Tag Archives: cognitive

Same M.O. Marriages

Do personal partners who act, react, and interact through the same M.O.* miss out on the synergy of conative differences?

Do conative look alikes compete or try to one-up each other (“My facts are more thorough than your facts,” or “You couldn’t possibly improve on the way I’ve organized the pots and pans.”)?

Do Same M.O. Marriages become so same-o’, same-o’ that their twosomeness excludes others?

Yes – for all of the above questions.

Yet, Same M.O. Marriages not only survive – they thrive.
That’s because personal relationships are about more than conative M.O.s.

Effect of Affect

Toss in different interests, and two people insistent in Fact Finder can bring tons of different kinds of information into the equation.

Watch how an introvert gets an extrovert to dial it down. Or the extrovert opens up their social life.

Both may take risks, but if one person in a Same M.O. Marriage has an emotional need for financial security, even with a pair of insist Quick starts, it will put the brakes on their betting the ranch.

Another effect of affect happens when partners do not have shared values. If only one wants a family, or to protect the environment, or march for a particular cause, it becomes a far bigger reason for marital problems than either a similarity or difference in M.O.s.

Cognitive Impact

It was totally weird for me to have my college boyfriends take my Dad’s Wonderlic Personnel test, but it certainly was fascinating to be able to confirm their cognitive abilities. It’s weirder for girls to play dumb in order to get a guy.

I would be willing to bet that couples similarly matched by IQ is predictive of marital sustainability.  If both people have the same M.O. to gather specific details, but one’s information is full of errors… it just doesn’t add up to a positive picture for the long-run.

Having different skills, training, and types of education can enhance any relationship, especially one when partner has to do the problem-solving involved in building a nest and raising kids. Sans kids, it still works for vacation planning.

Dynamynd® Levels of Effort

No matter how snuggly matched or unmatched a marriage is by M.O., the greater menace is unmatched levels of effort.

 No matter how conforming or non-conforming a couple is by M.O., the greatest savior under stress is a matched level of effort.

 I coined the word Dynamynd when it became clear to me that how we deal with our mental assets is not just about the three parts of the mind, but how we leverage them through our levels of effort. If only one partner does all the heavy lifting in a relationship — whether by simplifying the issues, stabilizing the finances, or arranging all the plans – it just won’t work in the long haul.

Relationship apps?

Countless business partnership offers have been made to me, based on my agreeing to use my work for matching people as marriage partners.

Sure, I’ll do it, when we can figure out how to factor in all of the other considerations.

* M.O. refers to an individual’s Modus Operandi and consists of a numerical representation of one’s instinctive way of taking action as measured across the four Kolbe Action Modes®.

1 Comment

Filed under Self-Help

Why Instinct-based Education?

Instincts drive all actions, reactions and interactions – including individuals’ modes of learning:

  • Some kids react positively to repetition of information – others tune out
  • Some kids respond with lots of details – others ignore them
  • Some kids interact tangibly to internalize information – others are hands-off
  • Some kids actively add to discussions, others sit silently

We can see the differences among kids, both in classrooms and in homes, yet few educators and parents know how to nurture such a variety of learning modes. It is especially tough to help youngsters learn in ways that force you to work against your instinctive grain.

Instinct-based education doesn’t require that teachers or parents change their natural ways of taking action.  It requires understanding the natural impulses that drive how each student learns best– and providing options that help them learn to trust those instincts.

 “Trust your instincts,” is, after all, what we tell our kids to do in order to stay out of danger. Shouldn’t we help them figure out what that means?

Research has shown that instincts drive passive thoughts and emotions into action in the part of the brain known as conation. The goal is for kids to “Get Conative” – which means to get into their strongest conative or work-oriented gear.

How can a teacher or parent help kids trust their individual instincts when a classroom or family could include many combinations of 12 different instinctive strengths?                      

