How do we differ in how we think?

Introduction

I am on a constant journey to discover more about how we think. The other day a good friend and I were talking about people and how some of them do not seem to have the ability to abstractly reason. We came up with a metaphor for these folks. We likened our desire to have others abstractly reason with us, to that of having a light bulb that we were trying to screw in. From there, it followed that those without the ability to abstractly reason, not only do not have a light socket where this bulb could fit, they don’t have any of the wirings that would be necessary for a house to power such a device. 

It was from here that my friend mentioned a term that I had never heard before. He spoke about a spectrum upon which folks sat, and were some combination of a “Concrete Sequential” and a “Random Romantic”. To me, these terms “clicked” almost immediately. He then went onto explain a bit that a concrete sequential needs a tremendous amount of structure and order to think. They do not make the leap that is necessary to understand a joke. Their lives are black and white. The random romantic, on the other hand, is the complete opposite. This antithesis is someone who enjoys spontaneity and play. They do not prosper in a rigid structure or dictatorial hierarchy. He went onto mention that either of the two extremes would be a miserable place to be, but we are all some combination of the two.

Well, this was shop talk (literally, we were sitting in a lab). I knew this was armchair philosophy at its best, but my curious mind thought perhaps there was some basis behind these terms. I asked my friend where he had heard such words, and he replied: “I’m not sure.” That told me someone told him and someone had told that person, etc. I thought that there was probably a starting point for this idea. So, with the power vested in me, by the infinite wellspring of knowledge that we call the internet, I went to work. It only took me about five minutes to find out that there was a gentleman by the name of Anthony F. Gregorc, Ph. D., who in 1969 began to work on what is now called “Mind Styles”. This “...model provides an organized way to consider how the mind works.”

Where we are

I introduced the idea of cognitive blindness in an earlier article. “Cognitive blindness is the inability to understand something due to the lack of a precept of knowledge, understanding, or belief in a necessary fundamental concept.” I am always personally fascinated by phenomena such as Cognitive Blindness because I know that in my life, when I learn things that profoundly affect the way that I view the world, my thinking is forever changed. 

I also know that “[t]he quality of everything we do depends on the quality of the thinking we do first,” according to Nancy Kline. This concept is essential because if I do not know something - say a way of dealing with a particular challenge - when I face that, I will simply muddle through. If, however, I have a tool that allows me to look upon the world in a certain way and then to act in an improved manner, to me, that is of the utmost value.

As a thinker, it is critical that I at least superficially understand how we think. If I can do this to a degree, then it helps me to act appropriately when I am facing certain situations. Take, for example, in the first metaphor. Because I was unaware that different people have different “mind styles”, perhaps my initial conclusions that folks who do not have abstract reasoning skills are somehow less than myself. I only draw this conclusion out of ignorance and self-indulgence because I enjoy abstract reasoning. When the other person cannot hangout there with me, I judge it as not being as fulfilling or enjoyable as if they could. This idea, to me, is cognitive blindness at it’s best. 

Where we want to go

My goal in life and with this blog, in general, is to explore new knowledge that might help us orient better in the world. It makes sense to me that when we lack the precept knowledge, we can jump to conclusions that are incorrect at best. If we allow ourselves to be okay with not knowing, yet continue to seek different viewpoints on the world, it makes sense to me that this process will enrich us. 

I think that we all have a lens through which we view the world. The color, shape, and texture of this lens will affect how we see our surroundings. This filter, if you will, provides us feedback from the world. If there are many flaws in the lens, we cannot function properly. I am thinking the more knowledge that we gain, the more patience that we have, and the more willing we are to be okay with uncertainty, the more we will polish our lenses. Now, for the sake of new knowledge, let us look into what I found when I did an internet search on “Concrete Sequentials”. 

How to get from where we are to where we want to go

I am entirely enthralled in psychological theories because, in my mind’s eye, these can become excellent tools for navigating this life. Dr. Anthony Gregorc has come up with “Mind Styles,” which is a systematic approach to understanding how the mind works. Now, I’m thinking that like with anything that has labels, those are absolutes. When we have absolutes, they are the extreme ends of a spectrum. What we have in real life are many spectrums, with us as individuals existing somewhere along the axis. 

