how life on the planet is organized.All of these frameworks are mental models because they are a combination of content-information and structure.And, these in particular, are frameworks characterized by relatively high content-specificity.For example, if we removed all the terminology (words) from the soft systems methodology framework, it would be little more than a bunch of meaningless shapes.Likewise, if we removed all the terminology (words) from the SWOT or species concept frameworks, the remaining shapes and colors would not communicate the same ideas that they would with the inclusion of the content.In those respects, they are the same.They are not universal or atomic structures.They are also too content-specific to be considered jigs (molecular structures).Rather, they are compound structures with high content-specificity that are different in their utility (use).Soft systems methodology and SWOT are similar in that they can be applied generally (within some sphere of relevance) such that you can imagine a soft systems methodology map or SWOT analysis from an infinite number of situations.Soft systems methodology could be applied to nearly any situation.SWOT analysis could be applied to nearly any situation or organization.The [Linnaean] species concept is somewhat different.It is a framework of knowledge that has a very specific use that does not have generalized use like soft systems methodology or SWOT.
As we discussed earlier, the development of personal mastery in systems thinking applies to any person, any system.We must therefore account for any knowledge 10 that might be relevant to solving a problem or understanding a system in any domain expanding the boundary of applicability beyond the MFS Universe.
This new boundary includes 'sliders' to account for the fact that human cognition includes not only the cognitive domain but also the emotive and conative (motivational).Human cognition, whether it occurs at home or at work, is the personal part of mastery.'Sliders' are mental models that are structurally and informationally specific that can be used within a domain (generally or specifically).A slider is a framework that is applied to a specific domain: the development of personal qualities, habits, and dispositions, making it different from other frameworks.There are other qualities of sliders, that make them similar to a jig in their modularity, diminutive size, and ease of take-up.In addition, it is hypothesized that there are a relatively finite number of jigs, whereas there could be as many sliders as there are situations in which they are needed.
Sliders are therefore a necessary part of personal mastery as it would be impossible to remove emotional intelligence from the very definition of the term.A wealth of research shows that when individuals are made aware of the way they think, it improves "achievement in all domains" [17], including self-awareness and personal health.Developing metacognition through DSRP, jigs and sliders strengthens one's ability to transfer skills across fields [22] and develops emotional intelligence [16,73] along with creativity [74].Thus, sliders are the last piece of developing personal mastery in systems thinking, accounting for the balance between IQ and EQ as essential components of such [13,18].
1 a small hamburger or other hot sandwich made with a soft bun.[35] 2 [cognitive slider] A cognitive slider is a small mental model, the use of which is expressly in the domain of personal development or psychological-sociological effectiveness.Sliders are often used to develop personal mastery in a DIY therapy approach.[34] The term slider originally referred to a miniature hamburger.The term was coined in the 1940's by sailors who referred to the miniature burgers as 'sliders' because they were very greasy.The first production slider was offered by White Castle as a 'five cent burger.'Today, sliders have taken a decidedly high brau trajectory, with famous chefs like Gordon Ramsay, Wolfgang Puck, Rachel Ray, and Bobby Flay offering sliders on their menu.These sliders range from a standard cheeseburger fair to the portobello and brie slider or even a Kobe beef and European White Truffle slider.Sliders need not be hamburger (beef) either, as they now range across all meats (salmon, goat, ostrich, etc) and even include quinoa and other vegetarian options.In other words, sliders have a simple basic structure (small bun, small patty, accoutrements) but a nearly infinite diversity.
For this structural universality but manifestable diversity and their diminutive size but nourishing attributes, as well as the ability to mix and match various types of sliders on the same plate, the term slider was chosen to communicate "a relatively small, nourishing or 'meaty' mental model" for use in increasing one's prosocial or emotional intelligence [76].Like jigs [77,78], sliders are applicable to a wide array of situations or circumstances, but somewhat different than jigs, sliders tend to assume far more content (less content-agnosticism).They are more specific in their application to the social, psychological realms and particularly useful for what Cabrera calls 'DIY therapy'-a modern form of do-it-yourself personal development or psychotherapy loosely based on the principles of cognitive-behavioral therapy and situated in: the growing distrust of the objectivity and commercialization of the psychological profession, the growing need for heightened prosocial and emotional intelligence, and the modern DIY movements.Like jigs, various built sliders (sliders that are built by others) are given common, basic, and memorable names such as 'Thinkings & Feelings,' 'Analog yourself,' 'Good new bad news who knows,' 'Dysfunction Magnet,' and 'the modified Golden Rule.' Importantly, sliders are also something that anyone can invent for others or for themselves.Sliders can be designed for a very particular purpose that is personal and situated.Any personal problem or goal can be rudimentarily designed into a slider and practiced until it becomes a habit.The purpose of a slider is to maintain one's developmental focus on the mental model to be integrated into oneself, for the period of time it takes for something to become habitual.
Notably, sliders are based on DSRP Structure but have personal mastery or personal development type content.They are decidedly not content-agnostic, but are generalizable in nature.For example, a slider like Thinking v. Feelings is generalizable, but only insofar as it is in the domain of human thoughts and emotion (in other words, unlike a jig, it perhaps is not generalizable to every discipline or topic or situation).Sliders also offer an evolutionary and incremental approach to personal psychology.In other words, sliders take a modular, mix and match, 'Lego-like' approach to mental models and personal psychology.Such that small malady can be fixed behaviorally and then another and another.Sliders can be described verbally or in writing but they are most often manifested in a structural systems map.

