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®.

Leave a 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