GENERAL CONSEQUENCES OF ACTION PATTERNS
UPON DECISIONS OF QUALITY
As you can see, the previous chart covers only the qualifying stage of a reasoning process. Decisions made during this stage affect what an individual determines to be interesting, beautiful, necessary, and possible (or true).
Variety and change attract those who make decisions of quality by means of crude abduction. This results in unpredictable and vague responses that are sporadic in nature. Since intensity (confronting options) is not a factor for these folks, one option is as good as any other--as long as it is perceived as non-repetitive. The consequences of this method of qualifying are reflected in poorly formed outcomes that are neither complex nor replicative.
Familiarity is the main attractor for those who make decisions of quality by means of simple induction. In this case, quality is determined by a simple match of a current option to one that is either a part of an individual's prior experience, or else to copying something (or some behavior) that is exhibited by someone else. Thus, replication and modeling are the prime determiners of quality for these individuals. The consequences of this method are predictable outcomes that directly match the predicted results of whatever plans, recipe, or procedures used to produce the outcome.
Complexity attracts those who make decisions of quality by means of complex replication. These individuals replicate a general idea and then figure out ways to accomplish that idea. They are effective planners and managers of plans, able to be flexible in terms of methods, while holding tightly to the projected outcome. Many of these individuals are "better mouse-trap" types of thinkers who invent clever (and usually well-formed) solutions for an existing problem. The consequences inherent when applying this method are the development of well-formed plans and clever solutions to bring about projected outcomes.
Anomalies attract people who make decisions of quality by means of deliberate varying. These are individuals who are highly intense (for the confrontation of options) and whose decisions are driven by juxtapositioning the qualities of things with one another. They are attracted by unique and unusual possibilities and prefer exploring possibilities to producing particular outcomes. The consequences resulting from qualifying among options in this way are unpredictable. These individuals may or may not produce anything at all. However, when they do produce something, it will be unique, as this is the only method by which well-formed original ideas are produced.