NLP Modelling of Analytical Thinking Styles.
acua
Granted that I am not very well aware of NLP modeling techniques, my
particular interest is in a specific NLP Model.
Has anyone tried to actually model critical reasoning, analytical
reasoning or other analytical methods. My indication is towards all the
systematic, methodical thinking styles (commonly classified as left
brain thinking.).
Has anyone tried to model them ?
Is it possible ?
Am I barking up the wrong tree ?
Thanks and hope this foments a good argument.
acua.
Towards the NLP revolution !
rjlhughes
posted to, in the hope that it'll promote a lot more discussion here.
That's an interesting issue - testing perhaps whether there's an
emotional basis for rational thinking.
Myers Briggs says our inclination to rational thinking is inherent.
Some behaviourists might argue that it's the result of nurture and what
behaviours we reward in children. I suspect there's a bit of a snowball
effect. Children displaying a small natural inclination towards
something accumulate more experience and expertise as they get older.
There's no lack of modelling of rational thinking in terms of how the
process works, of course. That's what lectures in logic are all about.
Rational people are often very keen to make explicit the way they got
to their conclusions.
It would be wonderful of NLP modelling had as many detailed and elegant
explanations of the process to be followed as a text book on algebra.
if you google "TRIZ" and "40 Inventive methods" you'll find an explicit
modeling of the process of invention - which involves both analysis and
synthesis.
Bob
Reply
acua Jan 18, 7:11 am show options
From: "acua" <acuapulcodr...@yahoo.com> - Find messages by this author
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 07:11:48 -0800
Local: Tues, Jan 18 2005 7:11 am
Subject: Re: NLP Modeling of Analytical Thinking Styles / Frameworks.
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse
Taking the VAK modeling approach; I find that during the process of
critical reasoning (personally), I can identify a significant amount of
kinesthetic component predominantly. Lately, I also read that prodigies
in mathematics admit to a kinesthetic component in mental calculations;
though I must mention that I am not an expert in critical reasoning.
Any thoughts in this direction?
BTW TRIZ is great!
personally, I would agree with Briggs, that rational thinking is
inherent (its just about being careful), however its development is
triggered by external factors. Our preference to follow a method /
strategy, depends upon the demands that our external environment imoses
on us; further, being "careful" (trying not to make mistakes) is also
exclusively dependent upon our "environmental training".
But that is not the primary issue we are discussing; Even if it is
inherent, is there a strategy to simply or accelerate this mental
process. How can we define expertise in this area?
acua.
Disclaimer for the accidental reader: I am speculating wildly / going
on a limb logically and making a weakly substantiated statements all
for the sake of experimenting and discussing; it is exclusive to this
discussion alone. Read more formal and well-reviewed internet sources
on NLP for better and understanding.
Reply
rjlhughes Jan 19, 3:15 pm show options
From: "rjlhughes" <hug...@corpcoms.com> - Find messages by this author
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 15:15:16 -0800
Local: Wed, Jan 19 2005 3:15 pm
Subject: Re: NLP Modeling of Analytical Thinking Styles / Frameworks.
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Remove | Report Abuse
Myers Briggs says that an inclination to rational thinking is inherent.
They make the distinction that even people with that predisposition may
not actually think rationally as well as people who may be more heart
oriented. The inclination and the ability are different.
I wonder where the kinesthetic part of your rational thinking becomes
the territory of hunch?
A recent study of gamblers showed that their hands became sweaty about
picking cards from a bad luck pack before they consciously changed
their behaviour.
A couple of people I know who are good mathematicians say that numbers
have special qualities for them. They describe sorts of synesthesias
where the numbers have certain shapes and textures or sounds. No doubt
it makes the numbers easier to decode and remember.
John Grinder said in Sydney last year that he thought you could judge a
society by the depth of conversation between the conscious and
unconscious. I think that alliance is vital. However there is a danger
in new code in that it emphasises unconscious learning beyond rational
analysis. They have to fit together I think. The Disney strategy is
pretty useful.
Bob
Greg Alexander
> There's no lack of modelling of rational thinking in terms of
> how the process works, of course. That's what lectures in
> logic are all about. Rational people are often very keen to
> make explicit the way they got to their conclusions.
Interesting point. So, is critical or analytical reasoning necessarily
rational? Rationality, critical reasoning, analytical reasoning all
imply conscious components to me - rational is something having REASON,
critical thinking makes us AWARE of strengths and weaknesses.
Still, some people are better at these skills than others so it's a
good modelling idea. I don't really know if they've been modelled much.
Anyone?
I know in psychology there's quite a bit of research showing that we
often make our decisions, and THEN construct a rational explanation of
them that may or may not relate to the factors that actually influenced
our decision. Sounds alot like the unconscious controlling our
behaviour, with the conscious finding an explanation.
If we modelled someone, there are several things I wonder about...
like is good decision making linked to good critical thinking?
Do good critical thinkers actually work consciously or unconsciously?
Also, if it's unconscious, do they accurately reflect on what they did,
or do they consciously make up the best explanation they can?
> John Grinder said in Sydney last year that he thought
> you could judge a society by the depth of conversation
> between the conscious and unconscious. I think that
> alliance is vital. However there is a danger in
> new code in that it emphasises unconscious learning
> beyond rational analysis. They have to fit together I think.
