#types of thinking

By Linda Fisher Thornton The first post in this series, “The Missing Domain: Ethical Thinking (Part 1)” explored WHY leaders need to fill the gap and help people develop ethical thinking. This post will begin to unravel HOW to do that. I included this guidance on ethical thinking in a previous post: Ethical thinking means we never lose sight of our positive purpose. We choose to be the sum of…

We each have a unique perspective or way of viewing information and situations. While no two people think the exact same way the differences can be summarized in different styles or types of thinking. There are many different styles of thinking and most people are a combination of several of them. The types of thinking can be viewed on several spectrums such as concrete to abstract thinking.…

In this article we will explore the 7 most common types of thinking:

Creative thinking

Analytical thinking

Critical thinking

Concrete thinking

Abstract thinking

Divergent thinking

Convergent thinking

In a recent study, Beeman and Kounios followed people’s gazes as they attempted to solve what’s called the remote-associates test, in which the subject is given a series of words, like “pine,” “crab,” and “sauce,” and has to think of a single word that can logically be paired with all of them. They wanted to see if the direction of a person’s eyes and her rate of blinking could shed light on her approach and on her likelihood of success. It turned out that if the subject looked directly at a word and focussed on it—that is, blinked less frequently, signalling a higher degree of close attention—she was more likely to be thinking in an analytical, convergent fashion, going through possibilities that made sense and systematically discarding those that didn’t. If she looked at “pine,” say, she might be thinking of words like “tree,” “cone,” and “needle,” then testing each option to see if it fit with the other words. When the subject stopped looking at any specific word, either by moving her eyes or by blinking, she was more likely to think of broader, more abstract associations. That is a more insight-oriented approach. “You need to learn not just to stare but to look outside your focus,” Beeman says. (The solution to this remote-associates test: “apple.”)

As it turns out, by simply following someone’s eyes and measuring her blinks and fixation times (how long she looks at something before either looking away or closing her eyes), Beeman’s group can predict how someone will likely solve a problem and when she is nearing that solution. Although that’s not an entirely new ability—the study replicates earlier work that relied on fMRI and EEG, which found similar patterns and showed that both the moment of insight and the preparatory phases are marked by distinct neural patterns, and it builds on a 2012 study of attention and verbal problem solving—it’s a more easily observable and potentially trainable approach. “This is less anatomical, but it’s more directly linked to attention,” Beeman says. “Your state of attention both before you get a problem and when you’re solving it matters.”

Nihilist- Nothing is true and nothing is permitted

Religious individual- Everything is true and everything is permitted

Scientist- Everything is true and nothing is permitted