| |
A score 60 or higher shows a moderate level of a person using this style of thinking. A score of 66 or higher shows an elevated level of a person using this style of thinking. A score of 72 or higher shows a level of commitment using this style of thinking whereas when faced with a new problem this line of thinking will almost always be the first style to handle it.
If your score in any Style is 48 or less, you have a moderate disregard for that Style. If you have a score of 42 or less, you have a strong disregard for that Style. And if your score is 36 or less, you show a virtual neglect of that Style, which means you are not likely to use it in any situation, even though it may be the best one to use under the circumstances.
"Analysts tend to have a theory about almost everything."
Analysts approach problems in a careful, logical, methodical way, paying great attention to details. Planning carefully, they gather as much information as possible before making a decision, and they seldom "shoot from the hip." If your Analyst score is 60 or more, you are in almost as numerous a company as the Idealist. About 35 percent of all the people who have taken this test show a high Analyst score. When we have talked about the Analyst Style of Thinking in seminars, Analysts themselves are often surprised--and sometimes offended---when we say that the Analyst is more interested in "theory" than the other Styles of Thinking. Strong Analysts see themselves as factual, down-to-earth, practical people, and of course in a sense they are. But beneath the attention they give to facts there are broad and deep theories. Analysts tend to have a theory about almost everything. They analyze and judge things within a broad framework that will help to explain things and arrive at conclusions. For example, if we were to ask an Analyst whether or not a park should be built in such-and-such an area of his or her city, the reply will follow the gathering of data and the weighing of alternatives.
That the Analyst is likely to be unaware of is that the kind of data gathered and the way the alternatives are weighed will depend upon a deeply ingrained theory of government. If the theory is, "The function of government is to do as little as possible," only the strongest of "Yes" facts will get much attention. If the Analyst believes that, "The function of government is to do as much as possible," the answer will be quite different. The Analyst sees the world as logical, rational, ordered (or orderly), and predictable. Or, if that worldview is impossible to sustain because of current circumstances--say there is rioting in the streets---somewhere deep in the Analyst's value system is a belief that at least the world ought to be that way. The Analyst's thought processes are prescriptive. When a problem is presented, the Analyst will look for a method, a formula, a procedure, or a system that can solve it.
Because of their interest in formula and method, Analysts like to find the "one best way" to solve a problem. Of all the Styles of Thinking, they are likely to say: "If we can only proceed in a scientific manner, things will work out." You can see how different the Analyst approach is from the other Styles of Thinking. While the Synthesist is interested in conflict, change, and newness, the Analyst prefers rationality, stability, and predictability. Where the Idealist is focused on values, goals, and the "big picture," the Analyst prefers to concentrate on objective data, procedure, and the best method. If the Pragmatist's approach is piecemeal and experimental, the Analyst's is quite the opposite: planned out and based on finding the proven "one best way". More than anything else, Analysts want to be sure of things, to know what's going to happen next. They take pride in their competence, in the sense of understanding all the facets of whatever the situation in which they happen to be.
The Realist is in most respects at the opposite end of the thinking spectrum form the Synthesist. If you have a high Realist score you are among the 24 percent of the people who share that preference. Many people who hear us refer to Realist and Pragmatists as different say, in effect, "Why, they're the same thing." Indeed, the two terms are often used interchangeably or synonymously. You will see that although there are similarities, the two are different enough to be considered quite distinct Styles of Thinking. They rest on different assumptions and values, and the strategies used, while often complementary, are also quite different. Realists are empiricists. That is, what is "real" to them is what can be felt, smelled, touched, seen, heard, personally observed or experienced.
"The Realist is more closely related to the Analyst than to any other Style of Thinking."
The Realist's motto is, "Facts are facts." Or maybe, "What you see is what you get." The Realist is contrary, in this respect, to the Synthesist, who assumes that inferences, rather than perceived "facts," are all-important. While the Synthesist firmly believes that agreement and consensus are most unlikely to happen between people in a given situation, the Realist just as firmly believes that any two intelligent people, properly equipped with eyes and other sense organs, will at once agree on the facts. Therefore, agreement and consensus are most important and highly valued by the Realist. But being a Realist, or course, he or she can see quite clearly that people don't always agree on the facts. And that is exactly what bothers the Realist, because people ought to agree. Without agreement on the facts, Realists believe, things don't get done. Things don't get "fixed"--and Realists value that word in both senses: to correct problems, and to make solutions last and stay put.