John also said the New Code emphasised the unconscious because society
was so focussed on the conscious - and that a balance was what worked
best (which now, in most contexts, requires developing the unconscious)
Interesting question, I'm looking forward to what others have to add :)
rjlhughes
I have no doubt that many people lead with the heart and rationalise
with the head.
and there are many decisions where we can trust our intuition.
But if the rational thinking is is science or maths - it can be right
or wrong - the plane does or doesn't fly.
I suspect that in the conscious unconscious debate the pendulum has
swung more towards the unconscious (especially in NLP and 'culturally
creative' circles.
But it's probably a process that takes place over generations.
I notice that this topic descended into unseemly name calling on the
main nlp board. Appalling!
Bob
Greg Alexander
rjlhughes wrote:
> I have no doubt that many people lead with the heart and
> rationalise with the head.
>
> and there are many decisions where we can trust our intuition.
It's a good question though, where we can trust our intuition, trust
our unconscious. Naturally the quality of our intuition depends on the
quality of experiences that have developed it.
But also there are costs and consequences of our decisions - which may
relate to monetary costs and human life - and intuition might only be
part of a decision which is also based on tests, analytical reasoning,
etc. No matter how good a plane designer's intuition is, having a 'gut
feeling' isn't enough to roll out a new Boeing series.
> But if the rational thinking is is science or maths - it can be right
> or wrong - the plane does or doesn't fly.
Intuition or rational thinking can be right or wrong, in science,
maths, but also in every area - such as cooking, massage. But, even
with flying - the aerodynamic properties are not right or wrong but
rather a wide range of quality, with the end result that the plane
flies or does not fly.
In some areas like flying, we have a more reliable indicator of whether
a decision was right or wrong.
To use my preconceived notions :)
I would tend to believe that a great designer of structures has
internalised much of the mathematics, stressors, and his direct
experience. The internalised model he/she has for how these designs are
put together is unlikely to be fully conscious, but will affect what
she/he designs in this particular context. Naturally in a
scientific/mathematical area, this will also be thoroughly checked and
tested consciously using the accepted mathematics and principles.
So too, a masseur has an internalised model of how a person's body
works, and how different strokes and pressures react. Some of this is
conscious, some unconscious, and any intuitions are verified and
adjusted as the masseur works on someone.
Back to rational thinking - if we put our attention on certain aspects
of an issue, and each person expresses the same thoughts on the issue,
we could conclude that we are approaching it the same way. Maybe one
way of approaching things is called "critical reasoning". Still some
people are better at critical reasoning, so it would be interesting to
model the best ones, which was Acua's original question.
> I suspect that in the conscious unconscious debate the pendulum has
> swung more towards the unconscious (especially in NLP and 'culturally
> creative' circles.
>
> But it's probably a process that takes place over generations.
I've met some people who may have swung too far into the unconscious
area.
In Yoga, one move has you putting your hands in a prayer position,
behind your back. This is difficult for many people. Then you are told
to move your hands further up your back. I've had 30 teachers and none
have ever said to 'move your fingers between your shoulder blades' -
they all say "move your hands further up your back", and it's exactly
right for nearly everyone. It was 18 months before one teacher saw me
and moved my hands back a little - saying "this is the right place for
your hands to be".
> I notice that this topic descended into unseemly name calling
> on the main nlp board. Appalling!
If you want to invite anyone to this group for discussion please do.
Chris, would you like to invite your current class to join us?
Greg
acua
group...... read on....
> critical reasoning books...
I have atleast glanced through some of these books.
To say the least they are EXCELLENT ! And perhaps the inpiration behind
this topic ....
However, thats besides the point; for this discussion.
Rational / critical / analytical thinking (I preffer to define it as
systematic - methodical or focussed thinking) **
seems to be very much bound to the concious mind; but it has to have
some subliminal (subconcious) elements associated with it.
I believe those subliminal mental processes spell the difference
between an expert, observant and quick critial thinker and a mediocre
one.
I am wondering, what would be the best approach to model these style of
reasoning, logical thinking.
But for that perhaps, first we will need to define " excellence " in
this field and than the modeling approach.
The BENEFITS are limitless; a NLP approach may be more intutive and
easily teachable to the students; expertise can be achieved by many
more.
MY ARGUMENT IS THAT IF COMPETENCE IN MATHEMATICS CAN BE MODELLED THAN
WHY NOT CRITICAL REASONING, and analytical reasoning ?
( I can't help but compare it with mathematics since both of these
share formal backgrounds)....
What are the heuristics that experts / prodigies apply to ciritical
reasoning, logical thinking?
What are the approaches taken by them ?
To what extent synesthesia plays a role in their reasoning process?
Are there any techniques that can be modelled through NLP and perhaps
reproduced by others?
CAN IT BE OPTIMIZED ? CAN IT BE REFINED ? CAN IT BE ACCELERATED ? CAN
IT BE TAUGHT MORE EASILY ?
acua.
Just some more questions.
** Granted there might be some shades of diffrences in the definition
of "critical reasoning", "analytical thinking"; I propose we just call
them as Left Brain Thinking Styles (LBTS)..... that way we can refer
them more easily without going into details (unless required).
Disclaimer for the accidental reader: I am speculating wildly / going
on a limb logically and making a weakly substantiated statements in the
spirit of experiment; they are exclusive to this discussion alone.
Please, read more formal and well-reviewed internet sources on NLP for
better and understanding.