Features of mental activity, Questionnaire Style of...

3.4. Features of mental activity

Typically, psychologists are approaching the establishment of order in the intellectual world from two, to some extent, opposites, albeit those that admit of uniting positions. The first approach is related to the classification of people according to the level of development of the intellect. This approach is called quantitative, , apparently because of the desire to express the level of intellectual development more often than one number - the so-called intelligence factor (English intelligence quotient - IQ). The second approach, which can be called qualitative, , is based on the interest of scientists in distinguishing people according to their preferred methods of cognizing the world. Differences in the warehouse, or style, thinking are conditioned by the cultural-historical environment, ethnos, profession and even the structure and functioning of the brain, but indirectly, through the personality of the person and his intellect. At the same time, thinking style means an open system of intellectual strategies, techniques, skills and operations, to which the personality is predisposed because of its individual characteristics (from the system of values ​​and motivation to characterological properties) .

Styles of thinking begin to take shape in childhood and develop throughout the life of a person in accordance with the experience and metamorphosis of the individual. However, the style of thinking is a system that has a constant core, structure and selectivity to external influences. Consequently, not every experience is easily and organically included in the style of a particular person, but only a syntonic, "sticking" to the nucleus. Generally speaking, there are people with a complex style organization, which have more than one such nucleus. Hence, they are either equally well-versed in several styles of thinking (more precisely, by their combination), or are characterized by what can be called intellectual spinelessness (not to be confused with low intelligence!). The main thing is that the thinking nuclei, or thinking styles, are immeasurably smaller than people. Scientists diverge in determining their number, but, as a rule, it does not go beyond ten. Next, we'll talk about five basic thinking styles and their combinations. Thus, we get an easily visible number of categories for comparing people by intellectual characteristics.

The most important distinguishing feature of a qualitative approach is the recognition of the equivalence of all styles of thinking. Any of them has strengths and weaknesses, but in themselves they can not be built in a line from the best to worst (or from smart to the stupid ). Styles of thinking do not depend on the level of development of the intellect, at least in the range of the intellectual norm.

Knowledge of thinking styles significantly reduces the likelihood of hostility between people, whether at the level of business, formal, or personal relationships. Truly, this is the best incentive for the acquisition and creative development of such knowledge!

3.4.1. Questionnaire Style of Thinking


This questionnaire is designed to help you determine your preferred way of thinking, as well as the manner to ask questions and make decisions. Among the answers you can choose, there are no correct or incorrect & quot ;. The most useful information you will receive if you will be as accurate as possible to report on the features of your real thinking, and not about how you think you should think.

Each item of the questionnaire consists of an assertion, followed by five possible endings. Your task is to indicate the degree to which each ending is applicable to you. On the questionnaire, in the box to the right of each end, write the numbers 5,4 , 3, 2 or I, indicating the degree to which this ending applies to you: from 5 (most suitable) to I (least suitable). Each number (score) should be used only once in a group of five endings. Even if two endings (or more) seem equally applicable to you, still try to arrange them. Each of the five endings in the group should receive their number: 5, 4 , 3, 2, 1 .



When there is conflict between people on the basis of ideas, I prefer the side that:


Sets, defines a conflict and tries to express it openly


Best of all affects values ​​and ideals


Best reflects my personal views and experience


Fits the situation most logically and consistently


articulates the arguments most concisely and convincingly


When I start working on a project in a group, the most important thing for me.


Understand the purpose and significance of this project


Expand the goals and values ​​of the working group members


Determine how we are going to develop this project


Understand what benefit this project can bring to our group


To work on the project was organized and moved from the place


Generally speaking, I learn new ideas best when I can:


Link them to current or future withdrawals


Apply them to specific situations


Focus on them and carefully analyze them


Understand how similar they are to conventional ideas


Opposing them to other ideas


For me, graphics, charts, drawings in books or articles are usually:


Useful text, if they are accurate


Useful if they clearly show important facts


Modem, if they are supported and explained by the text


Useful if they raise questions about the text


No more and no less useful than other materials


If I were offered to do some research, I probably would have spent the night with:


Attempts to determine its place in a broader context


Determining whether I can do it alone or I need help


Ra (thinking and proposing about possible outcomes


Decisions about whether to do this research at all


Attempts to formulate the problem as fully and as much as possible


If I had to gather information from the ranks of an organization about its pressing probes, I would prefer:


Meet them individually and ask each one their specific questions


Hold a general meeting and ask them to express their opinion


Interrogate them in small groups, asking general questions


Meet unofficial influential persons and find out their views


11to ask the members of the organization to provide me (preferably in writing) all relevant information that they have available


