Free Article about Handwriting Analysis
As most of you know, students are sending all kinds of questions to me on a daily basis. Every so often, I’ll include one of general interest with the Sunday lessons.
I would really like to understand the difference between the thinking patterns. I am a methodical (cumulative) thinker and I’ve got that one down. What is confusing to me are the comprehensive, analytical and investigative thinkers.
Angles at the upper part of middle zone structures show investigative thinking. The sharper the angles, the more pronounced is the trait.
The search for knowledge may be deep probing or it may be just prompted by curiosity, which results in just skimming the surface of the subject. The higher the investigative wedges protrude above the baseline, the deeper the mind probes. The narrower the wedge, the more keenly the writer cuts into and explores knowledge. If the wedges are tall, he likes to explore information in new territories.
If the wedges are shallow, they merely indicate curiosity.
The investigative thinking pattern
The writer has an inquiring mind and is not an easy person to convince. He wants to investigate all aspects of a situation before becoming involved. His intention is to go directly to the source and he insists on gaining firsthand knowledge through his own efforts.
The writer prefers to learn his lessons through his own investigation rather than from other people or books. It is his nature that he wants to experience through his own exploration.
The writer is constantly inquiring and has the intellect to explore and absorb facts. He believes in looking beyond the obvious and enjoys research and investigation. Once an idea becomes fixed in his mind, he usually sets about gathering large amounts of information to augment it. He does not like to undertake a venture until he has carefully examined the ground and accumulated the necessary knowledge beforehand.
The writer’s curiosity goes beyond the immediate task. If he is excited by any new subject he wants to go on learning more about it. He is constantly questioning and seeking. Foremost, he wants to become a well-informed person and he is keenly interested in expanding his knowledge. Knowledge through education may be one of his chief goals. He has a hunger to learn and may remain a “student” throughout his life. He almost certainly he has a great love and respect for education.
He probably would like to have at least one academic degree. He is always trying to broaden and develop his mind and may endeavor to give others the benefit of his knowledge.
The writer probably derives most of his relaxation and pleasure from mental pursuits that are usually not far removed from his working habits.
Application to vocation
With his strong desire to gather knowledge and his intellectual curiosity, the writer is eminently suited for research work. Higher education would have a special attraction for him and science would prove a fertile field for his investigative and searching mind. He could be a great contributor to various fields of knowledge through his ability to make painstaking studies and investigations. He would make an investigator of insurance frauds, conspiracies, and complex financial swindles.
Mental work of a wide variety may appeal to him, such as accounting, credit analysis, astronomy, meteorology, economics, statistics, forensic science, pathology, systems analysis, traffic-flow planning, surveying, etc.).
Whatever he does, his career must include mental activity of a stimulating kind. He will not only enjoy, but will require, mentally challenging work for job satisfaction.
With organizational skills, the writer is especially competent at extracting ideas and organizing them into an applicable pattern.
How to talk to investigative thinkers
The writer takes pleasure in intellectual recreations and companionship while he tends to become bored by routine subjects. The way to appeal to him is through reason. He is contemptuous of people who accept information blindly and irritated with those who let sentiment distort their thinking.
The writer may find little to talk about in social situations that call for general conversation. He likely finds trivial chatter annoying and looks down on soap operas and Sunday afternoon football games as activities which are meaningless and boring. What turns him on is mental stimulation of some kind, and if others want to capture his attention they should gear the conversation toward a subject that they know interests him.
The writer sets high intellectual standards for oneself and is generally happiest with co-workers and friends who are intellectually bright and able to share his ideas.
Investigative thinking versus curiosity
With shallow wedges, the writer has the ability to learn by investigation (if he is interested enough), but he seldom goes into matters as deeply as he is capable of doing. Because he prefers information to knowledge, he will not scrape the bottom when searching for data, nor figure out every possibility, if he feels this serves no immediate purpose. Satisfied with whatever information is readily available, he has little desire to become involved in researching on a deeper level.
The writer will not necessarily investigate subjects for himself; he may accept the findings of established authorities and work from their accumulated knowledge. He may use others’ findings and use what is applicable for his own purposes. He often ends up looking to others for his answers.
He may investigate a subject more thoroughly if sufficient interest is present.
Advantages of investigative thinking:
- Takes time to investigate.
- Waits to get involved in action until he is sure of his conclusions.
Disadvantages of analytical thinking:
- Slow to react. There is no action in the moment while the writer is still exploring.
- Wastes time investigating what he already knows.
How to counsel the analytical thinker:
- Speed up your reactions. Learn to think on your feet.
- Don’t take more time to investigate than you really need.
- In personal relationships don’t bother to investigate every time why someone did what he/she did.
Until next time.
Dr. Erika M. Karohs