Examples of Sliders
The best way to understand sliders is to explore some examples of them.Numerous examples exist, and an effort to inventory sliders has begun [75].We provide three example sliders below:

Distinguishing Thinking and Feelings:
Conflating feelings and thoughts is something that makes it so that one is not able to deal with their feelings, or their thoughts.By combining the two, both become unusable.Thoughts are fundamentally variable.They can be debated, played with, molded, right, wrong, and in-between.The structure of expressing a thought is: 'I think X …' (where X = ∞).The most important aspect of a feeling that distinguishes them from a thought is that a feeling just is.Feelings are never wrong.They just exist.They are yours.What is truly essential to a feeling is expression.This can be done simply by saying 'I feel Y' (where Y ≈ 12 or so, basic human emotions) [79].
Thoughts (mental models) often bring about feelings.And, when thoughts and feelings are conflated, the original thought that brought about the feeling can become entangled with emotion.In turn, this conflation with emotion can cause a person to be more invested in the thought being 'right.'This is why it is so important to distinguish between feelings and the thinking to determine the causality: did the feeling lead to the thought or did the thought lead to the feeling?The distinction between feelings and thinking, while seemingly innocuous, is essential for metacognition, systems thinking, and one's personal mastery.

Relationships Sponsored By The Number 3:
Most people think of relationships as being made up of two people (one person plus one person would equal 2).It turns out that relationships that are sponsored by the number 2 can end up being quite dysfunctional, whereas relationships that are sponsored by the number 3 can be more functional [80].A relationship sponsored by the number 2, is made up of one person and another person.When relationships are going well, they are going well.But when they have conflict, the question is: where does that conflict exist?Where does the cause or the blame of that conflict land?Where do the good traits of a relationship reside and where do the bad traits reside?The problem is, if your relationship is sponsored by the number 2, then those things can only reside in you or in me.However, if you have a relationship that's sponsored by the number 3, then there are three places where you can put the onus: you, me and us (the relationship).You have the dynamic relationship between two people included in the equation.That's the third variable.So rather than two variables-you and me-we have three variables-you, me and us-which encompasses the relationship.In that relationship, all of the credit, blame, onus, responsibility, etcetera can be placed in the 'us.'

Mental Models Cause Behavior:
Mental models are happening all the time.There are pervasive mental models that are both the conscious and unconscious things that you think.When we say that mental models drive behavior, we're not saying that it's always 'purposeful,' but that there is a mental model that precedes that behavior.Mental models directly cause behaviors [76].