Probably, I will consider something right, true if it's something:


Stood against the opposition, withstood the resistance of opposing approaches


Consistent with other things I believe


It was confirmed in practice


Is liable to logical and scientific proof


You can check for yourself personally on the facts available to the observation


When I read a magazine article at my leisure, it will most likely:


About that. how someone can solve a personal or social problem


Dedicated to a discussion of political or social issues


A report about a scientific or historical study


About an interesting, funny person or event


Accurate, without a share of fiction, a message about someone's interesting life experience


When I read a job report, I pay the most attention to:


Proximity to my personal experience


Ability to implement these recommendations


Reliability and validity of results by actual data


Understanding the author's goals and tasks




When the task before me is, the first thing I want to know is:


What is the best method for solving this problem?


Who needs this task and when is it done


Why this task should be solved


What effect can her decision have on others that have to be solved


What is the immediate immediate benefit from solving this problem?


I usually hide the maximum of how to do something new, thanks to:


I understand for myself how this is related to something else that I know well


I accept (and I leave as soon as possible


I'm listening to different points of view about how to do this


There is someone who shows me how to do it


I carefully analyze how to do it the best way


If I had to pass a test or take an exam, I would prefer:


A set of objective problem-oriented questions on the subject *


Discussion with those who also pass the test


Oral presentation and showing what I know


A message in free form about that. how I applied what I learned


A written answer covering the history of the issue, and the method


People whose special qualities I respect most, this is probably:


Outstanding philosophers and scientists


Writers and teachers


Business and political leaders


Economists and engineers


Farmers and journalists


Generally speaking, I find the theory useful if it:


It seems related to other theories and ideas that I have already learned


Explains things in a new way for me


Able to systematically explain a lot of related situations


It serves to clarify my personal experience and observations


Has a concrete practical application


When I read an article on a discussion topic, I prefer that it:


The advantages for me were shown depending on the chosen point of view


All the facts were stated during the discussion


Logically and consistently outlined the issues at issue


Values ​​are determined by the author


Both sides of the controversial issue and the essence of the conflict were brightly covered


When I read a book that goes beyond my immediate activities, I do this mainly because of:


Interest in improving your professional knowledge


Instructions from a respected person for its possible usefulness


Desires to expand your general knowledge


Desires to go beyond your own activities for a change


Aspirations to learn more about a particular subject


When I first approach a technical problem, I most likely will:


Try to connect it with a wider problem or theory


Find ways and ways to solve this problem


Think about alternative ways to solve it


Find ways that you can have already solved this problem


Trying to find the best procedure for solving it


Generally speaking, I'm most inclined to.


Find existing methods that work and use them as best as possible


To puzzle over how heterogeneous methods could work together


Discover new and improved methods


Find ways to make existing methods work better and in new ways


Understand how and why existing methods should work


You can define the preferences of a particular style using the key. In order to get data for each of the styles, you need to use the key to summarize the scores from the answer sheet. Before proceeding to their analysis, it is necessary to verify the correctness of the calculations. To do this, you need to add up the totals for all five styles. The resulting number must be 270. Otherwise, you need to double-check.


Synthetic style: 1a, 26, 3d, 4d, 5c, 66, 7a, 86, 9d, 10g, 11v, 126, 13a, 146, 15d, 16g, 17v, 186. Idealistic style: 16, 2a, 3g, 4c, 5a, 6c, 76, 8a, 9d, 10c, 11a, 12c, 136, 14a, 15g, 16v, 17a, 18c.

Pragmatic style: 1b, 2d, 3d, 4d, 56, 6g, 7c, 8d, 9a, 10d, 116, 12g, 13v, 14d, 15a, 16d, 176, 18g.

Analytic style: 1d, 2v, 3v, 4a, 5d, 6d, 7d, 8v, 9v, 10a, 1d, 12d, 13g, 14v, 15v, 16a, 17d, 18d. Realistic style: 1d, 2d, 36, 46, 5d, 6a, 7d, 8d, 96, 106, 11g, 12a, 13d, 14d, 156, 166, 17d, 18a.


36 or less points: this style is completely alien to the subject, probably he does not use it practically anywhere and never, even if this style is the best approach to the problem under certain circumstances.

From 42 to 37 points: probably persistent ignoring of this style. From 48 to 43 points: for the subject is characterized by a moderate disregard for this style of thinking, i.e. other things being equal, he will avoid using this style whenever possible to solve significant problems.

From 59 to 49 points: zone of uncertainty. This style should be excluded from consideration.

From 65 to 60 points: the subject gives a moderate preference for this style, i.e. other things being equal, he will be predisposed to using this style more or more often than others.

