>*What do you think?*

A simple enough question no doubt but the answers are unlimited in variation.

>*How do you think?*

https://i.imgur.com/hi204zN.jpg

The response to this is much slower to arrive. Even though there has been plenty of research into the workings of the mind, the findings are incomplete and many mysteries still remain with theories both plausible and implausible floating about. And if the experts don't fully understand how it all happens, how do the rest of us understand it? So the thing that guides a large part of our actions and reactions remains a blackbox with a few cracks to peer through.

In my Steemit description I say *'prolific thinker'* and this is quite true. What I mean by this is the amount of thoughts that arise and pass through for further consideration. Sometimes, these thoughts get catalogued for future development and sometimes, like when I am speaking with clients, they get processed on the fly. Unfortunately *and all too often,* they fall through the cracks of memory and may never surface again.

*Quantity* of thought does not imply *quality of thought* however, nor immediate validity of topic. I say immediate validity because all topics have value though often there are more pressing concerns to invest in. 

Sometimes the value is just in the exercise of the thinking process. There may be no practical use but pre-judging the value without thinking about it would mean that potential unexpected values have no chance of discovery. My thoughts range in quality in many, sometimes extreme, ways.

My thoughts are ***hit and miss.*** 

Sometimes, the thinking stars align and connections materialise between nodes with fluidity and simplicity. Other times, thinking is like being naked and trapped in the middle of a field of thorned bushes as someone lights a fire at one end. Painful. 

This is the same for when I try to express my thoughts. Normally in the spoken world I find it quite easy to present ideas which I think is in part to my ability to think quickly on the fly and adjust as the feedback rolls in. 

When something I have missed or an error I have made is brought into my awareness, I can course correct quite easily with little personal cost by thanking for the information and for taking the effort to help develop the ideas further. 

My ideas are never mine in a face to face discussion, they are the groups. The discussion is a team investigation and we are looking to get to the best solution we can. Even if I am guiding the audience, they feel invested in the conversation and when we argue, it is for our *universal benefit.*

When I write however, this approach means less. My text becomes my idea. After all, I wrote it. And the feedback from the audience (if any) is not as fast and not as sensitive to me as the writer and my response cannot move as fluidly as it would in the real world. 

My expressions, my body language, my tongue in cheek, often mildly sarcastic approach to life is lost. Perhaps sometimes I manage to express myself well but often I feel that I don't quite hit the mark and occasionally, when I read it back, I realise how poor it really was. 

I can't let this less than ideal written skill to stop me though because like a thought topic unexplored, perhaps there is value to come. There actually already is a lot of value for me as I use my writing as a chance to have a conversation with myself and develop my understanding or connection with a topic further. I am hoping though that there may also be value for the reader.

But often these days, I find that people are looking for fully developed, easy to consume content that gives the value upfront and obviously. I am not criticising this approach though it is not my own. I have always believed in the hard yards. The value in struggle and when it comes to obtaining information, I believe that cognitive disfluency not only helps the retention of the information, but facilitates a deeper understanding. It makes us think a little more. 

This could be why I use maybes, perhapses and possiblies more than I 'probably' should. It is not necessarily that I am unsure about what I write, nor that I want to cover myself in case someone actually listens and enacts my words or criticises them. It is because it opens the question doors a little wider by not giving the conclusion, it requires thought movement on the part of the reader. Or, maybe I don't know the answers. Of course, I cannot force anyone's movement and whether they move or not is their own responsibility.

Thinking is not perfect. It is rarely absolutely rational, often tainted by emotion and opinion, preference and bias. But it is part of the pathway forward. An active movement to take responsibility for one's own life. There are skills to improve the process, and factors that influence it. 

Too much sugar and not enough sleep affect my thoughts as do many other factors I may not be aware of and, I am sure that these can vary between users. Not having skills in thinking cannot be the excuse. No one can give a skill, it must be earned and even the *inherited skillset* is incomplete and unrefined.

One of the reasons I am interested in Steem is the long form approach. Not only does it fit my personal style but it supports people to work a little harder for information, delve a little deeper, search a little more, broaden their view. The information contained within may or may not have value but it must be rummaged through like a disorderly attic in order to find what one is looking for and what one may not be looking for, but finds. How long it survives depends on both what gets posted and what gets supported.

When I post something I do not expect it to change the world. I do not expect people to bow down before me or even remember my name. I don't even want that. What I do may help some or may hurt some and any impact at all is up to them. There may be one line of value in 2000 words but that line may ignite a flame in a reader that *does* change their world. Our world. 

One thing is that once a thought is finished completely and no longer ever needs to be thought again. Once it stops moving, it dies, like everything in this universe. 

But thoughts can evolve and grow. They can change form and shift path. They can develop from mediocrity into greatness and without support, from greatness into irrelevance. From one banal thought, a movement so fierce can form it destroys planets or perhaps, *just our own.* 

Our thinking has the power to take us far into the future, or end us tomorrow. Thoughts can lead us through challenges unimaginable or create them. They can bear immeasurable cruelty or deep compassion. Love and hate. Our thoughts are just electrical signals bouncing across synapse but from this micro lightning storm within each of us, all that we do comes. And all that we will ever do.

So, I ask again. What do you think?

Taraz
[ a Steem original ]