Now, superficially, “Mind Styles” seeks to divide humans into four categories of thinking. The primary extremes of the spectrum here are: Concrete Sequential, Abstract Random, Abstract Sequential, and Concrete Random. I’m thinking my friend was speaking of Concrete Sequentials and Abstract Randoms instead of Random Romantics.

It might behoove us to break these terms down to understand what they mean. The first two terms, “Concrete” and “Abstract,” have to do with our perceptual tendencies. Someone who is “Concrete” deals in the here and now, with little meaning attached to a real situation. On the other hand, someone who is “Abstract” tends toward thinking about connotations, ideas, and concepts that are not necessarily seen in the physical world. The second two terms, “Sequential” and “Random” relate to our ability to order our thoughts and resultant actions. Someone who is “Sequential” generally likes a plan and wants to stick to it in an ordered fashion. The “Random” person is juxtaposed and tends more toward an impulsive or spontaneous way of carrying out tasks; for example, starting in the middle of, or skipping steps yet will yield a similar result to someone who is “Sequential.” 

Now, of course, things get a bit more complicated when we start to combine these terms. Because we have two sets of two words, there are eight possibilities, as stated earlier. I am no better at saying the different types of thinking than Dr. Anthony Gregorc himself, so here follows a table that was reproduced from his website:

https://web.cortland.edu/andersmd/learning/gregorc.htm

It’s interesting to me that the conversation my friend and I had was seemingly about “Concrete Sequentials” and “Abstract Random.” What we know from introducing these terms earlier is that these seem to be juxtaposed. Of course, “Concrete Random” and “Abstract Sequential” stand as extremes as well. In the case of my friend and I speaking of abstract reasoning, this seems relevant. A couple of ideas come to my mind. 

The first is the theory of “Personal Epistemology” which I speak about frequently. This concept is how people form their truths and values. This also exists on a spectrum. Some folks have a very simple view of the world. They see things as black and white, good or bad, right and wrong. Then there are those who live in shades of gray. This is to say that everything is contextual and they are alright with uncertainty. I’m thinking “Concrete Sequentials” and “Abstract Randoms” appear to be at the two ends of this epistemological spectrum.

The other idea I have is cast in the light of Jordan Peterson (big surprise, right?). Peterson speaks about the human ability to face chaos, or the unknown, to take something from that and to manifest it into something known or orderly. He talks about the yin and the yang here. The black and white represent chaos and order. The line in between illustrates where humans optimally sit to face chaos, and create order. If we encounter too much chaos, we are overwhelmed and flee. If we meet the right amount, we grow and become stronger. It seems to me however that “Concrete Sequentials” crave an environment that shelters, or buffers them from this world of chaos. I think the “Abstract Randoms” are the folks who tend to follow the Hero’s Journey, as they seem to be the more okay with facing less structured and more unknown environments. 

What that journey means

After reading about this theory of how the mind works, I have realized that the conclusions my friend and I drew were not entirely correct. What I realized is that we were hanging out in a metaphorical house, with light bulbs in our hands. Other people’s genius could have been waiting for someone to come in with an electronic device that has a standard wall plug. What I’m saying is that if we are spending time with someone, and we try to jam a light bulb into a wall outlet, then we might think they are inept in some way. I’ve mentioned one of my favorite quotes by Alan Watts in the article “The Doer’s Dilemma” that illustrates our collective misunderstanding of people’s strengths: 

“Kindly let me help you, or you will drown,” said the monkey putting the fish safely up a tree.

It seems that through listening, patience, and understanding, we can realize that each of us has a different learning style. If someone does not have the hardware for abstract reasoning, that is okay. They excel in environments that those of us who live in the abstract cannot tolerate, let alone thrive within. I’m not suggesting that we should be friends with or in a relationship with those who are not a good fit for us. However, if we begin to understand the differences between people, I’m thinking that we can start to benefit from every human interaction instead of writing someone off as a poor performing monkey when their whole life they were a fish.