From 71 to 66 points: the subject has a strong preference for this style of thinking, he probably uses it systematically, consistently and in most situations.

72 points or more: the subject has a very strong preference for this style of thinking.

Basic thought strategies


1. Open confrontation.

2. Stunning questions and answers.

3. The position of an outside observer.

4. Incubation of contradictions.

5. Fantasy in the style of "what if ...".

6. 11active analysis.


1. Incrementalism (a piecewise approach).

2. Experimentation and innovation.

3. Finding quick returns.

4. Tactical thinking.

5. Marketing approach.

6. Planning for opportunities.


1. Interest in the whole.

2. Far sight.

3. Definition of goals and criteria.

4. Receptive hearing.

5. Finding means to reach agreement.

6. Apology of humanity.


1. A systematic analysis of options.

2. Request for additional data.

3. Conservative focusing.

4. Mapping the situation.

5. Constructive attention to detail.

6. Analysis through synthesis.


1. Approach what, where, when, how, why and why?

2. Inventory of resources.

3. Striving for practical results.

4. Simplification.

5. Reliance on the opinion of specialists.

6. Acute correction.

General Characteristics of Thinking Styles


1. Integrative approach.

2. Looking for similarities in seemingly dissimilar, incompatible things.

3. Strives for conflict and synthesis.

4. Nourishes interest in changes.

5. Theorizing.

6. It is indifferent to data without interpretation.


1. In any case, it is concentrated on fundamental assumptions and assumptions.

2. Draws the attention of others to the conceptual, theoretical aspects of the case.

3. He is skilled at preventing compromise policy, unreasonable concessions.

4. Better than others acts in situations of intense discussion, dispute.

5. Provides discussion and creativity in the group.



1. Show indifference to reaching agreement.

2. Sin excess desire for conflict and conflict.

3. Needlessly persevering to change and novelty ("change for the sake of change").

4. To be overly interested in theorizing.

5. To appear to others as unsociable, irresponsible.



1. Assimilative, or holistic, approach.

2. Welcomes a wide range of opinions.

3. Strives for perfect solutions.

4. Nourishes interest in human values.

5. Receptive.

6. Equally appreciates the data and theory.


1. Concentrated on the process, relationships.

2. Draws the attention of others to human values, motives and aspirations.

3. Skilful in clearly articulating goals.

4. It is better than others to manifest themselves in unstructured, uncontrollable situations that affect life values ​​and feelings.

5. Provides a wide range of views, goals and norms.



1. Ignore or reject heavy, unpleasant data.

2. Delay the solution with a sufficiently large choice of options.

3. Excessive perseverance in the pursuit of perfect, impeccable solutions.

4. View important details.

5. To seem unnecessarily sentimental.



1. Eclectic approach.

2. Principles: "everything that works" is OK, something that works.

3. Searches for the shortest way to get a return, profit.

4. Feeds interest in innovation.

5. Adaptive.

6. Appreciates any data or theory if they allow you to reach your goal faster.


1. Focused on returns, return on investment.

2. Draws the attention of others to questions of tactics and strategy.

3. He is skilled at finding ways and methods of influence, influence.

4. Better than others manifests itself in complex, developing gender influences of circumstances and case situations.

5. Provides experiment and innovation.



1. Show indifference to the long-term aspects of the case.

2. Needless to hasten to achieve returns on investment.

3. Overdo it in pursuit of benefits.

4. It is unnecessary to rely on the fact that is sold (has a demand).

5. To seem to others too easily compromising.



1. A formal-logical deductive approach.

2. Looks up the best method.

3. Strives for models and formulas.

4. Feeds interest in scientific solutions.

5. Prescriptive.

6. Prefer the theory and method before the data.


1. Focused on the plan and method.

2. Draws the attention of others to data and specific details.

3. Skilful in planning and building models.

4. Better than others manifests itself in structured, calculable situations.

5. Provides stability and structure.



1. Show indifference to human values ​​and the inner world of personality.

2. Sin and pischny detailed planning and analysis.

3. Too persistent [embrace predictability.

4. To show inflexibility, over-care.

5. To appear prone to polarized, "black and white" thinking.



1. An empirical, inductive approach.

2. It is based on facts and opinions of experts.

3. Strives for solutions that meet current, urgent needs.

4. Interested in only specific results.

5. Corrective.

5. He prefers facts to the theory.


1. Focused on facts and results.

2. Draws the attention of others to the real state of affairs and resources.

3 'Is adept at simplifying situations, cutting down funds and "otshivanii" petitioners.