Conclusion
Atomic structures (DSRP), molecular structures (jigs), and compound structures (frameworks and sliders) are the building blocks for developing personal mastery in systems thinking.They provide any person the ability to develop lifelong skills and a fluid, adaptive disposition.They allow any person to get purchase in understanding any system or solving any problem.Yet, if systems thinking is to maximize its potential, it cannot be something only experts, scientists, and professional problem solvers use.It must be something everyone can use.A clear path to personal development is therefore needed.Not only can this path be utilized by institutions tasked with developing the next generation of thinkers-it can also benefit individuals, who take it upon themselves to develop and practice their own mastery incrementally: one universal structure, one jig, one slider, one framework...one new bit of knowledge at a time.

APPENDIX 1: Recommended Steps to Developing Personal Mastery
We suggest people start with the atomic structures (DSRP) which precedes learning the molecular structures (jigs) and sliders, which lead us to the domain of emotional and prosocial intelligence, key parts of personal mastery.
The following list provides several steps foundational to mastery in systems thinking: 1. Commit to burning the neuronal pathways.Start by committing to daily, incremental work.Ideas include: a. Sign up for a list like Systems Thinking Daily on Facebook [81]; b.Commit to practicing DSRP, for brief moments throughout the day; and c.Before you tackle big looming problems in life or work, just play with DSRP in silly and minute-to-minute scenarios.2. Familiarize yourself with the concepts (available through various mediums): a. Watch, "A Little Film about a Big Idea [82]." b.Explore a new form of inquiry, Thinkquiry [83].c.Watch, "Re: Thinking [84]" (one hour documentary on systems thinking).
d. Read "Systems Thinking in 7 Images" for a big picture overview [85].e. Watch, "Systems Thinking for Newcomers [86]" (a free online lecture on DSRP).f.Read the book, Systems Thinking Made Simple [13].g.Take the short LinkedIn course, "Systems Thinking [87]." 3. Deepen your understanding of systems thinking: a. Get certified in systems thinking, systems mapping and systems leadership [88][89][90][91]; b.Start learning systems mapping skills [92]; c.Start using ThinkBlocks to model systems; d.Begin applying to more difficult problems in life, work, or society; e. Continue daily practice of elements of DSRP; f.Start incorporating jigs (commit to learning and using 1 jig per week); g.Start learning new sliders (commit to learning and using 1 slider per week); h.Continue your learning of jigs (commit to learning and using 1 jig per week); i. Continue learning new sliders (commit to learning and using 1 slider per week); and j.Continue learning new frameworks/knowledge (commit to learning and using 1 new systems thing per week).

Figure 1 :
Figure 1: The MFS Universe of over 5000 different methods, concepts, and frameworks of systems thinking.

Figure 4 :
Figure 4: The inverted triangle path to personal mastery.

Figure 5 :
Figure 5: A Box joint jig used by carpenters to streamline the creation of complex joints.

Figure 12
Figure 12 provides the information needed to read the Table of Known Jigs and the summary detail for each individual jig.

Figure 13 :
Figure 13: Different compound structures (frameworks) of general and specialized use.
Cabrera calls[23], do-it-yourself (DIY) self-help and DIY-CBM (Cognitive-Behavioral Mastery).Becoming aware of how often others merge the two in normal conversation can be fascinating to observe.By being conscious and actively working to keep feelings and thoughts distinct, one can have a better relationship with their emotions, and improve communication overall.

Figure 15 :
Figure 15: Relationships Sponsored By The Number 3 Map.