                             5 Steps for Success with Instinct-based Education

  1. Enable kids to discover their personal instinct-based strengths through valid assessments of them.
  2. Explain your own instinctive strengths as you use them, role modeling the benefits of being free to act on personal strengths.
  3. Help youngsters figure out how to adapt to your way of teaching/parenting, thereby instilling respect for your conative M.O. or instinctive methods, as well as teaching creative problem solving as a means of dealing with similarities and differences.
  4. Give youngsters permission to try alternative ways of initiating actions, helping them experience the benefits of getting into the right gear. For educators, this should include in-class projects and homework assignments. For parents, it should include family projects and the time/place/process they use to do homework.
  5. Have youngsters rate their experiences with the process, as well as the results, in order for them to learn the effectiveness of trusting their instincts.

Encouraging students to ask for options based on their instinctive needs makes them responsible for maximizing their strengths. Letting them know you will assist them in self-managing their instinct-based strengths makes them aware that you recognize the equality and significance of their natural conative abilities.

1 Comment

Filed under Self-Help

My Theory of Creative Problem Solving

You will never create anything without a conviction that it’s worth creating.  

If you try to create something by making an effort that doesn’t fit your M.O., you won’t get very far with it.

It takes a Commitment of your conative abilities for you to solve a problem in a sustainable way.

Creative Process

Creative Problem Solving takes more than just Doing something you want to do, you also have to evaluate whether what you’re doing makes any sense.

Judging whether another person is fully engaged in Creative Problem Solving is easier than judging levels of beauty. You can evaluate the process without judging the outcome.

Q: Why bother evaluating the process if the outcome stinks?
A: Because those who engage in the process are more likely to get consistently creative results.

 Q: Couldn’t someone who is not using a Creative Problem Solving process create something by dumb luck?
A: Luck happens when you create the opportunity.

Q: Is that all there is to your Theory of Creative Problem Solving?
A: No, but I’ll wait for you to ask more questions here so I can tell you the things about it that you are motivated to discuss.

Creative Process ladder

5 Comments

Filed under Self-Help

5 Simple Steps to Avoid Getting a Job Interview

You have an equal opportunity (or as one recent job candidate wrote in the first line of his resume:  “an opertunity”) …to destroy your chances of getting called in for a job interview.

Simple 1st step for getting out of a job interview is what 80% of on-line job applicants are doing: send blah, or blah that should have been spell-checked and proofread.

Step 2: Show laziness + ignorance by either not including a cover letter, or (even better – for your purpose) sending a one-size-fits-all cover letter that doesn’t even mention what the company does or what the job requires.

When you don’t take time to individualize your application for a specific role at a particular company, you won’t need to worry about a quality company taking your time for a job interview. They’ll immediately put you where you seemed to ask to be put – in  the Not Interested pile.

Step 3: If you’re still in danger of having to be interviewed, your next line of defense requires going beyond canned blah. You may need the help of an overused, senseless expert in bad blah, like the book, What Color Is Your Parachute. By using all of its meaningless “key” words, you have a recipe for avoiding the disclosure of any spark of your own creativity or insight. This me-too approach will keep companies from expecting too much from you.

Step 4: You shouldn’t have to put this much effort into not being selected for interviews, but this just-in-case step improves your odds of not being interviewed because it insults the intelligence of whomever makes those recommendations. Be sure you take this step to extremes. Unfortunately for you, many others seem to be catching on to this trick. You’ll have to one-up what is being said by all the other wannabe losers.

Use highly unbelievable statements about how much you have done in so little time (“I worked for a very high status company for 6 months, and during that time I increased corporate revenues by 28%). Or how you saved an entire company from disaster by your discovery of all of their mistakes (“Reviewed and redesigned corporate strategic plan and established a workable system that impacted the productivity of all departments.”) Or how just little “newbie-you” outsmarted the corporate culture (“I introduced the company to the world of social media and got thousands of on-line followers to chat with us.”).

 Step 5: Not sure you can sound more boastful than so many others? This last step is what some have used as the dagger in the heart of an almost-ready-to-interview-you situation. You may even find it fun:  Complain about the potential employer’s hiring process.