4. Better than others acts in well-defined situations with a clear goal.

5. Provides motivation, impulse and energy charge, momentum.



1. Ignore the discrepancy.

2. Sin for the over-simplified solutions.

3. To exert undue pressure to reach agreement and an immediate response.

4. To reassess the received facts and to be in their captivity.

5. To seem different only to the result.

Styles of thinking in behavior (signs for express diagnostics)

Outwardly looks defiant, skeptical, amused or may seem inattentive (something pondering), but worries when he or someone disagrees with something. Tends to say: "What if? ..", "On the other hand ...", "It does not have to be so", use introductory sentences, adjectives and constructs. The tone is sardonic, probing, skeptical; may sound notes of disagreement, dispute and challenge. It is inclined to express and offer to others alternative, oppositional opinions, concepts, theories. Invites to reflection, notices and points to contradictions, absurdities. He takes pleasure in theoretical, philosophical, intellectual discussions. He does not like conversations that seem to him simplistic, superficial-polite, fact-centric, boring, mundane, "secular". In a stressed state, he lets go of jokes.

Social stereotypes: "Troublemaker," "Troubler," "Tangled Debateer."


Externally looks attentive, receptive; an encouraging, supportive smile, frequent nods in agreement, good verbal feedback from a partner. It is inclined to say: "Do you think? ..", "It seems to me that ...", "Do not you think that? ..", use indirect questions, ancillary tools for reaching agreement. Tone interrogating, encouraging, conducive to conversation; may sound insecure or sound disappointed and resentful, indignant. In communication and relations, he is inclined to express a sense of concern for the welfare of people, considerations about human values, goals and objectives of activity. He enjoys discussing people and their problems at the level of emotions. He does not like conversations that seem to him to be too factual, limited to the limits of available data, dehumanized, open conflicts, unless they touch on issues of morality or concern for people. In a stressed state, he looks offended.

Social stereotypes: "Educated", "Lovely person", Compassionate. "


Outwardly looks open, sociable, often jokes, easily establishes contact with others, quickly agrees. Tends to say: "It suits me", "I buy it" (the American version), "Now we will do it this way, and then we'll see ...", use precedents, illustrations, stereotyped phrases expressing public opinion. Tone enthusiastic, keen, agreeing; may seem insincere, hypocritical. It is inclined to express and offer others simple ideas, brief personal examples for explaining ideas. He enjoys a lively exchange of opinions, a brainstorm on tactical issues. He does not like conversations that seem to him dry, boring, excessively serious, devoid of humor or theoretical, philosophical, analytical, bogged down in unnecessary detail. In the stressed state it looks bored; a man who is tired of everything.

Social stereotypes: "Politician", "Politician", "Shusty".


It looks cool, closed, often difficult to make contact and "read"; Due to a lack of feedback from a partner, it can give the impression of not listening. It is inclined to say: "There is a provision (law) according to which ...", "If to look at it from the point of view of logic ...", "If to approach to it scientifically ...", to use long , discursive, correctly constructed sentences. Tone is dry, disciplined; may seem firm, stubborn, adhering to pre-prepared or agreed positions. It is inclined to express and propose to others general rules, specific supporting data, detailed, full description of cases and events. Enjoys the planned, rational analysis and study of significant issues. He does not like conversations that seem to him irrational, devoid of logic, aimless or too speculative, "unconventional", free of conventions, inappropriate jokes and humor. In a stressed state, it goes into itself, it avoids people.

Social stereotypes: "Idol", "Robot", "Bore", "Quibbler".


Externally it looks straight forward, truthful, convincing; often consent or disagreement quickly expresses non-verbal means (facial expressions, gaze, gesture, posture). Tends to say: "It's obvious to me ...", "Everybody knows that ...", "Let's stick to the facts", use clear, concise, descriptive language. Direct, frank, confident, positive tone; may seem dogmatic and arrogant, authoritative, not objectionable. It is inclined to express and offer opinions to others, factual characteristics by circumstances, brief stinging anecdotes, taunts. He takes pleasure in a brief, direct and frank, factual discussion of current urgent matters. He does not like conversations that seem to him to be excessively theoretical or, on the contrary, sentimental, subjective, useless, long-winded. In the stressed state is excited.

Social stereotypes: "Hard-core," "Enough," "Leader."

thematic pictures

Also We Can Offer!

Other services that we offer

If you don’t see the necessary subject, paper type, or topic in our list of available services and examples, don’t worry! We have a number of other academic disciplines to suit the needs of anyone who visits this website looking for help.

How to ...

We made your life easier with putting together a big number of articles and guidelines on how to plan and write different types of assignments (Essay, Research Paper, Dissertation etc)