CONSTRUCTED DEVELOPMENT THEORY
1
The Theory of Constructed Development focuses on how human beings utilise shortcuts in their thinking in order to construct their Intention, Awareness, Choice and Response TM in the moment. The greater their awareness of their intention, the greater their capacity to choose their response in the moment. CONSTRUCTED DEVELOPMENT THEORY Thinking about our thinking is called Metacognition and it refers to the self-monitoring of one’s own cognitive processes and influences on them (Flavell, 1976). Rumelhart and Norman (1983) describe a ‘schema’ as a way of guiding our actions. They suggest that we hold schemas that guide us from using a PC to tying our shoe laces, and interacting with our children. Piaget (1962) argued that to understand cognitive development, we must understand schemas as they change over time as we experience new events. These new situations alter our mental representations of and beliefs about, our representation of the world (Korzybski, 1951). Adult stage development focuses on the cognitive complexity of adult thinkers. The movement between developmental stages is described as bridging (Granott, 2010). Joiner and Josephs (2007) stated that self-awareness and intention facilitate growth between developmental stages. However, the theories are lacking in actual facets that can be manipulated in order to demonstrate vertical growth. An individual’s thinking can be deconstructed using fifty Cognitive Intentions (such as: Towards / Away From; Internal / External) that combine to construct our thinking in context. Each CI has an unconscious drive that is the focus of its output and this is a shortcut in our thinking, developed over time. Or, as Piaget described: a schema. How aware we are of this intention is key to how we construct our thinking. The unique combination of CI’s for each individual is considered a Thinking Style and this style is measurable on the Thinking Quotient scale. It measures self-awareness by determining the difference between the CI pairs, eg: how Internal we are versus how External we are. If we consider the alignment of CI’s from a neuroscience perspective, investigations of cognitive processes have linked approach motivation [Towards] and avoidance motivation [Away From] (Friedman and Förster 2005a). In terms of metacognition, in a study by Grant, Franklin & Langford (2002), looking at the Self-Reflection and Insight Scale, they found that an individual’s skills in self-evaluation and their propensity for conscious, rather than automatic self-reflection, does not necessarily mean that one is capable of developing clarity of insight. This level of insight versus awareness was a key measure in the development of this theory. The data from Study 3 were significant and demonstrated that there were different dimensions of Cognitive Intention combinations at different levels on the Thinking Quotient scale. This means that the TQ score is impacted by different combinations of CI’s for MBA students than it is for the general population, which suggests that the combination in study 2 could be considered an academic Thinking Style. The higher our TQ score, the more capable we are of choosing our construction of self in the moment. This awareness of our construction is termed ‘Dynamic Intelligence’. To test this construction of self-awareness further, study 4 asked 55 participants to rate their use of 13 specific Cognitive Intentions and their Thinking Styles. The results showed that participants were able to correctly gauge their use of some CI’s. However, they were less able to describe their use of other CI’s, which were generally considered to be less available due to the CI’s complexity requirements. This supports the connection between CDT and complexity theory. These findings combine to create a new theory of cognitive development for adults - Constructed Development Theory - within a potentially new field of adult metacognition, and with a process for cognitive growth called Dynamic Intelligence. This process and one’s capacity is measured using the new scale for self-awareness called The Thinking Quotient. The final study (5) was a semi-structured interview (phenomenological) used to determine if the findings from the four quantitative studies transferred to the lived experiences of the participants, by asking how aware they were of their Thinking Styles in the moment. A number of themes emerged from the data that supported the hypothesis that we are not aware of our thinking in the moment. What emerged was that participants recognised their Thinking Style, but were not conscious of their underlying intention, their awareness of this intention, or their resultant choice of response. These are known as the Four Pillars of Constructed Development: Intention, Awareness, Choice and Response TM . Essentially, we utilise CI’s as shortcuts in our thinking and we construct our thinking in the moment based on prior constructions. The theme of “Experiential Awareness” suggested participants acted in ways consistent with previous constructions of self in similar situations. This aligned with the research of Feldman-Barret (2017) and Chater (2018) who suggest we construct our