Mercurial Hosting > go2

<html>

<!-- Mirrored from users.eniinternet.com/bradleym/RDMCh1.html by HTTrack Website Copier/3.x [XR&CO'2014], Sun, 06 Nov 2022 06:59:17 GMT -->
<head>
	<title> Reasoning And Decision Making - Milton N. Bradley</title>
<link rel="stylesheet" href="style1.css">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#E0FFFF">
<a name="top"></a>
	<center><br><br>
						<font class="booktitle">
							Reasoning And Decision Making</font>						</font>
						<br><br>
						<h1>

						<font class="chaptitle">
						&copy; Milton N. Bradley 2010</font>
						<hr></h1></center>
						<br><br>


			<center><a name="Chapter1"></a>
			<font class="chaptitle">
				<strong>Chapter 1 - Thought And Its Impediments</strong>
			</font><br>

			</center>
			<font size=3>
			<br><br><br>
			Before we can logically begin the exploration of our reasoning processes and then develop the desired techniques for decision making/problem solving, it is first necessary that we obtain at least a minimal understanding of the substrate
                                                       upon which that structure will be built - our thought processes.
                                                      <br><br>
                                                      What goes on inside our heads is  the major factor that defines not only our generic humanness, but also our individual personality and ability to relate to the complex world into which we are born and shaped. Yet despite the central
                                                      importance of this function in every aspect of our lives few of us have ever examined or thought deeply about it, so the brief exploration we are about to engage in will undoubtedly prove both illuminating and (quite possibly) unsettling to at least some of you.
                                                      <br><br>

<strong>The Structure Of Thought</strong>
<br><br>
<strong>Focus</strong><br>
<OL type = DISC>

<LI>
The mundane details of everyday life (eating, sleeping, socializing, sex, chores, etc.) <br>
<LI>
People<br>
<LI>
Things<br>
<LI>
Events<br>
<LI>
Ideas<br>
<LI>
Problems

<br><br>
</OL>
<strong>Content</strong><br>
<OL type = DISC>
<LI>
Daydreaming<br>
<LI>
Communicating<br>
<LI>
Observing/Learning<br>
<LI>
Rationalizing<br>

<LI>
Critical Thinking<br>
<LI>
Innovating/Creating<br><br>
</OL>

<strong>Decision Making/Problem Solving</strong><br><br>

<strong>Patterns (Styles)</strong>
<OL type = DISC>
<LI>
Emotional<br>

<LI>
Pragmatic<br>
<LI>
Experiential<br>
<LI>
Strategic<br><br>
</OL>
<strong>Thinking Style “Dimensions”</strong><br><br>

Psychologists have developed a somewhat different way than the foregoing of categorizing Thinking Styles into 26 “Dimensions”, which describe the individual’s cognitive and linguistic preferences and level of flexibility in their application.
These are major factors in determining how the individual will respond in any particular situation, but they do not measure thinking ability, nor are they a measure of “intelligence”. Everyone utilizes most or even all of these dimensions to greater or lesser degree, but people differ significantly in which are dominant in their individual thinking and actions.<br><br>

<strong>Thinking Style Dimension Structure</strong><br><br>

<strong>Each dimension can be identified by the:<br>
<OL type = DISC>
<LI>
Specific language patterns used<br>
<LI>
Associated behaviors</strong><br><br>
</OL>
<strong>The 26 thinking style dimensions can be conceptually divided into 3 major groups:</strong><br><br>

<strong>Sensory Focused:</strong> Describes the way the individual prefers to receive information.<br><br>

<OL type = DISC>
<LI>
<strong>Visual:</strong> Emphasizes the use of pictures, diagrams, and visual imagery.<br>
<LI>
<strong>Auditory:</strong> Focuses on the use of words and language, especially involving listening and “talking things through”.<br>
<LI>
<strong>Kinesthetic</strong> Dominated by feelings, emotions, intuition, and physical activity.<br>
<LI>

<strong>Digital:</strong> Focuses on the facts, and/or the use of data and statistics.<br><br>
</OL>
<strong>People Focused: Explores the way the individual interacts with others.</strong><br><br>
<OL type = DISC>
<LI>
<strong>Internal:</strong> Relies primarily on the individual’s own judgements & standards, believes oneself to be right, tends to ignore feedback.<br>
<LI>
<strong>External:</strong> Relies largely on feedback from others, believes that others are right.<br>

<LI>
<strong>Self referenced:</strong> Puts own needs first and ignores the needs of others.<br>
<LI>
<strong>Others referenced:</strong> Responsive to the needs of others.<br>
<LI>
<strong>Matching:</strong> Wants to fit in, dislikes confrontation, and takes a non-challenging approach.<br>
<LI>
<strong>Mismatching:</strong>Dislikes being told what to do, will challenge and confront.<br>

<LI>
<strong>Collaborative:</strong> Involves others, shares information, prefers a team environment.<br>
<LI>
<strong>Competitive:</strong> Wants to win and better the competition and/or ones' own performance.<br><br>
</OL>
<OL type = DISC>
<LI>
<strong>Task Focused: Explores the way the individual relates to tasks and activities at work, and his/her approach to problem solving.</strong><br>
<OL type = DISC>
<LI>
<strong>Broad Based:</strong> Focuses on general principles & summary information..<br>