There may be an employee who will give you credit for being outspoken (or agree with you that their company is not doing a good job) so be sure when you use this technique that you call the company owner or CEO on his or her personal cell phone. Here’s a sample script that is pretty sure to get you out of the interview:

“I don’t know why you think anyone would want to work for your company. I shouldn’t have to show you examples of my private, personally done work, or spend my free time reading your website, or put up with you snooping around my Facebook stuff.  And, I shouldn’t have to fill out that stupid Kolbe Index.”

10 Comments

Filed under Self-Help

Scholarship: About Doing, as Much or More as Thinking

It feels like there is mostly Thinking going on in many academic programs, from fourth grade through undergraduate programs in universities. Where does the Doing get done? Not in lecture-based classrooms.

How inappropriate that parents, not teachers, often end up helping kids DO their homework – where most of the learning actually gets done.

Ask undergrads what they are Doing at school, and they usually tell you about what they are Doing in their “free” time or extra-curricular activities. Ask what they are doing in class, and the answer is probably, “Nothing but sitting and listening.”

Decades of research shows that learning happens by Doing. It’s called Active Learning in today’s literature. The proper term for the Doing domain of the mind is Conation.

Every field of study deals with conation. Yet, a century of perseverating about cognitive Thinking has led to contemporary blindness of the pervasiveness of conative Doing.

  •  Marketing textbooks, when discussing the fallacy of focus groups asking for opinions (Thinking), point out that they are not a good predictor of what people will Do in the actual purchasing process.
  • Law school texts warn of the need to distinguish the difference between Thinking about and actually Doing (or committing) a crime.
  • Religion and philosophy courses deal with the difference between Thinking in moral ways and actually Doing moral or immoral acts.
  • Language classes teach the difference between passive verbs (Thinking) and active verbs (Doing) – the latter even known as conative verbs in some languages.
  • Engineering programs tackle issues of sustainability – this does not mean keeping a level of Thinking, but rather sustaining levels of energy or Doing.
  • Medical and health related programs cope with issues related to getting patients to Do what they need to Do, not just Think about what they need to Do. The term coming into greater use is now referred to as the patient being Active, as opposed to the former negative labeling of patients as Non-compliant.

Name a field of study and there will be issues dealing with the differences between Thinking and Doing. Doing will always be the key to breakthroughs, innovation, discoveries – or any other word synonymous with Success.

The programs that “Get Conative” become the leaders in their field.

1 Comment

Filed under Self-Help

Like Forcing Water to Flow Uphill

Having spent a good part of the past weekend on a steep hillside, trying to get my amateur watering system to flow up to outlying trees, I was reminded of it being an analogy for conative stress.

Trying to get water to flow up hill is like dealing with:

1. Barriers to Innovation:
Convincing a determined Fact Finder boss that something that has never been done before could work well.

2. Inflexibility:
Getting a mega Follow Thru to adjust the schedule.

3. Misplaced Dependency:
Waiting for an empowered person, who is short on Implementor, to repair equipment.

4. Overcoming conative Conflict:
Having to get two totally opposite conative people to work together cooperatively.

5. False expectations:
Getting your short-lined Follow Thru friends to RSVP – or even find the invitation.

6. Endless Inertia:
Watching a team of conative clones trying to get something done.

7. Stunting Growth:
Helping an entrepreneurial Quick Start stick with the tried and true.

8. Making a Temporary Fix:
Making it easier for a conative Facilitator to choose a side – any side.

1 Comment

Filed under Self-Help

OverDoing

 

OverDoing is what makes Rule #5 for Trusting Your Instincts especially important. That’s the one that says: Do Nothing – When Nothing Works.

Telling OverDoers to Do Nothing will get better results than telling them to hold back – just a little. Once they get into conative gear, it’s unlike them to hold back.

OverDoers come in different levels, and the worst of them get (and probably deserve) labels akin to hoarders. They need to have the stuff for OverDoing. It takes paraphernalia to have all the accoutrements for special occasions, the cataloging of the possibilities, and the car that can drag the special effects around.

OverDoing can cause clutter and chaos, and wastes money and time.
OverDoing can turn a special event into a fiasco.

