What does ‘Synthesis’ Even Mean?
Noise: Structure makes ideas insightful
This essay was written as a part of a collaborative exercise with fellow writers in the Delhi NCR Substack group. Links to their essays are at the end of the article.
Credit to Abhishek Singh for organising.
Synthesis is the unlikely marriage between two differing ideas. Persephone and Hades. Thesis and Antithesis. We want Spring but we also have Death. Synthesising merges a POV with drawbacks, to draw out something insightful from the fruits of information.
The challenge is that it is easier to summarize. Summarizing doesn’t need an introduction. We’ve been writing summaries for a long time. School reports. CVs. 5-paragraph essays. The focus is on stuffing as much info as possible, but without any real structure.
Without structure, most summaries and information just boils up to noise. Cacaphonous. Zero rhythm. Saying everything, but nothing in the process. A good example is the news for me. I cannot read/listen to the news without questioning the choice. When I was younger I would crack open the morning newspaper and immediately read about the Syrian conflict, as a debate kid wanting to improve his general knowledge. But every morning, I’d crumple up the paper in disgust, after staring at cartoonish images of Assad with bloody knives.
Insightful, it was not.
Summary is being that guy in the bar, ranting verbatim different books he read in class in Good Will Hunting. But then Will comes in and say his lines. In effect, it’s just spitting out words pretending the ideas are yours. But they aren’t. And that’s the shame of it all.
Synthesis on the other hand, is building something with the bricks. A foundation. A room. A house. It gives texturing and layers to the bricks that goes beyond what the bricks individually can be.
What can this look like?
When I start a new project at work, I need to write Concept Notes to make sense of a new topic I’m reading. For instance, in the carbon capture space, I didn’t have the first clue. Threading water in a sea of literature reviews, white papers and reports, I was going to drown. My solution was simple, I wrote a structure to help me.
First, we start with preparing the table, setting the context.
I. <What question am I trying to answer?>
E.g. What is the project concept route I will take in the carbon capture space?
II. <Why is this decision important? What is the goal?>
E.g. If I choose the right concept, it will become a potential proposal that wins millions in funding.
III. <What constraints should I keep in mind?>
E.g. I only focus on the capture angle in this project. I would not look at the utlisation or storage areas of this discipline.
Second, we figure out the meat of this structure.
III. <Why do I need a synthesis on this topic? What is the problem to solve?>
E.g. There is too much carbon in the air. But it’s unclear what routes are there to identify and solve in this space. It’s also unclear what is the metric measured and status quo today?
After this, it can vary depending on the topic. This is where first principles/structured thinking help with developing deeper questions tailored to the problem. With these questions, you are effectively building a potential storyline.
Once you have these questions, assuming you have found the right information, there is one piece to acknowledge: you cannot cover everything.
A synthesis, unlike a summary, cannot include every piece of info. Only what is most relevant to the question and problem to solve. This helps scope out irrelevant information and focus on the insight.
But the next step is to look at how synthesis is also textured. Meaning, how does it use opposing ideas in the process. That’s for another piece.
Do check out other Delhi-based writers with their pieces on this theme