Thinking Preferences Limit Us

In the previous post, I discussed the findings of Herrmann International that most of us prefer to think in either two or three of the four modes. This means that we will tend to avoid the least-preferred mode or modes, to the detriment of problem-solving or decision-making. It also means that we will communicate primarily in our preferred modes and exclude the others, to the detriment of mutual understanding in groups or relationships.

The solution is to do what is called a walkaround, meaning that we consciously visit all four quadrants as we communicate, make decisions, or solve problems. Remember, it is not that we cannot think in the lesser preferred modes, but we tend not to do so, and this practice ensures that all bases are covered.

Another example of the problem of thinking preferences is the penchant for criticism. In meeting after meeting during my 60 years of work experience, I have been dismayed at the eagerness of individuals to criticize the ideas of others. This is their preferred mode of thinking--critiquing ideas and actions. We not only see this in meetings, but in society in general. If you spend much time on Facebook (which I try not to do) you will notice that when people get excited about a post, they delight in trashing the person who created it.

I want to scream at these people, "Spend more time making a positive contribution to the world and less time criticizing those who are contributing, and we will all be better off." (Not that it would do much good.)

On a positive note, if you listen to other people communicate, you should be able to discern the mode of thinking they are engaging, and reply to them in that same mode. This is a great way to establish rapport and also the improve your own understanding of what they are saying.

As Dr. Covey said in 7 Habits, "Seek first to understand and then to be understood."

Modes of Thinking

In my first post I wrote that a lot of people think critical thinking is king, and that it means criticizing or critiquing. In group discussions, this bias plays out in that, as soon as someone suggests an idea, it will be critiqued. The net result is that many good ideas get shut down before they are fully born, and if the individual who suggested the idea isn’t good at explaining or defending it, this is especially true.

Ned Herrmann and Dr. Edward de Bono are two of the most prominent individuals who have spent lifetimes thinking about thinking. Ned passed away in 1999 and de Bono is now 87 and retired but their work has had a strong influence on my own thinking.

In this article I will focus on Ned Herrman’s work and return to de Bono in subsequent posts. Ned began studying thinking based on discoveries that various regions of the brain seem to be responsible for different modes of thinking. We all have heard the idea of left-brain and right-brain thinking. Ned decided that there are two modes with each of those categories, and he thought they were determined by cerebral versus limbic components of the brain. Whether any of this is factual is somewhat doubtful based on recent brain research, but the model that Ned developed is valid in terms of the thinking modes it portrays.

For the so-called left-brain mode, we have analytical thinking and detailed thinking. Analytical is cerebral while detailed is limbic.

For the right-brain mode, we have conceptual/strategic and feeling/interpersonal thinking, with conceptual being cerebral and feeling being limbic.

For full descriptions of these, I will refer you to the Whole Brain Business Book, 2^nd Edition, as it would require a full chapter for me to do them justice. The illustration above does show the four quadrants of Ned's model.

The point I want to make in this post is that we have preferences for the four modes, and these preferences limit our decision-making, problem-solving, conflict management approach, and our perception of the world.

There are well over a million profiles in the Herrmann database of people who have taken the Herrmann Brain Dominance Instrument (HBDI), and the data show that 7 percent of us have a single-dominant preference. That is, most of our thinking is analytical, detailed, conceptual, or interpersonal, for example. Continuing, 60 percent are double-dominant, preferring to think in two modes, which can be both left or both right-brain, or they can both be limbic or cerebral, or they can be cross-diagonal. Next we have 30 percent who are tri-dominant and finally only 3 percent who are quad-dominant.

It is not that we cannot think in all four modes, but we tend to prefer certain modes, just as we prefer to use our right or left hand most of the time, even though we can use the other hand. Furthermore, the preference does not convey ability necessarily. In other words, I may prefer to think analytically but not be very good at it. I may prefer to play guitar rather than other instruments, but not be very good at it, to make a point.

Differences in thinking preference lead to all kinds of interpersonal issues. I am a conceptual thinker, so I tend to teach and make points in very broad strokes, and the individuals in my classes who are highly detail-oriented are feeling that my teaching is inadequate. On the other hand, if one of the detail-oriented individuals teaches a class for me, I may feel lost because they haven’t explained the concept behind what they are presenting, so that the details mean nothing to me.

Fortunately, I learned about this model in 1999, and became a certified practitioner of the HBDI, so when I design a class, I cover all four quadrants in my lecture. Broadly speaking, the modes address why, what, how, who, and if you answer those four questions as you teach or present a topic, you will meet the preferences of most of your audience.

Okay, that is enough for this post. I’ll say more in the next one. If you want to receive the post by email, be sure to subscribe. You can cancel any time. Thanks for reading. I welcome questions, thoughts, comments. Cheers.

Thinking about Thinking

It is my conviction after traveling around the world for 35 years, teaching seminars for more than 60,000 individuals, that the biggest problem of humanity today is that we are mostly like sheep--we blindly follow someone else's lead rather than thinking for ourselves. In fact, we see this all the time, especially in recent years--we really don't think much at all.

And when we do, it seems we have been indoctrinated into thinking that critical thinking is the only kind to do. Furthermore, we think critical thinking means criticizing things. 

We don't seem to know how to do creative thinking, because we did that as children and adults told us to stop it. Sir Ken Robinson has given a TED talk about how schools destroy creativity in children, and he is right on target with the points he makes.

We also don't know how to reason for ourselves. Look at all the conspiracy theories that abound, and stupid ideas like the world is flat that some people take seriously. Give me a break! When you get up to 30,000 feet in an airplane, you can see that the earth is round. Of course many of the people who think the earth is flat have never been off the ground, so I suppose they can be forgiven.

The point of this blog is that we need to learn to think for ourselves again. We need to learn how to re-imagine how we live. How we educate children. How to learn. How to have dialogues with each other without resorting to fighting. How to be civilized. And on and on.

I plan to explore these topics with you and hope to get you started on the road to discovering how exciting it can be to live in a world of possibility, rather than being stuck in a rut of same-old, same-old every day. A rut that leads nowhere but to an inevitable grave of boredom and discontent.

Moreover, I believe that the lack of meaning in our lives can be cured by learning how to think all over again. You were born thinking. You questioned everything. Why is this and why is that, momma? Let's do that again, although we have a wonderful resource today that we didn't have when I was a child. It's called the internet and search facilities. You can ask almost any question and have an immediate answer. It's fun. It's exciting, and it makes life richer.

Subscribe if you want to be turned on, tapped in, and titillated.