Cognitive information architecture #

AKA internalized contextualization and sense-making #

We each of us keep information architectures in mind all the time. They help us frame what we’re experiencing in the moment, provide a way to shortcut conversations and know what behavioral expectations are in place.

We don’t act the same way with our spouse and with our coworkers, and with our doctors, or the police. We don’t lean into the same ideas with our spiritual community as we do with our coworkers, unless they happen to be the same or very strongly intertwingled.

Every time we switch gears — whether what we’re doing, who we’re talking with, or even, sometimes, just the project we’re talking about with most of the same people we were in a meeting with half an hour ago — we’re changing information architectures.

I’m writing about the mental tooling of information architecture in a book describing information architecture, and predicated on information architecture. There is a part of me that wants to say something along the lines of, “please refer to the book in your hands for the basics of said subject.” Yet it's not that simple. These are concepts that are both highly abstract and yet we're swimming through them every moment.

That’s part of it. But there’s more to it than even what has been this book so far. 

We make sense of our world. Each one of us spends a certain amount of time and thinking to suss out our lives. It varies; in time, effort, results, critical thinking, nuance, and all the everything that goes into every human moment: it varies. 

We are none of us the same in the details. We gather into similarities in cultures, and what those similarities are often define the culture to outsiders. The rank arrogance of this book: that we do have informational tendencies on the species level, and they are important. My hubris is that I've modeled them.

When we make our mental models, we’re using information architecture on an ad hoc basis. 

As we form our cognitive biases, we’re constructing sluiceways through our personal information architecture. 

As we develop the core precepts by which we live, we’re forming gravitational nodes of information architectures. 

It’s not something we, as intelligent creatures, put aside. Ever. 

So, there is the information architecture in your mind. Several amongst your relationships. Another few sets to deal with our government and laws. Probably every business with which you exchange money; ordering, payment, shipment usually work as a waterfall process, with each business slightly tweaking the order, and some putting more effort into smoothing the transition. Another set with religion and community. Another architecture with every media architecture and show, movie, or book ingested.

Part of the glory of Game of Thrones was the utter brilliance of George RR Martin’s information architecture. He was able to present a truly complex information architecture with nuance, grace, and cohesion, all while making it accessible. I can’t match him — I have a terrible time keeping myself from dancing with words and juxtaposition to relate more nuanced meaning and wind up creating obnoxious sentences like this, that I also absolutely delight in. With Game of Thrones, I watched in glee as everyone reveled in the sheer joy of experiencing the edge of information overload but keeping up. The simplicity of his writing shined as I read along (because, being me, I wanted to compare the architectures of the stories as they shifted between book and show format). The behavioral approachability of the characters in the show was how that was translated — every single actor superbly managing their aspect of the architecture.

We don’t all have to geek out about information architecture. But it’s there, in everyone. It’s a plebeian tool, prone to grace — especially when we pay attention to it instead of letting it build into "fate". Fate can be manipulated by our bad actors.