Global versus Sequential Thinking

Inspired by an Althouse discussion about gender differences, real and perceived, in group discussion.

Global thinkers will tell you the main point first, then fill in the details. "We will not be moving corporate headquarters to Fort Worth. The main reasons are that the tax advantage does not outweigh the disruption and the lack of reliable vendors outside of the general Ohio area."

Sequential thinkers automatically start with the events leading-in to the decision.  "The meeting got started late. Ginny from HR was supposed to be there but was delayed and Armand is still out but we didn't know that right away. The first report was by James, who went over the three possible locations we are looking at in Fort Worth."

I don't think that sequential thinkers and expressers are much frustrated by global thinkers.  They do not comment on it, anyway.  It may be that they find it too blunt or lacking proper context to understand a whole situation, but not so bothersome as to prevent discussion.  Global thinkers can find sequential expressers very frustrating, however. Get to the point, will you?
 

Experienced observers of human nature will note that males tend more often to be global and females to be sequential, and this may be doubly so of husbands and wives. However, this is certainly not universal.  I worked in a largely-female setting, but our context was acute psychiatric care. Verbal interactions had to be focused on most-important-information-first.  "22 y/o female, recent suicide attempt via overdose requiring 3 days ICU at Cheshire. History of six previous attempts, all by overdose. Precipitating event is court hearing about custody of her children, etc."  It would be frustrating to the point of infuriating to gather background information and ask (usually Mom) specifically "What has been happening the last two or three weeks?" and hear "Well, they could tell something was wrong with Amber from the day she started Kindergarten. She's a lot like her older sister, and they are both like my sister Nicole."

Significantly, female social workers dealt with this better than I did. There were exceptions in both directions, however. There were females who were as global as I was who rolled their eyes just as much, and about half of the other male social workers over the years were sequentials, not much bothered by that type of information-sharing. (They did, however, develop questioning skills of getting Mom to move along to what we needed more.  We all did, but the other sequential thinkers were likely better at it.)

Also, the in-depth information we eventually need on the patient does come in sequential form: the lab work and changes in condition over days in the ER or the ICU; the developmental record from childhood; the progression of the disease. I find that tedious, but it is necessary.

This seems related to the navigational differences of overhead/cardinal direction (a more usually male strategy and literally global when pushed to the extreme) and landmark navigation (a more usually female strategy, and sequential). However, I don't know of any research which shows that globals are also overhead/cardinals and sequentials are landmark-preferring in their navigation. Just because one is more usually male and the other female, and that it would make intuitive sense is not very solid evidence. I touch on the navigation information in my Wayfaring Series from years ago, updated in 2018. A good deal of research on navigation is included.