Psychological Ponderings

Musing t’other day, as I often do, it occurred to me that thought, and the processing thereof, is entirely subjective. By this, I mean that in the day-to-day course of life, few, if any, human beings will stop to consider if others actually think in the same way. I’ll take an example, which, egotistically, will be me. I think in terms of spoken words; inside my head (here’s where I sound schizophrenic) I have a mental voice, with which I “speak” to myself on whatever I happen to think about. I can have several of these internal monologues going on at once – in fact, I’m thinking about writing this post and the wording I’m going to use (let’s say with my first inner voice) and at the same time considering (with my second inner voice) the way in which I’m thinking.

If it sounds like I’m insane, I’ve made my point well – my thought process is completely alien to other, perfectly sane human beings. Making the assumption that I’m sane myself (a pretty big assumption, in fairness), this demonstrates that humanity’s process of thought is inconsistent and subjective.

Now, let’s make a little jump and try to turn this worthless musing into something useful. Let’s assume that there are categories of thought; verbal, textual, visual, or abstract. At this point you may be thinking, “We already have this, it’s the bullsh*t they ask us about learner types.” I agree. Learner types are bullsh*t. But I am of the opinion that this is not because of the theory behind them, but because of the application. Again, for clarity, TO THE EXAMPLEMOBILE.

Given a generic quiz a few weeks ago upon my entry into Stratford-upon-Avon college to determine my “learner type,” I was asked such relevant and valuable questions as “When trying to memorise something, do you A: Write it down and read it over and over, B: Say it to yourself over and over, C: Try to associate it with movement or touching things.” Here’s the problem, of course (obvious to anyone taking psychology); by asking these questions, and suggesting answers, we alter the way people think about their own thoughts; the act of observation alters the results.

My suggestion is that we use the concept of thought types, but in a less categorical type of way. Rather than giving three multiple choice answers which all obviously pigeonhole the tested subject into one or another “learner type,” we ask more abstract questions intended to reveal the subject’s patterns of thought; or, alternatively, we put it plainly, and straight-up ask how you think. Christ, it’s got to be better than the condescending bollocks learner types shoves down our throats.