Since it involves Doing, OverDoing is conative.
It isn’t driven by intelligent decisions, and is apparently not edited by them, either.

As with any creative effort, OverDoing is inspired by affective emotions.

OverDoing leads to the conative effort of converting the ordinary into the extraordinary.
OverDoing is the showering of affection, and results from an outpouring of love.

Leave a comment

Filed under Self-Help

Goals with Purposes

 

Goals are for keeping score. Purposes are for making differences.

Kids learn a lot about making goals in soccer games.

They learn:
Who is best at making goals
What it takes to defend against others who make goals
Where to position themselves for making goals
When to shoot for a goal
How to use soccer skills to score goals

It’s easy to make the Who/What/Where/When/How list regarding goals of almost any kind.

Who on the sales team is most consistent in reaching sales goals?
What will get a lot of good PR?
Where can you find the best new team members?
When is a right time to buy new equipment?
How is it possible to save enough money?

What’s missing is the WHY

Why is it valuable for kids to play sports like soccer?
Why is good PR an important goal?
Why are new team members a necessary goal?

For all of the other W’s, there is always a Why.
In the Why, you will find the Purpose.

As a journalism student at Northwestern,
I was taught to always include the 5W/s and the H in a news story.
The Why often became clear only when I wrote the headline
–or at least contemplated Why the story mattered.

Kids Prove Teamwork Pays
PR Leads to an Increased Number of Job Applicants
New Employees Add to Team Synergy

Goals, like Deadlines, focus our conative energy.
They help us fulfill our Purposes.

4 Comments

Filed under Self-Help

It Pays to Know Others’ M.O.s

It’s just not worth it to ask people to do things if the way they do them doesn’t work for you.

Don’t ask initiating
     Fact Finders for an answer – if you aren’t prepared to provide lots and lots of background information.
     Follow Thrus for help – unless you’ve cleaned up pretty well ahead of time.
     Quick Starts for ideas – if you aren’t willing to take at least some of the recommended risks.
     Implementors to fix something – unless you have plenty of time to wait for it to be done really, really well.

When you know another’s M.O. you can predict what they’ll do based on non-prejudicial information, not on myths regarding gender, age, and race. You won’t make the mistake of making false assumptions that can hurt feelings and ruin relationships.

Don’t assume you can change people or that they will “wise up” and stop being whatever part of them may annoy you.

You might even see the humor in
     a perfectly healthy, resistant Fact Finder forgetting important details.
     a seemingly sensible initiating Follow Thru rejecting time-saving shortcuts.
     an introverted initiating Quick Start surprising others with sudden decisions to do the unexpected.
     a resistant Implementor pushing the wrong buttons and messing up technology.

If you know those things will happen, you have a better chance of stopping them from causing problems.

When resistant Implementors grab one of three remotes and operates it by instinct, they often mess it up.
(I just gave my resistant Implementor husband the latest, greatest universal remote. I’ll let you know if it helps.)

Leaders – and bossy spouses – have told me that knowing a person’s M.O. wouldn’t help. They would just demand that people do what they were told to do.

How has that worked for them?

When they have demanded
     Fact Finders cut to the bottom line – they got errors.
     Follow Thrus use short cuts – they got sloppy work.
     Quick Starts stick to the script – they got turnover.
     Implementors sit still and listen– they got disputes and disobedience.

4 Comments

Filed under Self-Help

Microsoft: Ignorant or Arrogant?

Microsoft:

You have set yourself up as a language expert.
You mercilessly correct our spelling errors all day every day.
You posture as an all-knowing judge and jury of right and wrong in use of language.

Yet,
You ignore Peter Mark Roget, the true expert in the English language.
You ignore Plato and Aristotle and thousands of other thought leaders.
You ignore modern research and well-documented studies of the differences in the three parts of the human mind/brain.

Why?
…do you continue to spell-check the word for one of the three faculties of the brain, and simply replace it with the word for an altogether different mental faculty?
…do you ignore calls to correct your error?
…do you think we should trust you when you confuse the source of human actions with the source of passive thoughts?

