#thinking styles

Here is a theory that may help you with character development.

The theory of mental self-government holds that styles of thinking can be understood in terms of constructs from our notions of government.

On this view, the kinds of governments we have in the world are not merely coincidental, but rather are external reflections or mirrors of ways in which we can organize or govern ourselves.

According to this theory, people can be understood in terms of the functions, forms, levels, scope, and leanings of government. 

People do not exhibit just one style or another, but they do have preferences across various kinds of tasks and situations.

Functions

There are 3 functions of government in this theory:

Legislative. The legislatively oriented student has a predilection for tasks, projects, and situations that require creation, formulation, planning of ideas, strategies, products, and the like. This kind of individual likes to decide what to do and how to do it, rather than to be told.

Executive. The executively oriented individual has a predilection for tasks, projects, and situations that provide structure, procedures, or rules to work with, and that, although modifiable, can serve as guidelines to measure progress. Whereas the legislatively oriented individual likes to decide what to and how to do it, the executively oriented student will often prefer to be told what to do, and will then give it his or her best shot at doing it well.

Judicial. The judicially oriented individual has a predilection for tasks, projects, and situations that require evaluation, analysis, comparison–contrast, and judgment of existing ideas, strategies, projects, and the like. This individual tends to be evaluative of others, sometimes on the basis of minimal information.

Forms

There are 4 different forms of mental self-government in this theory:

Monarchic. The monarchic individual has a predilection for tasks, projects, and situations that allow complete focus on one thing or aspect at a time until it is complete. A monarchically oriented individual is single-minded and often driven, and likes to finish one thing before moving on to the next.

Hierarchic. The hierarchic individual has a predilection for tasks, projects, and situations that allow creation of a hierarchy of goals to fulfill. This individual likes to do multiple things in a given time frame, but assigns differential priorities for getting them done. Hierarchic people tend to be adaptive in many settings where it is necessary to set priorities for getting certain things done before others, or where it is necessary to decide that some things are more worthy of attention than are others.

Oligarchic. The oligarchic individual has a predilection for tasks, projects, and situations that allow working with competing approaches, with multiple aspects or goals that are equally important. This individual, like the hierarchically oriented one, likes to do multiple things within a given time frame, but has trouble setting priorities for which to get done when. The oligarchically oriented individual thus adapts well if the competing demands are of roughly equal priority, but has more trouble if the things are of different priorities.

Anarchic. The anarchic individual has a predilection for tasks, projects, and situations that lend themselves to great flexibility of approaches, and to trying anything when, where, and how he or she pleases. This individual tends to be asystematic or even antisystematic. The individual tends to take a random approach to problems, and is sometimes difficult for other people to understand.

Levels

There are 2 levels of mental self-government:

Local. The local individual has a predilection for tasks, projects, and situations that require engagement with specific, concrete details. This individual likes to work with the nitty-gritty, but may lose the forest for the trees. Individuals displaying this style tend to enjoy tasks that require them to keep track of details and focus on concrete specifics of a situation.

Global. The global individual has a predilection for tasks, projects, and situations that require engagement with large, global, abstract ideas. This individual likes to deal with big ideas, but sometimes can lose touch with the details—the individual may see the forest but lose track of the trees. People employing this style enjoy tasks that encourage them to think about major ideas and not have to worry about details.

Scope

There are 2 scopes of mental self-government:

Internal. The internal individual has a predilection for tasks, projects, and situations that require activities that allow one to work independently of others. This individual prefers to work alone, is typically introverted, and is often uncomfortable in groups.

External. The external individual has a predilection for tasks, projects, and situations that allow working with others in a group or interacting with others at different stages of progress. This individual prefers to work with others, is typically extraverted, and is very comfortable in group settings.

Leanings

There are 2 leanings of mental self-government:

Liberal. The liberal individual has a predilection for tasks, projects, and situations that involve unfamiliarity, going beyond existing rules or procedures, and maximization of change. Sometimes the individual may prefer change simply for the sake of change, even when it is not ideal. People displaying a liberal style like new challenges and thrive on ambiguity.

Conservative. The conservative individual has a predilection for tasks, projects, and situations that require adherence to existing rules and procedures. This individual likes to minimize change and avoid ambiguity.

Navigating the Spectrum: A Journey into Autistic Creativity Challenging the Narrative In the realm of autism, a common misconception prevails—autistics are often perceived as lacking creativity and imagination. This notion, dating back to the ’90s, has permeated research, influencing diagnostic criteria and societal perceptions. In this exploration, we debunk these misconceptions, shedding…

Twitter: Adam Grant

What Makes Some People Creative Thinkers and Others Analytical

A new brain-imaging study reveals that the different "cognitive styles" of creative and analytical thinkers are due to fundamental differences in their brain activity that can be observed even when people are not working on a problem.

These findings suggest new directions for the development of neuroscience-based methods for intellectual, educational and vocational assessment and counselling.

I’m coming back on May 1 with quite a few queued posts and possibly some real-time posts on that particular day. I’ll respond to some of the reblogs but I don’t want to stay for long, if any of you don’t mind. Anyway, I wanted to come on here for one particular post after I got interested in what a website called learning-minds.com had to say about thinking styles.

Some of these will sound just like some MBTI types, so be willing to share what your type is and which thinking style you identify with the most, the least, and the second most. I will not be responding to anyone until May 1, but I decided to write this post for today just to share it with you guys.

