Is "possibilities" a good characterization of? Perhaps "conceptualization" would be better? Or "conceptual possibilities"? I mean I tend to be good at seeing concrete possibilities related to a situation or possible courses of action one can take. Do I have
because of this?
Then again I'm not sure how good I am at seeing all the possible ways of conceptualizing or abstracting a situation or phenomena. I think I often come up as one (to me) most relevant way to abstract/conceptualize a phenomenon but I'm not very interested/capable of playing around with different levels of abstract concepts or different conceptual viewpoints.
It is hard to evaluate my capabilities objectively but anyways. What do you think? DoesPoLR really mean you are stuck with one viewpoint or course of action. Or is it more related to lack of capability to freely abstract and conceptualize and mold abstract concepts to different shapes and forms?


? Perhaps "conceptualization" would be better? Or "conceptual possibilities"? I mean I tend to be good at seeing concrete possibilities related to a situation or possible courses of action one can take. Do I have
Reply With Quote


-related topics, such as development of new theories and methods on time-series based market analysis.
also said to focus on the "essence" of things and "(causal) connections" between things. How is this different from the "inquiry into the essence" and "connections" of
, sometimes in the negative form of a rationalization.

