Which cognitive style is this? VS? HP? Would be helpful to have explanation as to why it is one and not the other.
I get an idea, and then I tend to think about how it could work or could be true. It's frustrating if someone immediately shoots it down by talking about all the reasons it wouldn't work, because I'm already aware of those reasons and the whole point of what I'm doing is to find the exception to the rule, the way of looking at the issue that can make it work. I tend to assume that most things can be done, that it is simply a matter of finding a way to do it.
After I've considered that side, an alternative idea/theory comes to my attention and I think about how that might work or be true instead, or how the original theory might not work. I'm essentially testing my idea against alternatives to make sure it holds up. This pattern leads to a circular motion of thought in which the same idea is revisited many times.
The advantage of my cognition is that I continually test my views by shifting to other perspectives, essentially working to eliminate anchoring bias and make sure nothing has been missed. The first conclusion that appears to fit is not necessarily the right one, nor is the second or third. Furthermore, there is often no guarantee that the right answer is present among immediate options, or that there even is a right answer. This cognitive style leads to a slow and non-linear, but quite thorough progression toward a single, holistic view.
The disadvantage is the difficulty settling on a view without continued shifting, due to lack of groundedness in systematic method. With this style of cognition, there's no way to sit down and figure it all out at once and be settled. Instead, I rely on a gradual accumulation of insights.
I get an idea, and then I tend to think about how it could work or could be true. It's frustrating if someone immediately shoots it down by talking about all the reasons it wouldn't work, because I'm already aware of those reasons and the whole point of what I'm doing is to find the exception to the rule, the way of looking at the issue that can make it work. I tend to assume that most things can be done, that it is simply a matter of finding a way to do it.
After I've considered that side, an alternative idea/theory comes to my attention and I think about how that might work or be true instead, or how the original theory might not work. I'm essentially testing my idea against alternatives to make sure it holds up. This pattern leads to a circular motion of thought in which the same idea is revisited many times.
The advantage of my cognition is that I continually test my views by shifting to other perspectives, essentially working to eliminate anchoring bias and make sure nothing has been missed. The first conclusion that appears to fit is not necessarily the right one, nor is the second or third. Furthermore, there is often no guarantee that the right answer is present among immediate options, or that there even is a right answer. This cognitive style leads to a slow and non-linear, but quite thorough progression toward a single, holistic view.
The disadvantage is the difficulty settling on a view without continued shifting, due to lack of groundedness in systematic method. With this style of cognition, there's no way to sit down and figure it all out at once and be settled. Instead, I rely on a gradual accumulation of insights.