Now You're Thinking!: Change Your Thinking...Revolutionize Your Career...Transform Your Life Read online

  When Lieutenant Colonel Bellon received permission from higher headquarters for Kevin and colleagues to proceed, he knew the parameters of that approval; there was no room for overgeneralization. He accurately concluded that permission was tenuous at best, and any action that diverted attention from their official mission would result in a quick reversal of the decision.

  Inductive and Deductive Reasoning

  Let’s look at the process of drawing a conclusion now that we have seen how a couple of common miscues occur. To understand how you draw conclusions, you need to know about deductive and inductive reasoning. To help you, pick a detective from your favorite crime-solving show (e.g., NCIS, The Mentalist, CSI, Sherlock Holmes)—any one will do. Here is the story:

  A woman was shot, her body was found in her apartment, and her boyfriend is the primary suspect. At the time of death, he was with some buddies at a local bar two blocks from her apartment. However, he left the bar for ten minutes to get something from his car, and no one noticed him while he was gone. If the woman was murdered in her apartment, the boyfriend had sufficient time to commit the crime. However, your favorite detective (insert name here) thinks she was murdered across town. If so, the boyfriend could not have shot her.

  This “if so” logic is deductive reasoning. If something is true (she died on the other side of town), then certain conclusions can be deduced (the boyfriend was not with her when she died). In deductive reasoning, you use a “top down” approach. Principles and laws are applied (e.g., you can’t be in two different places at the same time) to draw a conclusion. Applying proven principles, rules, and laws to move from information to conclusion reduces error and adds rigor to your thinking.

  When Glenn Susskind was trying to determine the oxygen supply required for the trip, he noted that Amenah lived in low country, not the mountains. So, he assumed that she was near sea level and that her blood was only semioxygenated because of her illness. He knew that the type of plane required to make the trip would pressurize at 8,000 feet. Glenn was using deductive reasoning and applying laws of physics to estimate her oxygen needs during the flight.

  Inductive reasoning is more of a “bottom up” approach in which observations are made that lead to a conclusion. When your favorite detective arrived on the scene, he or she closely examined the body, then stepped back and said, “She wasn’t killed here. She probably died on the beach.” The detective noticed sand under her fingernails, the scent of seaweed, and no blood on the carpet. Based on these observations, the detective inferred that she died elsewhere, probably at the beach on the other side of town. The detective can’t be sure, but it is an educated guess. In inductive reasoning, you connect a set of observations to make an educated guess about how they are related. Inductive reasoning is useful when you are trying to identify patterns and trends.

  Dr. Nadeau observed the current state of the local hospital in Haditha, which had been crippled by war. He reviewed a U.S. government contract that proposed spending $2.5 million on restoring the hospital. He also reviewed the types of resources that the local doctors were requesting, which did not match basic medical needs. He then sat down and reviewed what the local infrastructure could support and the common medical needs of the people in Haditha. When he connected the dots, he knew that the 2.5 million dollars would be wasted. Dr. Nadeau was using inductive reasoning when he drew this conclusion, and also when he proposed rebuilding a basic hospital that would be suited for the needs of the people and supportable with current infrastructure.

  Good decision making (or problem solving) is about drawing conclusions that logically follow from accurate and relevant information. You use deductive and inductive reasoning skills to make the connection between information and conclusion. When the connection slips (e.g., jumping to conclusions, overgeneralizing), so does the quality of the decision.

  5. Develop a Plan of Action

  Once a decision is made, what happens next? A plan of action helps you anticipate consequences and brings your decision to life. The type of planning needed depends, to a certain extent, on the type of decision (e.g., project plan, business plan, wedding plan). However, when you move from decision to action, three questions will get you off to a good start:

  • What are the consequences of this decision?

  • What plans need to be made to implement this decision?

  • What types of resources are needed to implement this decision?

  In “Amenah’s Story,” there were multiple action plans, and each was very detailed and specific. That level of detail was necessary to successfully orchestrate a complex life-and-death mission. Of course, most decisions will not require this level of planning, but it is important to remember that a decision is the beginning, not the end point. Leveraging the qualities of a timely style helps to bring a proactive, resourceful approach to bear on a plan of action. Similarly, using an analytical style and looking for inconsistencies or missing pieces of the plan helps avoid gaffes and miscues. A plan of action keeps you focused, helps you avoid unnecessary detours, and leads to more predictable and promising outcomes.

