critical considering process essential thinking
Excerpt from Thesis:
some. Abstract sequential thought
The next category is often referred to as this sequential style of thinking. This can be essentially a mix of the two considering styles discussed above. This kind of thinking is likely to view the universe on conditions of much larger concepts and situations, and it is prone to assumptive considerations. However , this form of thinking as well makes use of common sense and purpose to organize the concepts, generalizations and abstract thoughts. This kind of style makes it easy for these thinkers to inches zoom in on precisely important, including key points and significant particulars. Their considering processes happen to be logical, rational and intellectual” (Four Types Of Considering Style, para. 8)
5. Workplace examples
The most common work environment example of rational and continuous thinking within an organization or perhaps business can be inventory or stock choosing. The decision to obtain more stock is a result of a logical and realistic analysis with the amount of stock exceptional and the volume needed to make certain that future requests or buyer needs will be met. This really is a simple process of organizing information using a thought process or style that is goal and logical and which can be obviously relevant to the initial category of concrete floor sequential considering discussed above.
However , if perhaps some of the share has been stolen then various other thinking style may be required to deal with the problem. The rational and realistic sequential function of believed can also be used to ascertain facts – such as who had been in the shop in the time the robbery and other rational details that might lead to a simple solution to the issue.
At the same time even more abstract and intuitive ways of thought might also be used. The manager might use unique abstract considered to create a bigger picture of the situation to be able to determine who have might be one of the most likely believe to steal through the store. This might, for example , require abstracting particular personal features of the staff and relating them to earlier misdemeanors and offences. Basically, the abstract design of thought may help to motivate an user-friendly response to the case and in isolating the culprit.
Using the third style of thought, fuzy sequential believed, and the director of the store might employ both subjective thinking and logic to make a profile of the most likely person to have thieved from the retail outlet. Random summary thinking could be used in a intuitive level to gauge the subjective feelings of other members of the staff as to the possible culprit. However , these feelings and feelings should be considered up against the rational and logical function of thought so as to steer clear of accusing one person on the basis of thoughts or thoughts alone.
To conclude, as has been suggested to sum up analysis, very often these 3 different types of pondering can be used together to deal with a certain problem or question. Put simply, different considering styles are not necessarily mutually exclusive and can be utilized interactively. Concurrently it is important to comprehend that several individuals will vary thinking predilections and styles that suit their personality and brain structure. Those who are more left-brained is going to tend to truly feel more comfortable with logical and rational thinking style, when a right- brained person will usually become more inclined to holistic and abstract varieties of thinking.
CS: Tangible Sequential. Retrieved July 40, 2009, coming from http://www.cgribben.com/psych/cs.html
4 Types Of Thinking Style. Retrieved Come july 1st 30, 2009, from http://lrobertson.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/wk-2-four-types-of-thinking-style.doc
Learning Designs. ‘Gregoric Learning Styles’, section 5. Retrieved July 31, 2009, from http://www.ware.k12.ga.us/superintendent/08-09%20Goal%20Presentations/Curriculum/Learning%20Styles.pdf
UNDERSTANDING DIFFERENT PONDERING STYLES. Recovered July 30, 2009, from http://www.humanlinks.com/orgsn/thinking_styles.htm