When?
…are you going to Get Conative?
…are you going to recognize the existence of your resistant Fact Finder M.O.?
…or am I confusing your conative behaviors with affective Arrogance?

MS Blog Pic2

5 Comments

Filed under Self-Help

Multitasking Doers and Doubters

Opinions about multitasking are biased by your conative MO.  So is your natural ability to do it.

My recent informal survey shows over 90% of people who initiate Follow Thru actions are Doubters who consider multitasking “Bad.” They seem to have difficulty even conjuring up the possibility that multitasking is a sensible way for anyone to behave. Not surprising, since they’re naturally orderly, follow sequential patterns, and rarely deviate from a step-by-step plan.

Those with the Kolbe problem solving strength to naturally adaptresistant Follow Thrus – are the Doers who overwhelmingly praise multitasking as an “Excellent” way to get more done. They value being able to keep lots of balls in the air at one time.  Some, however, have apparently read the media tirades against doing it, and just give it an “OK.” One poor guy said he knew it was “Bad” – but he couldn’t keep himself from doing “it.”

Natural multitaskers have been criticized since grade school by their predominantly Follow Thru insistent teachers. How-to study, how-to plan a project, how-to do just about anything is generally taught through an anti-multitasking approach. When’s the last time you heard an instructor say: “Go ahead and try this while you’re also doing something you actually enjoy doing.”

Multitaskers have had to put up with:

  • a university professor (who admits he couldn’t multitask if he wanted to)
  • who studied just 12 students from one pysc class
  • with a cognitive test (had to have right answers on both math and language questions when topics kept switching)
  • and came to the conclusion that switching mental focus takes too much time
  • which resulted in media headlines that trashed multitasking

[See: Why Most Persistent Multitaskers Perform Badly (NY Times): http://bit.ly/fYQYs]

I won’t call my survey “research.”  But it’s been interesting. I asked thousands of people to rate multitasking on a scale from Excellent to OK or Bad.

To date:

Only one person known to be an insistent Follow Thru rated multitasking as “Excellent.”

Over 90% resistant Follow Thrus rated multitasking as “Excellent.”

Any one want to participate in a “blind” study, where people rate the value of multitasking before they know their Kolbe result, then find out their result later?

multitasking-box

You’re multitasking when you simultaneously:

Listen to a lecture while writing on another topic

Change a diaper while talking w/ another child

Pull weeds while BBQing and talking on the phone

Fix machinery while teaching someone how to do it

Watch a movie while text messaging and eating popcorn

The non-multitasker is like a guy I know —  a 9 in Follow Thru — who is constitutionally unable to carry on a conversation and put food on his fork at the same time. Or the accountant who can’t be responsible for the accuracy of her numbers if she has to answer the phone while doing the books.

No-Multitasking Tasks

Switching what you’re thinking about is a cognitive process. Doing multiple things at one time is a conative process. Creativity requires using both processes.

A No-Multitasking Task is one that for safety or common sense reasons, requires your full cognitive attention – with little switching and no conative multitasking.

For instance: You ought not to be striving for creativity when you’re driving a car. That’s an example of a No-Multitasking Task. So is reading the dose when giving medicine, listening to or giving directions, using a dicing mandoline or acetylene torch.

Conables ™ Tips for Multitaskers

When multitaskers’ form of creativity is inappropriate and disapproved (most standardized testing, and way too many classrooms and meetings), it’s important for them to learn Conables ™ Tricks for turning this so-called disadvantage into an advantage. Better to make it a game than lose your competitive advantage.

In a classroom or meetings

  • Imagine the speaker is the leader of a rock band, and watch every move she’s making — so you can come in with the right tune (answer or question) at the right time.
  • Pick three rather unusual words that interest you. Guess how often they’ll be used during one session, then count to see how close you were.
  • Write brief descriptions of the emotions or thoughts that you think are going on in others peoples’ heads. Tie them to specific people.

You’ll find Conables Tips that tie to your MO on your Kolbe A ™ Index result. Stick to those that are recommended. (I take no responsibility for some of the dangerous ones others make-up!)

7 Comments

Filed under Business