  Summary

  Every day, you are bombarded with information and you will absorb it differently than you did before. Perhaps you will notice an opinion that looks like a fact, recognize an unstated assumption, or catch yourself agreeing with something just because it matches your beliefs. Maybe you will quickly recognize irrelevant information and save yourself time by moving on to something more relevant. Maybe you will see similarities across pieces of information and connect the dots using inductive reasoning. Regardless of what you learned in this chapter, the end result is that you are thinking differently.

  You now have a new model for thinking and a series of relevant questions that allows you to organize your thoughts as you approach opportunities, problems, and decisions. The five-step model helps you approach thinking more like an expert (organizing and grouping information, asking better questions) than a novice. Practice your new skills each day, and you will quickly see positive results.

  Endnotes

  1. A New of Way Thinking is based on Pearson’s RED model of critical thinking (www.ThinkWatson.com). The RED model (Recognize Assumptions, Evaluate Arguments, and Draw Conclusions) stems from more than 85 years of research on critical thinking. This program of research is based primarily on the Watson-Glaser™ II Critical Thinking Appraisal, a leading assessment of critical thinking ability.

  2. Professor Ruth S. Day of Duke University leads a program of cognitive research, including cognitive accessibility of drug benefits and risks. Her research is summarized on her faculty Web page at www.duke.edu.

  Chapter 3. Take Stock of Your Style

  On the flip side of the details and events of “Amenah’s Story,” where everyone had their approriate thinking caps on and played to their particular styles and strengths, sometimes (often) events do not play out so smoothly.

  Following the January 12, 2010, earthquake that devastated Haiti, a bus pulled up to a checkpoint on the Dominican Republic. Inside were 33 children, aged from 2 to 12, who were being escorted by a group of ten Baptist missionaries. Instead of being passed through the check station, the children were taken off in one direction by authorities and the missionaries were taken in another direction and arrested on January 29 for kidnapping.

  Laura Silsby, of Meridian, Idaho, who led the nine other members of the missionary group, told the media she was only trying to save suffering children. However, there were a few details she had not even shared with her fellow missionaries:

  • An areawide concern about human trafficking had made authorities exceptionally sensitive to the movement of people out of Haiti by anyone.

  • Many of the children being transported were not even orphans. At least 20 of the children were from a single village and had living parents. Some of the parents told the AP they willingly turned over their children to the missionaries on the promise the Americans would educate them and allow relatives to visit.


  • Silsby had decided the previous summer to create an orphanage in the Dominican Republic, and in November of 2009, she registered the nonprofit New Life Children’s Refuge foundation in Idaho. After Haiti’s catastrophic earthquake, she accelerated the plan and recruited her fellow missionaries.

  • A Dominican diplomat who said Laura had visited him the same day the missionaries tried to take the children out of the country told the AP that he had warned her that without the proper papers, she could be arrested.

  So, surprise, surprise, things went wrong at the border and the well-intentioned group was arrested.

  As someone getting a clearer look at how good thinking works, you can, no doubt, spot a few errors in the thinking style in this situation. Now, contrast and compare that event with how smoothly Amenah’s situation went, in spite of numerous obstacles and adjustments.

  Major Kevin Jarrard’s Good Samaritan background could have led him to leap to a decision, but he avoided making any assumptions and wanted to consider all aspects and steps before he took any action. He also played to an array of supportive careful thinkers who, each in his or her own way, helped to turn a difficult and complicated task into a doable one.

  Think about a time when you successfully thought through a challenging situation—a time when you did it right and you did it well. Do you remember what you did that led to success? You might even come up with, “not specifically,” because you might not have a vocabulary to describe successful thinking. You might have a broad sense of what worked and what didn’t. Not knowing your thinking style and how you replicate successes and avoid mistakes could create a rut instead of opening opportunities for new success. If making a pros and cons list worked when you were trying to decide if you wanted to go out on a date with someone in high school, then you are likely to keep using that process to help make decisions. Evaluating pros and cons has become part of your repertoire.

  Collecting good techniques as you go along certainly isn’t bad, but it is not intentional. Relying on whatever happens to be in your toolkit is not the same as having a full set of tools in a wellorganized box. To be successful, really successful, you need to be intentional. You need to know your style and your skills, exactly what they are and how they work for you. The good news is that it is easy to learn.

  Let’s look at how knowing, cultivating, and shaping positive thinking styles help you become a great thinker. We all possess thinking styles, which are positive habits that support the development of thinking skills. For example, approaching problems by carefully analyzing the situation or looking for facts and important details is a style.