Synthesist Thinkers

·         Curious and creative

·         Tend not to think in logical, linear ways

o   Sees connections between things

·         Delight in finding relationships in things which, to others, have no apparent connection

·         Tangents and “what if” questions

·         Seen as argumentative

o   Are actually looking at and analyzing a range of different views and ideas

·         Thought patterns seem somewhat disjointed

·         If you are a synthesist:

o   Acknowledge the value of others’ ideas before discussing alternatives

·         If you work with a synthesist:

o   Understand they’re not trying to be argumentative but simply can’t help looking at problems from different angles

Idealist Thinkers

·         High standards and big goals

·         May be seen as perfectionists but are trying to achieve the highest quality they can in everything they do

·         Broad, holistic view of things; future-oriented

·         Value cooperation and teamwork

o   Will work hard to bring a team together and help everyone achieve their best

·         If you are an idealist:

o   Understand that everyone doesn’t have such high standards as you

o   Try not to get upset when people fail to achieve your (sometimes unrealistic) expectations

·         If you work for an idealist:

o   It can help you strive to be the very best you can

o   Also means your opinions will be listened to and valued

o   Can also rely on them to be honest and to live up to high moral standards

§  You can trust them and always know they will be honest with you

Pragmatic Thinkers

·         Focused on action

·         Like to tackle problems logically, one step at a time; prefer to make progress on one task at a time

·         Like to get things done and their approach is often flexible and adaptable

·         Not interested in why things happen or big picture problems as their idealist colleagues

·         Short-term perspective

·         If you are a pragmatist:

o   Occasionally view things from a wider viewpoint and take in the bigger picture

§  Help you understand where your actions are leading and ensure you are headed in the right direction

·         If you work with a pragmatist:

o   Try to keep to the subject at hand

§  Wandering off into big ideas and long-term planning may overwhelm them and they could give up altogether

Analyst Thinker

·         Like to work with measurable facts in a methodical way

·         Love facts and data, measuring and categorizing

·         Pay attention to detail and are thorough and accurate

·         Prefer predictability and rationality

o   Will look for a method, a formula, or procedure to solve a particular problem

·         If you are an analyst thinker:

o   You will do everything thoroughly and accurately

o   You may dismiss others whose attention to detail is not so good

o   People’s ideas are valuable even if their work is not quite as accurate as yours

·         If you work with an analyst:

·         Double check anything you show them for accuracy otherwise you risk losing their respect

·         Try to be logical and always present a plan for new ideas as they can grasp the concept better than if you just give them ideas

Realist Thinkers

·         Make great problems solvers

·         Think through problems quickly and act on the results to fix whatever is wrong

·         Become easily bored

o   Don’t find themselves challenged by run-of-the-mill issues, preferring to get their teeth into bigger problems

·         May appear too results-oriented

·         If you are a realist:

o   Pause every now and then

o   The first solution is not always the best and sometimes you need to take in a bit more information before assessing the situation and coming up with a plan

·         If you work with a realist:

o   Learn to get to the point quickly

§  Summarize the problem; don’t overload them with details

Putting the thinking styles to good use

For most people, one or two of these thinking styles dominate. However, fifteen percent of the population use all five thinking styles at some point. (OP here: I use four with my top two being Synthesist and, possibly, Pragmatist; if not, then Synthesist and Analyst. I identify the least with Idealist.)

2/2 and I was very far behind the other students in that area? I was wondering if this could be autism related? I have suspected that I am somewhere on the spectrum for a while (not just for that reason) and I haven’t been able to find any other reason why I seem to be unable to write. I am also unsure of how I should address this if I go to college, it seems you are expected to be able to write at a pretty high level and I am nowhere near that. Any advice would be great. Thanks!

Developmental delays are common with autism, so this may be related to that.  Being unable to discuss your feelings in writing could also be related to alexithymia.

How important writing will be in college is honestly going to depend a lot on what you study and what the gen ed requirements are at your school.

For example, my degree is in math.  The writing in my math classes was almost exclusively writing proofs, which is a very different type of writing than essays.  My school did require two “W” classes that focused on writing, as well as an introductory English class, but there was also a writing lab available on campus that was free for students to use and where you could go to get support with your writing if you were having difficulty.  It may be worthwhile to look into what the requirements are and what supports are available at the schools you’re thinking of applying to.

When looking at gen ed courses, you can probably find a lot of information about how much writing a particular professor expects from talking to other students or using sites like ratemyprofessor.

Followers, any other advice?

-Liz

In addition to what Liz said, it also seems to be common to have a way of thinking that may not center around or consist of words or language. Many autistic people report feeling as though they have to “convert” or “translate” their thoughts before being able to express themselves using words / language, finding other means of expression to feel more natural (i.e. art, music, numbers, movement etc.).

Exploring the Diverse Cognitive Patterns in Autism Renowned author and autism advocate, Temple Grandin, identifies three distinct cognitive types within the autistic spectrum: Visual Thinkers Verbal/Logic Thinkers Music and Math (‘Pattern’) Thinkers Grandin emphasizes that individuals may exhibit a mix of these thinking styles, contributing to the unique cognitive landscape within the…

I've always known I have a tendency to think a lot; I think my way through problems, I think about all the possible outcomes of a situation I'm worried about, I think about all the things I want to do with my life and haven't, I think about all the mistakes I've made and how I could've done things differently, I think about why I am the way I am.  Yes, it IS exhausting!!

Of course, it's one of those chicken-and-egg-scenarios as to which came first; did I become an anxious person because I analyse everything, or was I an anxious person who figured the best way to deal with things was by analysing everything to death? 

And therein lies the main problem with being this way; I'm now analysing why I analyse!!  By trying to work out how I became this way, I'm putting all those cogs in motion again, tying myself in knots; the difference now is that I ask myself, "What is the purpose of this?  Do I have to gain anything by analysing it?".  The answer is so often "No - it's pointless". 

That's one of the greatest lessons I've learned; it's all very well being analytical, but I don't actually solve anything or feel any better by thinking it through.