surprises inthe LCI!
My Learning Connections Inventory results weren't exactly what I expected. I figured that I'd score highly for Confluent Processing, and low on the other three. However, I my "use this pattern first" was a tie between Confluent and Precise Processing and the other two, Sequential and Technical Processing tied for "avoid this pattern."
How strange that no process landed in the "I use this pattern as needed."
In retrospect I can see how I might score under the "Precise" category. I had associated it (based on the paragraph definition we read earlier) with "Sensing" in the Meyers-Briggs: I though Precise was a style that would be very detail and fact oriented. Now I realize that perhaps it deals more with information rather than detail. (I make this distinction because I may not be good with numbers, but I want to make sure I know the concept behind the way we use numbers.)
It's interesting to me that the Precise pattern seems to be in direct conflict with Confluent processing. I knew I'd score well for the Confluent processing Pattern, which is for those who synthesize, pull together ideas, and don't mind guessing according to their intuition. How could someone worried with accuracy of knowledge (a Precise processor) also like guessing? I think in my case it has to do with the fact that once I feel that I have the most accurate information that I can have (and have done the research to back it) then I feel that my guesses will probably be on target... and then I don't have to do that pesky double-checking that I can't stand (because I'm not at all Sequential).
It's no surprise to me that I ended up in the avoidance category with both confluent Sequential and Technical processing. What can I say? I only grudgingly double check information (which I always put off as long as possible) and I really prefer not to repeat. I'm also not a mechanically-minded person, so tools (as a thing) aren't that interesting or useful for me in my learning process. I was, however, surprised I scored so lowly on the Technical area, as I enjoy technology based tools and always try to intuit (hey-Confluent!) how to use things so that I can avoid the manual.
How strange that no process landed in the "I use this pattern as needed."
In retrospect I can see how I might score under the "Precise" category. I had associated it (based on the paragraph definition we read earlier) with "Sensing" in the Meyers-Briggs: I though Precise was a style that would be very detail and fact oriented. Now I realize that perhaps it deals more with information rather than detail. (I make this distinction because I may not be good with numbers, but I want to make sure I know the concept behind the way we use numbers.)
It's interesting to me that the Precise pattern seems to be in direct conflict with Confluent processing. I knew I'd score well for the Confluent processing Pattern, which is for those who synthesize, pull together ideas, and don't mind guessing according to their intuition. How could someone worried with accuracy of knowledge (a Precise processor) also like guessing? I think in my case it has to do with the fact that once I feel that I have the most accurate information that I can have (and have done the research to back it) then I feel that my guesses will probably be on target... and then I don't have to do that pesky double-checking that I can't stand (because I'm not at all Sequential).
It's no surprise to me that I ended up in the avoidance category with both confluent Sequential and Technical processing. What can I say? I only grudgingly double check information (which I always put off as long as possible) and I really prefer not to repeat. I'm also not a mechanically-minded person, so tools (as a thing) aren't that interesting or useful for me in my learning process. I was, however, surprised I scored so lowly on the Technical area, as I enjoy technology based tools and always try to intuit (hey-Confluent!) how to use things so that I can avoid the manual.
posted by Lauren Pressley at 12:44
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home