emotions and our selves in the moment. However, the participants were cognisant of their construction, but were unable to change this construction even with raised awareness. The way to change an individual’s construction of self is to determine which CI's they use the most, and suggest they operate the opposites for a period of one month. This helps create new synaptic pathways. However, from a CDT perspective, what it offers is Choice. Where once they only used “Internal”, after a month of being “External”, they will then have the choice of both. This is a Cognitive Intervention. Consider the final step: where once a person was only interested in their own thoughts, focusing on others’ thoughts now impacts their outward behaviour. This is potentially a personality change. Thus, CDT suggests that personality is constructed and impermanent, and changes with greater Awareness. Especially for high TQ thinkers. CD Development Onion Concrete Sceptic Difference Realisation Options Polar Quality Cont. Distrustful Away From Future Task Abstract Vision Long Term Observer Things Procedures Short Term Details Consensus Dim 1 Dim 2 Dim 3 In study 2, a factor analysis of a limited participant group of 177, demonstrated that a specific combination of Cognitive Intentions were present in the thinking of MBA students. Study 3 expanded the participant number to 8,200 and the factor analysis showed that Dimensions 1 and 3 were opposing. They impacted the TQ score positively and negatively respectively. Dimension 4 determined how internally-referenced one is, and Dimension 5 showed how externally-referenced one is, with a view to differentiating between TQ2 and TQ4 in Dimensions 4, and 3 and TQ5 in Dimension 5. In other words, too much Internal, Own, Individualist etc, showed the participant to be lower on the TQ scale and all about their own perspective. Too high on Dimension 5 and the person is extremely External, meaning they construct themselves based on other’s perceptions of them. This is aligned with Piaget’s (1985) disequilibrium concept, and Ashforth, et al.’s (2008) theory of ‘Identicide’, in that one must place one’s thinking into a state of disequilibrium before one can grow. Polar Global Details Abstract Concrete Team Player Individualist Present Future Long Term Short Term Sceptic Trustful Options Procedures Caring for Self Caring Others Pre-Active Re-Active Sameness Difference Consensus Relationship Task Copyright © 2021 Dr Darren Stevens
Transcript of CONSTRUCTED DEVELOPMENT THEORY
The Theory of Constructed Development focuses on how human beings utilise shortcuts in their thinking in order to construct their Intention, Awareness, Choice and ResponseTM in the moment. The greater their awareness of their intention, the greater their capacity to choose their response
in the moment.
CONSTRUCTED DEVELOPMENT THEORY
Thinking about our thinking is called Metacognition and it refers to the self-monitoring of one’s own cognitive processes and influences on them (Flavell, 1976). Rumelhart and Norman (1983) describe a ‘schema’ as a way of guiding our actions. They suggest that we hold
schemas that guide us from using a PC to tying our shoe laces, and interacting with our children. Piaget (1962) argued that to understand cognitive development, we must understand schemas as they change over time as we experience new events. These new situations alter our mental representations of and beliefs about, our representation of the world (Korzybski, 1951). Adult stage development focuses on the cognitive complexity of adult thinkers. The movement between developmental stages is
described as bridging (Granott, 2010). Joiner and Josephs (2007) stated that self-awareness and intention facilitate growth between developmental stages. However, the theories are lacking in actual facets that can be manipulated in order to demonstrate vertical growth.
An individual’s thinking can be deconstructed using fifty Cognitive Intentions (such as: Towards / Away From; Internal / External) that combine to construct our thinking in context. Each CI has an unconscious drive that is the focus of its output and
this is a shortcut in our thinking, developed over time. Or, as Piaget described: a schema. How aware we are of this intention is key to how we construct our thinking. The unique combination of CI’s for each individual is considered a
Thinking Style and this style is measurable on the Thinking Quotient scale. It measures self-awareness by determining the difference between the CI pairs, eg: how Internal we are versus how External we are. If we consider the alignment of CI’s from a neuroscience perspective, investigations of cognitive processes have linked approach motivation [Towards] and avoidance motivation [Away From] (Friedman and Förster 2005a). In
terms of metacognition, in a study by Grant, Franklin & Langford (2002), looking at the Self-Reflection and Insight Scale, they found that an individual’s skills in self-evaluation and their propensity for conscious, rather than automatic
self-reflection, does not necessarily mean that one is capable of developing clarity of insight. This level of insight versus awareness was a key measure in the development of this theory.