Table 1 .
Frameworks tend to have high resource, time, or learning costs... Jigs are easy to learn, requiring fewer resources to use.They are 'bite sized' and can be learned in a few minutes.Developing skills with jigs provides the right tool for the job. .Rather than being invented, Jigs are discovered.Many newly discovered Jigs have been in use for thousands of years without having been identified.While the number of known jigs (currently 44) may grow, unlike frameworks, the total is likely in the hundreds, not infinite.Dimensions of Difference Between Frameworks and Jigs.
ConflictFrameworks have a tendency to be all-or-nothing... Jigs are additive.Learning a new jig doesn't require getting rid of an older one.Shoehorning BiasFrameworks can often bias the situation or the way the problem is framed (sometimes limiting the solution set)...Jigs are small and modular so they can mix and match to create on-the-fly frameworks that fit the problem (i.e., model fits problem rather than problem fits model).Jigs are not paradigmatic.They do not require paradigmatic, philosophical, or epistemological 'buy in' prior to their use.Jigs are ultimately pragmatic tools with little 'excess epistemic baggage.' Bulk (weight) Some frameworks are heavy, overengineered, and cumbersome....Jigs are simple and easy to use.Growth algorithmThere is an incentive for the number of frameworks to multiply and Jigs are a relatively finite set for which membership is governed by a strict compete (causing solos and warring camps)... definition ]: identity-other Distinctions Rule: Any idea or thing can be distinguished from the other ideas or things it is with; part-whole Systems Rule: Any idea or thing can be split into parts or lumped into a whole; action-reaction Relationships Rule: Any idea or thing can relate to other things or ideas; and point-view Perspectives Rule: Any thing or idea can be the point or the view of a perspective.
D := (i↔o)A Distinction (D) is defined as identity (i) co-implying an other (o) Table of Known Jigs.

Table 3 .
Table 3 lists the elements of the DSRP Scripting grammar.Each of the elements of DSRP Script can be combined to form various structural operations.Dimensions of Difference Between Frameworks and Jigs.
(2)le of Known Jigs and how the Atomic No., CAR No., and Structural Mapis created for the Analogy Jig.For example, (1) the structural map can be read as follows: 'Two systems...each made up of two related parts...are themselves related by the specific relation 'is like'.'(2)Inorder to identify the CAR number, one merely counts the elements of the analogy jig's structure revealing that there are 9 structures, and only one of which is content-specified.So the CAR number is 8/9ths or 0.89.(3)Likewise, the Atomic Number can be ascertained by counting up the explicit (visible) instances of Ds, Ss, Rs, and Ps.We see in the Analogy Jig that there are visible Ds, Ss, and Ps, but no visible Ps.Thus, the Atomic Number of the Analogy Jig is DSR/DSRP or 3/4.Another example will perhaps further elaborate how the structural mapping works.A P-circle Jig identifies any number of Perspectives on any given situation, phenomenon, or system.The structural formula for P-Circle Jig is s [○] [○]. ..*□.This structure elucidates that a P-Circle Jig involves two or more distinctions that are acting as points-of-view ([○][○]

Table 4 .
Glossary of Known Jigs Much has been written about frameworks of various kinds, from system dynamics to SWOT.Indeed, most of the Chapters herein deal with an individual framework.So we will not attempt in this limited space to review frameworks per se.But, we do want to reiterate what leads to something being a framework.Frameworks are compound structures with relatively high content-specificity.In other words, if removing the content (and keeping the structure) of a mental model makes it effectively meaningless (or no longer that mental model), then it is a framework.With this relatively new formulation, we can see that the number of things that could be classified as frameworks grows exponentially.Most, if not all, of what was included in the MFS Universe is included.Likewise, all the frameworks from other fields and disciplines such as SWOT are included.Indeed, most of what we call human knowledge across the disciplines is included.Figure This slider can be particularly helpful with negative reactions one has to certain stimuli.For example, if you were told right before you walked into a room of 20 people that all of those people think that you're an idiot, that they hate you, and they're going to attack you, what might be some of the behaviors you're going to see based on that mental model?You'd be nervous, anxious, insecure, defensive... all those are predictable behaviors.But, iIf you walk into any room and you feel nervous, apprehensive, anxious, it might be because someone, namely you, is telling yourself those types of things before you walk into that room.Being aware, or metacognitive, about the connection between what we think (mental models) and what we do (behavior) allows one to know themselves.This slider can be approached from both sides of the fence.In other words, if you understand what the mental model is, then you can predict what the related behavior is going to be.Conversely, if you understand what the behavior is or has been, then you can backward design to determine what the mental model behind that behavior must be.One could hypothesize what that mental model that led to a certain behavior probably looks like.Therefore, a behavior is a good indicator of a mental model and a mental model plays itself out in real life as a behavior.