<LI>
<strong>Detail Oriented:</strong> Emphasizes detailed information.<br>
<LI>
<strong>Right Brain:</strong> Creative/ artistic/ intuitional, naturally multi-tasks, disordered, unsequenced.<br>
<LI>
<strong>Left Brain:</strong> Analytic, processes systematically in sequence, ordered, prefers to complete one task at a time.<br><br>
</OL>
<LI>

<strong>Options Oriented:</strong>Explores opportunity & possibility, seeks choice and alternatives, views work from the broadest base possible.<br><br>
<LI>
<strong>Procedure Oriented:</strong> Believes that accepted practices and procedures are important, diligently follows instructions & “the correct way of doing things”.<br><br>
<LI>
<strong>Goal Oriented:</strong> Focuses on goals & targets, outspoken, has a positive attitude.<br><br>
<LI>

<strong>Problem Oriented:</strong> Focuses on problems, makes contingency plans, may have a negative attitude.<br>
<OL type = DISC>
<LI>
<strong>Proactive:</strong> Anticipates, initiates action, presses on toward defined goals even if unexpected consequences may result.<br>
<LI>
<strong>Reactive:</strong> Waits, analyzes and plans, reviews all the relevant information and considers consequences before acting.<br>
<LI>
<strong>Simplicity Preference:</strong> Tries to simplify complex issues, prefers things to be easy or routine.<br>

<LI>
<strong>Complexity Preference: </strong>Enjoys the challenge of difficulty and complexity.<br>
<LI>
<strong>Sameness Oriented:</strong> Seeks stability and the familiar; notices similarities, prefers gradual change.<br>
<LI>
<strong>Differences Oriented:</strong> Seeks variety, notices what is different; has a high capacity & tolerance for change.<br><br>
</OL>

<strong>Using Thinking Styles Analysis</strong><br><br>

Thinking Styles analysis applies in all areas in which skill in communication is crucial to success, by providing a vital tool for influencing and encouraging those with whom you interact.<br><br>

It also can play a key role in understanding and developing your own personal cognitive awareness, helping to develop your cognitive skills and behavioral flexibility, as well as aiding in the selection of  the appropriate thinking style to achieve your objectives in different situations.<br><br>

In applying this technique it is essential to recognize that in every practical situation involving interpersonal relationships at least one dimension from each of the 3 major groups (Sensory, People, Task) will necessarily be involved! And this means that some judgmental blending will be required, for which no pat formulas exist.<br><br>

You should  also be aware that normal individuals typically exhibit a blend of at least several styles, with the mix often varying with the specifics of the particular situation, although one style will typically dominate, frequently overwhelmingly. So for most practical purposes identifying and focusing on that one dominant style will be sufficient to find the best way to characterize the situation.<br><br>


	<strong>Application of Thinking Styles Analysis To Interpersonal Relations</strong><br><br>

	By comparing the thinking styles of the interacting individuals, you can identify:<br><br>
<OL type = DISC>
<LI>
Individual weaknesses <br>
<LI>
Overlaps <br>
<LI>
Incompatibilities and potential conflicts<br><br>
</OL>
thereby enabling you to (hopefully) resolve difficult relationships<br><br>


	<strong>Application of Thinking Styles Analysis To Team Dynamics</strong><br><br>

	By analyzing each team member’s thinking styles, it is possible to identify and understand the cognitive dynamics within the team, resulting in:<br><br>
<OL type = DISC>
<LI>
Understanding the strengths and weaknesses of each individual and the team as a whole.<br>
<LI>
Improving relationships within the team through mutual understanding of colleagues' thinking styles.<br>
<LI>
Enabling tasks to be allocated to those people who are best suited to accomplish them.<br>

<LI>
Engendering mutual understanding and respect for both individuals and the team.<br>
<LI>
Energizing the team and thereby maximizing its productive output.<br><br>
</OL>
<strong>Impediments To Logical Thought</strong><br><br>

In a perfect world, everyone would always think logically and objectively, with the result that the best possible decisions would frequently be reached, at least to the extent that the sometimes conflicting objectives and desires of the participants (all too frequently rivals or worse) can be accommodated.<br><br>

Unfortunately, in the real world the already difficult competitive situations are all too frequently made even worse, and often impossibly so, by the fact that the individuals involved never get to arrive at factually based decisions because their own built-in impediments to logical thought prevent them from ever even seeing those facts. And the most dangerous part of this unfortunate scenario is that those most afflicted by this problem are almost invariably not only unaware that they are its victim, but are also frequently in a state of denial that they could possibly be so afflicted!<br><br>

No one is totally immune to this problem, so the simple act of confronting its scope and dimensions can prove very useful in allowing us to each recognize where and to what extent we are its victim, and thus begin the difficult process of disenthralling ourselves of these biases as the first necessary step in achieving our goal of becoming effective Decision Makers/Problem Solvers:<br><br>