The data from Study 3 were significant and demonstrated that there were different dimensions of Cognitive Intention combinations at different levels on the Thinking Quotient scale. This means that the TQ score is impacted by different combinations of CI’s for MBA students than it is for the
general population, which suggests that the combination in study 2 could be considered an academic Thinking Style. The higher our TQ score, the more capable we are of choosing our construction of self in the moment. This awareness of our construction is termed ‘Dynamic Intelligence’. To test this construction of self-awareness further, study 4 asked 55 participants to rate
their use of 13 specific Cognitive Intentions and their Thinking Styles. The results showed that participants were able to correctly gauge their use of some CI’s. However, they were
less able to describe their use of other CI’s, which were generally considered to be less available due to the CI’s complexity requirements. This supports the connection between CDT and complexity theory.
These findings combine to create a new theory of cognitive development for adults - Constructed Development Theory - within a potentially new field of adult metacognition, and with a process for cognitive growth called Dynamic Intelligence. This process and one’s capacity is measured using the new scale for self-awareness called The Thinking Quotient.
The final study (5) was a semi-structured interview (phenomenological) used to determine if the findings from the four quantitative studies transferred to the lived experiences of the participants, by asking how aware they were of their Thinking Styles in the moment. A number of themes emerged from the data that supported the hypothesis that we are not aware of our thinking in the moment. What emerged was that participants recognised their Thinking Style, but were not conscious of their underlying intention, their awareness of this intention, or their resultant choice of response. These are known as the Four Pillars of Constructed
Development: Intention, Awareness, Choice and ResponseTM. Essentially, we utilise CI’s as shortcuts in our thinking and we construct our thinking in the moment based on prior constructions. The theme of “Experiential Awareness” suggested participants acted in ways consistent with previous constructions of self in similar situations. This aligned with the research of Feldman-Barret (2017) and Chater (2018) who suggest we construct our emotions and our selves in the moment. However, the participants
were cognisant of their construction, but were unable to change this construction even with raised awareness. The way to change an individual’s construction of self is to determine which CI's they use the most, and suggest they
operate the opposites for a period of one month. This helps create new synaptic pathways. However, from a CDT perspective, what it offers is Choice. Where once they only used “Internal”, after a month of being “External”, they will then have the choice of both. This is a Cognitive Intervention. Consider the final step: where once a person was only interested in their own thoughts, focusing on others’ thoughts now impacts their outward behaviour. This is potentially a personality change. Thus, CDT suggests that personality is constructed and impermanent, and changes with greater Awareness. Especially for high TQ thinkers.
CD D
evel
opm
ent O
nion
Concrete
Sceptic
Difference
Realisation
Options
Polar
Quality Cont.
Distrustful
Away From
Future
Task
Abstract
Vision
Long Term
Observer
Things
Procedures
Short Term
Details
Consensus
Dim 1 Dim 2 Dim 3In study 2, a factor analysis of a limited participant group of 177, demonstrated that a specific combination of Cognitive Intentions were present in the thinking of MBA students.
Study 3 expanded the participant number to 8,200 and the factor analysis showed that Dimensions 1 and 3 were opposing. They impacted the TQ score positively and negatively respectively. Dimension 4 determined how internally-referenced one is, and Dimension 5 showed how externally-referenced one is, with a view to differentiating between TQ2 and TQ4 in Dimensions 4, and 3 and TQ5 in Dimension 5. In other words, too much Internal, Own, Individualist etc, showed the participant to be
lower on the TQ scale and all about their own perspective. Too high on Dimension 5 and the person is extremely External, meaning they construct themselves based on other’s perceptions of them. This is
aligned with Piaget’s (1985) disequilibrium concept, and Ashforth, et al.’s (2008) theory of ‘Identicide’, in that one must place one’s thinking into a state of disequilibrium before one can grow.
Polar
GlobalDetails
AbstractConcrete
Team PlayerIndividualist
PresentFuture
Long TermShort Term
ScepticTrustful
OptionsProcedures
Caring for SelfCaring Others
Pre-ActiveRe-ActiveSamenessDifferenceConsensus
RelationshipTask
Copyright © 2021 Dr Darren Stevens
