Raw research dump on thinking styles. Everything found - academic papers, books, frameworks, popular media, key thinkers. Organized by source/framework. No editorial or competitive angle. Pure information.


Resources

Robert Sternberg — Theory of Mental Self-Government

Harrison & Bramson — The Art of Thinking / InQ

Edward de Bono — Lateral Thinking & Six Thinking Hats

Peter Senge — Systems Thinking & The Fifth Discipline

Shane Parrish & Farnam Street — Mental Models Framework

Jerome Bruner — Narrative Thinking & Two Modes of Cognition

Dedre Gentner — Analogical Reasoning

Academic History — Cognitive Style Research Overview


Research Insights — Analysis for Think[!]

Everything below is extracted directly from the research above and filtered for relevance to three areas: algorithm design, question design, and broader product/positioning decisions. This is the applied layer of the research dump.


1. The Fundamental Distinction: Style vs. Ability

Source: Sternberg (1997), Zhang & Sternberg (2005)

The single most important theoretical insight from the entire research body: thinking styles are preferences in the use of abilities, not abilities themselves. A person can be highly intelligent and still underperform because their style conflicts with what their environment demands. Failure is often a mismatch, not a deficit.

Algorithm implication: Think[!] must be built to measure how someone prefers to approach problems, not how well they perform. Every question must present a choice between equally valid approaches, never between a correct and incorrect one. No answer in the bank should feel like a "smart" answer vs. a "dumb" answer. If a user can detect which answer scores higher, the question is broken.