The Realist's thought processes, then, have a corrective quality. Realists see something that is wrong--a problem--and they want to fix it. They are oriented toward achieving concrete results. Unlike Pragmatists with their experimental tendencies, Realists want to do things surely, soundly, and firmly, and to be assured that once something is done it will stay that way. The Realist is more closely related to the Analyst than to any other Style of Thinking. Both are factual, oriented toward the objective and concrete, interested in an orderly and practical result. Both share an antipathy for the subjective and the "irrational." Where they differ is that the Realist will grow impatient iwth the deductive, drawn-out procedures of the Analyst. The Realist wants to get things done by proceeding on the facts that are at hand, rather than by gathering ever more data, as Analysts like to do. The Realist is inductive and empirical, the Analyst deductive and analytically. Curiously, while Synthesists and Realists are at opposite ends of the Style of Thinking spectrum in many respects, they may behave in similar ways. Both can be seen as people with a need to achieve, to move, to be in control. Simply stated, Realists need to control resources, people, and results; while the Synthesist's need is for control over the process--understanding the staying one step ahead of the argument, the conflict, the decision.
Where the realist will focus on facts & results the analyst will focus on method & plan. The realist points out realities & resources whereas the analyst will point out data & details. The realist is apt to say, "It’s obvious to me", "Everybody knows that" and the analyst is apt to say, "It stands to reason", "If you look at it logically". Under stress the realist gets agitated. Under stress the analyst withdraws. The realist is the "Blockhead". The analyst is the "Great Stone Face".
The realist’s tone is forthright, positive; may sound dogmatic or domineering. The analyst’s tone tends to be dry, disciplined, careful; may sound set and stubborn. When expressing themselves the realist uses opinions, describes factually and may offer short, pointed anecdotes. The analyst uses general rules, describes things systematically and offers substantiating data.
The realist dislikes talk that seems too theoretical, sentimental, subjective, impractical, "long-winded". The analyst dislikes talk that seems irrational, aimless, or too speculative, "far-out" and irrelevant humor.
The Synthesist is the least common Style of Thinking - 11 percent. According to the book the opposite of a Realist is a Synthesist, which would explain why someone with an elevated Synthesist score would have a low as a Realist score.
To "synthesize" means, essentially, to make something new and original out of things that, by themselves, seem very different from each other. Combining different things--especially ideas--in that way in what Synthesists like to do. Their favorite thought process is likely to be speculative. "What if we were to take this idea and that idea and put them together? What would we have?" The motto of the Synthesist is "What if...?" Synthesists are integrators. They like to discover two or more things that to other people may appear to have little or no relationship, and find ways to fit theme into a new, creative combination. Synthesists aren't particularly interested in compromise, consensus, or agreement on the "best" solution to a problem. What they look for, instead, is some prespective that will produce a "best fit" solution, linking the seemingly contradictory views. Synthesists work this way because they assume that no two people are likely to agree about "facts." Facts to them are not nearly so important as the inferences that people make from them. Unlike the other Styles of Thinking, Synthesists know that people really do disagree about the facts. And that, for Synthesists, is one fact that makes life exciting. Synthesists tend to be interested in conflict.
A strong Synthesist (which Stephen is) thrives on it, in fact. The kind of conflict that Synthesists enjoy may not be overt, open conflict such as a shouting argument. It may be more subtle than that: the enjoyment of listening to people talking politely, for instance, who assume they agree. The clever Synthesist, however, sees that they really do have differences, points them out, and then comes up with a new and original idea that builds on the differences. Synthesists also like change--often for its own sake. Synthesists tend to see the world as constantly changing, and they welcome that view. For that reason, nothing bores the Synthesist more than the status quo, things never changing, routine, people always agreeing, or pretending to agree. Synthesists are forever looking for conflict, disagreement, change, newness, and they have a habit of questioning people's basic assumptions about things. They pride themselves on their "creativity," incisiveness, and, often secretly, on their cleverness.
Both the Synthesist and the Realist tend to become easily impatient, especially with excessive analysis and long-drawn-out, rambling discussion. Both pride themselves on their incisiveness, and both can be incisive, sometimes disturbingly (or annoyingly) so. The difference is in the nature of their favorite incisive questions. The Synthesist asks "What are the basic assumptions in this situation?" But the Realist asks: "What are the facts?"
|
|