  You have preferred thinking styles, which means that you use certain positive behaviors more frequently and across various situations. You can access those behaviors quickly and comfortably. So, you lead with your preferred styles as you build your thinking skills. That is what successful people do—they leverage their strengths.

  Understanding Your Thinking Styles

  At this point, you are probably saying, “So, how exactly do I figure out my preferred thinking styles?” One option is to take the My Thinking Styles assessment, which is free and takes about 10 minutes to complete (see sidebar). You will receive feedback that describes your preferred thinking styles and how you can use them to your advantage. Each style is positive, and all seven styles contribute in different ways to good thinking. For you, the question is which styles do you use most frequently and comfortably, and which ones are less natural? You might find it easier to relate to the varied thinking styles if you first assess yourself before you explore the styles. Although that might work best for most people, you can also consider the styles that follow and see which one, or which combination of styles, most plays to your thinking strengths.

  * * *

  Assess Your Thinking Styles

  Go to www.ThinkWatson.com/mythinkingstyles. It will take you less than 10 minutes to complete the assessment, and it is best to take it when you are not rushed or distracted. Give yourself time to comfortably answer the questions. When you finish, you will receive a personal feedback report that describes your preferred thinking styles.

  * * *

  Analytical Style

  Jonathan Malloch had a map on the wall of his office with all of the key players and all of the possible players. He created an algorithm that allowed him to sift through three to five options for every step of the extraction process, so that if one option failed, they could move to the next. At every single point in the plan, they had an alternative option. Jonathan knew that he needed “to get pieces in place in a way that is ironclad.” As he explained, “We had a lot of plans that we could have launched with, but none of them were secure. I was unwilling to send this team unless I knew—as much as could be known—that these guys would return safely. I did not want to have a conversation with their wives and their family about why they didn’t return.” Jonathan knew that he had to prepare for every possibility and to review every detail.

  If you are analytical, you like to anticipate consequences and identify strengths and weaknesses in plans. You are quick to think about if-then scenarios and how they might play out. You like to study situations and think about pros and cons. If something doesn’t fit in a situation or an important detail is missing, you are likely to notice. You are comfortable studying situations and concentrating on the pieces and how they logically fit together. You are likely to sort through facts and analyze information that is received, rather than just accepting it at face value. Analytical people can be described as clear thinking, orderly, and rational. Having an analytical style helps build specific thinking skills, such as the following:

  • Checking the accuracy of information you receive

  • Differentiating facts from opinions

  • Clarifying situations by questioning ambiguous or vague language

  • Noticing missing or inconsistent pieces of a plan

  • Analyzing alternatives in an orderly fashion

  Inquisitive Style

  A top hypertension specialist and Vanderbilt professor, Dr. Nadeau is the expert, the man with the answers. But he is also the man who wonders why and asks the questions that drive new thinking and innovation. Nadeau wondered what they could do to prevent deaths from battlefield injuries, and, with Lieutenant Colonel Bellon’s support, that question led to medical training for all the Marines in the battalion. Theirs was the first battalion to receive intensive medical training, teaching each Marine to deal with common problems that lead to deaths on the battlefield, such as how to reduce bleeding from extremity wounds.

  Dr. Nadeau left his day-to-day role of caring for patients with heart disease to look after young Marines in a battle zone because, as he said, he “liked the challenge of doing something completely different.” He was also committed to figuring out how to help the Iraqis rebuild their health-care system. That’s why, when he went out to the public health clinics that had been completely stripped by vandals, he asked “Why don’t we hire Iraqis and rebuild these clinics?” That question led to renovated clinics. In the same way, he helped reengineer the hospital and he actively went out into the community to serve the needs of the local people, including the tribal sheik. After Amenah came back cured, he came across other children like her, and asked, “How can we make this happen more frequently?” Thanks to that question, a second child was helped at the University at Charleston and a third in Amman, Jordan. Dr. Nadeau’s frequent questions led to his continual learning and to a series of improvements in medical care and medical facilities.

  If you have an inquisitive style, you are intellectually curious and like to learn new things about the world. You want to know why things work the way they do and are comfortable probing deeply into subjects. You like to learn about different cultures and people. For you, information is an opportunity to learn. You have a tolerance for ambiguity and complexity because it gives you an opportunity to figure things out. Inquisitive people can be described as curious, a
lert, and interested in their surrounding world. Having an inquisitive style helps build specific thinking skills, such as the following:

  • Clarifying issues or beliefs

  • Identifying the root cause of a problem

  • Questioning deeply to unearth assumptions or new perspectives

  • Asking how and why questions that help evaluate information or alternatives