Conceptual or Concrete Thinker?

Post Reply New Topic

I've always thought of myself as a more conceptual, abstract thinker who tries to develop a general understanding of the pattern underlying changes. For example, my interest in history is a fascination with how ideas and whole groups of people change, emerge, submerge, and diverge over time. It is interesting to be aware of how Roman civil institutions and customs evolved into medieval social structure and law and then finally into contemporary Western society. I'm much less interested in the individuals and the single events (wars, assassinations, usurptions, and important dates) that mark history. I knew when things happened relative to each other; some events could logically only occur after others and fit in the same era as similar events.

Funny enough, when I was being diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome, I was asked whether I was interested in history and then asked why. I found it extraordinarily odd that I had to defend an interest I had, so I said something about how an awareness of history helps a person understand current events better. They probably assumed I just liked to sit down and memorize dates, presidents' names, and things like that. The diagnosing team was a bunch of patronizing and stupid but "well-meaning" special education and school psychologist folks, after all.

Other people are very concrete and remain anchored at their feet. They can become obsessed with rules, procedure, etiquette, and other details while losing sight of why such things exist in the first place. They are more concerned with the immediate, tangible consequences of an action or rigid adherence to some set goal. They remember specific numbers, names, and phrases by rote without a problem even if it's not in an area of special interest. They'd rather not learn the concept so that they can derive all those formulas on their own instead of having to memorize each one individually. They probably have less intuition, too.

Concrete thinkers probably value most following orders, being efficient and effective, knowing where one stands, always having an answer, and accepting things as they are. They probably make good bureaucrats, accountants, factory workers, fast-food employees, middle managers, librarians and archivists, carpenters, engineers, and any other job where creativity and intuition can actually be detrimental (because then you don't "know your place"). On the other hand, conceptual thinkers are the kind of people who inspire us and who can occupy all sorts of careers: artist, scientist, political leader, writer, chef, teacher, explorer, activist, social critic, romantic, inventer, entrepreneur, and comedian.

A both option, I think... (OK, occasionally a neither, too?)

Yes, the details (for example in history)
But yes, some overall concept to put all of those into a framework, otherwise they are of little value. And a historical concept without the backing of details is just airy-fairy myth making.

"The great tragedy of science, the slaying of a beautiful theory by an ugly fact. -- Thomas Henry Huxley. "

Possibly its tragedy, but also its triumph.

Historical myth: the unstoppable German panzer divisions storming across France in May 1940.
(cue newsreel clip of tank bashing through hedgerow or building)
Detail: At the time the French and British had more and better tanks deployed.


I'm in a measuring, engineering, profession but the numbers need to build to a coherent picture, and I need to be able to spot when the numbers "don't add up" in more than an accountancy sense, and have a theory to cover that situation.


Lack of concept is something I've noticed in a proportion of teenagers who seem never to have been taught to estimate. A slip on a calculator can give an answer out by a factor of 10, (or worse) but some have no idea that the number obtained is "unacceptable". It's just a number, not something that has to "make sense" in a setting.

I don't think I fit the rules for either, just a mixture of both. I do about half of the things of both of those options.

I'm a conceptual thinker. Stealing is my artform. Unlike a concrete thinker who steals, I don't perform each theft methodically according to a set of rules and procedures that have been set by others.

I steal in inventive, artistic ways which stretch my intuition. No two robberies are alike. Physical, social, emotional and mental manipulation are all mixed together in varying degrees into a spontaneous concoction of kleptomaniacal passion.

A little of both for me!

Peace

See, if I give a both option, most people will choose it. This is called a forced-choice survey. Of course, no one is all abstract theory without any facts or actual observations or vice versa; that's ridiculous. Most people are somewhat more dominant in one line of thinking than the other.

I think the fact that many aspies want a both option is actually proof that they're concrete thinkers because they can't generalize the situation. They know there are times when they think specifically and also times when they think generally, so they think it's got to be both. They can't realize the question isn't literally all one or all the other. It's asking for a general tendency.

Well, there's the implied third choice of not voting, at the least.

You may be right on the second point, but I, and maybe others, read the questions with care.
The question could easily have been "are you *mainly* a..." which would have produced, in me at least, a different response. Therefore I took the phrasing as exact, and have not voted, as that best expresses my position.

File me alongside Sherlock Holmes:
"It is a capital mistake to theorise in advance of the data"

Neanthumain wrote: Other people are very concrete and remain anchored at their feet. They can become obsessed with rules, procedure, etiquette, and other details while losing sight of why such things exist in the first place. They are more concerned with the immediate, tangible consequences of an action or rigid adherence to some set goal. They remember specific numbers, names, and phrases by rote without a problem even if it's not in an area of special interest. They'd rather not learn the concept so that they can derive all those formulas on their own instead of having to memorize each one individually. They probably have less intuition, too.

Concrete thinkers probably value most following orders, being efficient and effective, knowing where one stands, always having an answer, and accepting things as they are. They probably make good bureaucrats, accountants, factory workers, fast-food employees, middle managers, librarians and archivists, carpenters, engineers, and any other job where creativity and intuition can actually be detrimental



This describes my husband so much. He is very rigid and has tantrums when things don't go exactly as planned. He has been dx'd with ADHD but I wonder......

I switch back and forth betwenn Conceptual and the Concrete, like my brain must go one way or the other but never both at the same time. But for the most part, Concrete. I enjoy manual labor and tasks requiring little thought. That doesn't make me a shmuck, though. It's my way of zoning out and it feels good.

I also am a bit of both. I generally have a fairly good head for concrete facts and details, but I have to understand the broader concept in order to retain those facts. There has to be some system or a pattern for the details to fit into, I can't just carry them all around in a giant lump.