After three nights of whining, Chris politely asked if I would read him a story. By "politely" - I mean his first response was, "Go get a book to read to me." Eyebrows arched, direct look in his eyes-I sternly said, "Excuse me. What did you just say? I don't believe that's the way to get me to read a book to you." Next thing I knew, he was bounding from the bed and said, "I will get a book for you to read." The book he chose- I Wish I Had Duck Feet, by Dr. Seuss. Never, in a million years, would I think this book would show me the analytical nature of my son and the conceptional of mine; these are the two aspects in which create or break a bond with our children.
Chris had a few attempts at choosing a book on his own. He failed miserably. First one: too long, he would get bored, and I would never stop hearing how "I should've never....(blah blah blah) - sour grapes-sour grapes. Second one- only good for teaching children about history and not what he was looking for. I knew what he wanted three days ago. He wanted me to be there for him. He wanted "mommy". The problem was- his approach to get "mommy time" was not conducive for that atmosphere. We will get into that at a later time. Right now, keep focusing on what he wanted- mommy time- and his choices on books. Finally, I helped him to the correct shelf- bedtime stories. He picked the one he probably knew from start to finish- just by looking at the title.
When I read, the artist in me shows. The story is not read for him to learn, but to enjoy. If you are not familiar with this story- I can give a brief summary. A boy is not happy with who he is; therefore he dreams up ways to be the "cool kid" or beat a bully. There is always a great reason for changing himself, but then he understands there's a consequence to being something/someone else.
The main character of this story conjured himself to have : duck feet, a whale spout, a tiger's tale, an elephant nose, and deer horns. It was the deer horns in which my son showed his analytical thinking.
If I had deer horns,
I would never
get a ride.
I could never ride the school bus.
I could never get inside!
I was almost finished reading the next line, when Chris said, "He could turn his head and duck." I finished the four other sentences, stopped, and said, "You're correct. He could've." I then finished the story - having Chris say, "That was good."
Finally he's sound asleep, happy with mommy time, I begin contemplation. Why? Why out of all the things did he pick this one? All the things this character had were impossible for a child to actually obtain. The conceptional thinker understands the book's bigger picture -" it's best just to be you"-not what others want you to be, how to be cool, how to beat a bully etc. Just be you! My son, though, picked the deer horns to be an analytical thinker.
Before I digress, you must know the difference between conceptional and analytical thinking. Conceptional sees the bigger picture but also the intricate parts that make it so. Kind of like picking out a bedtime story with a special need child. I know what the ultimate goal of the child is. I respect and understand that. My son, he didn't know he wanted "mommy time". He didn't know the words to express his feelings. I did - which allowed him establish the correct action and to pick a book conducive to his needs.
So, why did he pick the deer horns? The one time to be analytical. Well, analytical thinking basically means you see a problem- have a step by step approach to solve that SPECIFIC issue. If you know anything about that Dr. Seuss's book, you will know the deer horns DIDN'T deal with other people. The boy in the story couldn't get a ride, or go on the school bus. So, again- Why, Chris, who never liked riding the "special bus" when he attended school and doesn't understand about "hailing a taxi"- use the deer horns to show his exemplary analytical skills?!
That's when I understood. This is when you should as well. He picked the deer horns aspect because it had nothing to do with another human being. A bus and a ride are not people, but things. All other issues this character faced dealt with other people.
You know what this shows my "conceptional self"- Chris is wanting to expand into the social world, yet understanding it's complicated. Probably too much so, Chris chooses not to analyze people, but the functional aspects of items. If it doesn't have a heart beat, Chris will analyze and probably resolve the issue. He has emotions, but understands his limitations. He won't attempt at analyzing people's feelings. He can understand them- regardless if he approves or not. He will never be a psychologist.
Chris is not a conceptional thinker. Doing so, would mean - he would have to analyze everyone's feelings (including his own). He would have to understand, regardless of his personal feelings. That will never happen. He will never be the character in "The Good Doctor".
Chris is analytical. Be it robots, games, or books- this is my son. I love him the same. Sometimes, by being a conceptional thinker- I forget that not everyone is me. Why, if they can't understand one aspect, can they not consider them all? Then, I think about the "bigger picture" again. Does it really matter how they contribute? Does it matter which one knows more in one area than another? Do all the positive, negative, and neutral aspects of life contribute to another? Yes......yes they do.
My son will contribute being an analytical being. I suppose God gave me conceptional thinking to lead the way for him. Jiddu Krishnamurti said many, great ideologies. I tend to side with what Tenzin Palmo said, "The Buddha himself said, I still use conceptual thinking, but I'm not formed by it." There's also a piece in Romans 12:2. No matter what belief- or science you chose to believe in; our children were placed here to show us a different way of thinking. We have to find the pieces of the puzzle to see the "bigger picture". Regardless of which type of thinker we are.