Thought patterns normal, Captain.

By: Unknown

I believed I've derived three basic types of thought and memory that determine a person's ability in certain fields.

The concrete thought pattern is the historical mind. Facts are easily memorized, and with real examples, or constant exposure to some intellectual stimulus, the workings of a process can be derived. These people are best at history, second best at English (of the core classes).

The abstract thought pattern is the mathematical mind. How processes and ideas work can be comprehended easily, even without real examples. The abstractions and idealisms of math work very well for these people, and science is relatively easy for them.

Then there's what I like to call "philotic" thought patterns, named because it's correlated to the ideas in my theory of energy, which is loosely based on Orson Scott Card's philotic physics in the Ender's Game series. I may post the theory later. This people fall in the middle, but generally to one side. They grasp the abstract workings of systems more easily than concrete thinkers, but can apply these workings easily to the real world, and learn facts and formulae relatively easily. This is a sliding spectrum of ability; for instance, I am about 70% abstract, 30% concrete. This means I am exceptional at science, very good at math, good at english, and bad at history (relative to my base academic skill, which is rather high, so "bad" at history isn't necessarily actually bad at history). If someone was good at English, they would likely be, relative to their base skill, exceptional at English, very good at history, good at science, and bad at math.

Of course, there are always exceptions, and this is only the crude outline of a theory. I just felt like posting something tonight.

~Michael,
...I'm tired of doing stuff. Stuff should stop needing to be done...