<OL type = DISC>
<LI>
<strong>Egocentrism<br>
<LI>
Belief that there is no objective reality (i.e. everything is “just a matter of opinion”) <br>
<LI>
Reliance on:<br>
<OL type = DISC>
<LI>
Tradition<br>
<LI>
Authority<br>

<LI>
“Self evident truth”<br>
<LI>
Intuition<br>
<LI>
Popular beliefs or prejudices<br>
<LI>
Group behavior<br>
<LI>
News Reports<br>
<LI>
Media Portrayals<br>

</OL>
<LI>
Denying the facts:<br>
<OL type = DISC>
<LI>
On their own merits<br>
<LI>
 Because of:<br>
<OL type = DISC>
<LI>
Personal dislike<br>
<LI>

“Guilt by association”<br>
<LI>
Stereotyping<br>
<LI>
Unwillingness to admit error<br>
<LI>
Unwillingness to reach agreement<br>
</OL>
<LI>
Over-generalizing (especially from limited personal experience)<br>
<LI>
Failure to distinguish between “equality” and “identity”<br><br>

<LI>
Reaching conclusions unwarranted by the premises because of reliance on:<br>
<OL type = DISC>
<LI>
Implied (but unproven) causality<br>
<LI>
Circular reasoning<br>
<LI>
False analogies<br>
<LI>
The “domino theory”<br>
<LI>

Improper deductions from statistical data<br>
<LI>
Badly formulated problem statements, because of:<br>
<OL type = DISC>
<LI>
Simplistic reduction of complex issues to “black or white”<br>
<LI>
“Us vs. Them” thinking<br>
</OL><LI>
"All or nothing” thinking<br>
<LI>
Confounding multiple questions into one<br>

</OL><LI>
Rationalizing in defense of pre-existing beliefs<br>
<LI>
Paying “lip service” to opposing views (while ignoring and/or damning them)<br>
<LI>
Mounting irrelevant personal attacks on perceived “opponents”<br>
<LI>
Trying to squelch disagreement<br>
<LI>
Fear of:<br>
<OL type = DISC>
<LI>

Trying something new<br>
<LI>
Making a mistake<br>
<LI>
Looking foolish<br>
</OL>
<LI>
Making unwarranted assumptions that:<br>
<OL type = DISC>
<LI>
There is always an “answer” to every problem<br>
<LI>

The problem at hand has been adequately formulated<br>
<LI>
The available data is adequate to support a rational conclusion</strong>
</OL></OL><br><br>
Looking at this long list of ways in which logical thought about our real life problems can be compromised or even avoided altogether, and comparing it with the realization that
there is really only a single way of “doing it right” reinforces the perception that life, indeed, isn’t fair!  Perhaps even worse is the realization that in some circumstances, even the
best of us may have no choice in the matter! For example, if you begin to feel sick or to experience certain physical symptoms, unless you’re a trained medical professional you
have little choice but to consult a doctor and then to rely upon his/her competence to get you through the crisis. And even if you are a trained medical professional it’s best that
you consult another expert anyway, else you can fall prey to the ancient dictum “The doctor who treats himself has a fool for a patient”. Of course if your situation is serious enough
you may consult several different doctors, and then will likely be confronted with the task of trying to reconcile possibly differing diagnoses and/or proposed treatments. Fortunately,
in this latter case the techniques we’re going to cover in this book can be productively employed to sort things out to arrive at the best possible problem solution after all!<br><br>

Finally, please note the close relationship (and in some cases actual overlap) of these Impediments To Logical Thought to the “Seller’s Gimmicks” we will cover when we consider the
 REAP technique in Chapter 2, as well as to Dr. Downes’ list of Logical Errors provided when we discuss the subject of Formal Symbolic Logic in the Appendix. Together, these show
all of the multitude of ways in which the ignorant, incautious, or merely sloppy thinker can unwittingly stand in his/her own way of discovering the truth!
</font>
<br><br>
<strong>Click Here To Move On To</strong><a href="RDMCh2.html"><font size=+1><font Color="#0033FF"><strong> Chapter 2</strong></font></a>
<br><br>
<strong>Click Here To Return To</strong><a href="RDMIntro.html"><font size=+1><font Color="#0033FF"><strong> Introduction </strong></font></a>

<br><br>
<strong>Click Here To Return To</strong><a href="index.html"><font size=+1><font Color="#0033FF"><strong> Milt's Go Page</strong></font></a> <br>
<br><br>
<strong>Click Here To Email Your Comments/Suggestions To</strong><font size=+2><font color="#0033FF"><a href="mailto:bradleym@eniinternet.com?subject=Reasoning And Decision Making Comments/Suggestions"> Milton N. Bradley</font></a>


</body>

<!-- Mirrored from users.eniinternet.com/bradleym/RDMCh1.html by HTTrack Website Copier/3.x [XR&CO'2014], Sun, 06 Nov 2022 06:59:17 GMT -->
</html>
author	Franklin Schmidt <fschmidt@gmail.com>
date	Sun, 02 Apr 2023 10:30:03 -0600
parents
children