1982 edition:
p.1 Most people, most of the time, think about things in only one way...
All of us think about things the way we do because it is the "right" way... When we approach problems or decisions, we employ
a set of specific strategies, whether we know it or not. Each of us has a preference for a limited set of thinking strategies...
Yet almost all of us learn only one or two sets of strategies, and we go through life using them no matter the situation.
All around us we see people achieving success using strategies very different from our own, but despite
the evidence we persist in the ways that we believe work for us. We impose our own limitations, and we find it hard to understand
those who persist in their own peculiar methods.
When we succeed in our efforts, we are pleased because our values are confirmed. When we fail,
we rationalize and, most often, blame others for our failure or ascribe it to plain bad luck. We seldom take the trouble
to learn new ways of thinking. If we were to do so, we would expand our adaptability to problem situations and to the events
of daily life.
p.3 What you can learn from this book... First, you will understand your own Style of Thinking, the styles
of other people who are important to you, and the differences between them... Second, you will be able to identify your own
blind spots... Third, you will learn how to use your existing strengths more productively... Fourth, you will learn a number
of practical and accessible methods for augmenting and expanding your Style of Thinking... Fifth, you will learn some specific
methods for influencing and communicating with others in the most effective way.
p.11 Only about 11 percent of the people who have taken the inQ [a test of thinking style] show a preference
for the Synthesist Style... To "synthesize" means, essentially, to make something new and original out of things that, by
themselves, seem very different from each other. Combining different things - especially ideas - in that way is what
Synthesists like to do. Their favorite thought process is likely to be speculative. "What if we were to take this
idea and that idea and put them together? What would we have?" The motto of the Synthesist is "What if..."
Synthesists are integrators. They like to discover two or more things that to other
people may appear to have little or no relationship, and find ways to fit them into a new, creative combination.
Synthesists aren't particularly interested in compromise, consensus, or agreement on the "best" solution to a problem...
Synthesists tend to be interested in conflict. A strong Synthesist thrives on it, in fact. The kind of conflict that Synthesists
enjoy may not be overt, open conflict such as a shouting argument... Synthesists like change - often for its own sake... Synthesists
are forever looking for conflict, disagreement, change, newness, and they have a habit of questioning people's basic assumptions
about things. They pride themselves on their own "creativity", incisiveness, and, often secretly, on their cleverness.
p.19 Synthesists are apt to appear challenging, skeptical, or satirically amused, even when you
can see no cause for any of that. They like to express concepts rather than specifics; they can appear out of touch
with concrete reality. They are prone to expressing opposite points of view, especially to what is popular or upon
which everyone else seems to agree.
Besides their enjoyment of speculation, Synthesists like to point out the absurdities in a
situation... Synthesists enjoy speculative, philosophical, intellectual argument, so long as it doesn't get too somber and
the silliness of the act of argument itself is acknowledged
p.103 Synthesists, finally, do less than anyone else to influence others,
partly because they understand how hard it is for true agreement to be reached... Provided they can find others who are willing
to let them, Synthesists will try to influence others through debate, pointed argument, or the kind of structured
exchange of wit - leaping back and forth between logic and absurdity - as befits their dialectical approach... Our
influencing techniques are styled largely for gaining agreement with, and rewards from, people who are much like ourselves.
p.106 If you want to be effective in influencing people who are different from yourself, you must
learn something about their motivations, values, and Styles of Thinking.
2002 Edition:
p.34 Synthesists tend to be people who believe they have important things to say. They find it stressful
and even threatening when they feel they aren't being listened to. Then they are likely to "act out," often by using
their style unproductively - inappropriate humor, irrational playfulness, pointed satire and sarcasm.
p.123 Not only do Analysts require a lot of data from you, in order to be influenced they also need
to give a great deal of it back. It is their way of demonstrating their competence, and feeling competent is important to
them. They do that by telling you more about the subject than you ever wanted to know.
p.141 you may actually get the Synthesist to get specific. The trick is to get him or her to see it as a
temporarily interesting challenge
p.143 Synthesists are especially prone to blurting out fresh ideas and insights in ways that seem
to have no relevance to the matter at hand. Most people - intent on and serious about their problem - tend to pay no attention,
and the potentially fruitful solution is lost forever.
p.144 Given the Synthesist's speculative, "What if," sometimes far-out orientation toward problem solving,
a valuable form of influencing is to find a way to capture the products of the Synthesist's unconventional and nonlinear
thinking.
What that calls for is a commitment, now and then, to data-gathering approaches that are unstructured,
free-form, and that permit playfulness with ideas. One of the best ways we know to go about that is what is called "brainstorming."
... brainstorming is a natural for the Synthesist mind. Given the right players, brainstorming is the most
efficient way we know of gathering original and creative ideas from a group of people.
p.149 Synthesist strengths are at their best in situations that are unstructured, unclear, laden
with values, and potential conflict. This is where incisiveness is of value, together with a relatively high tolerance
for ambiguity. In other words, "The Mind-Boggling Mess" is the kind of situation in which Synthesists are likely to
be more effective than anyone else.
p.173 Arthur Koestler once described the creative process as one of bisociation,
which means precisely this: combining two unlike things to make something new and surprising. That is a Synthesist
procedure.
