This is an active solicitation for suggestions on how to train it differently.
Apparently, this morning I put on my underwear wrong.
Upon noticing that they were on incorrectly, I took them off by turning them inside out on the Z axis (top of head to bottom of feet), and then rotating them 180degreees along the Y axis (belly button to back, travelling through the spine).
I noted the degrees of off-ness on the two axes, intending to remember them for the next time this happens. Yes, this happens often enough that I'll probably use the information again. Sometimes, even clothing is hard.
...
It was only then that I realized that the easier way to understand what happened would be to say that they were 180degrees off on the X axis (L shoulder to R shoulder, by travelling across the back).
------------------------------------------
Ultimately, how this seems to play out is that I get ahead of myself in some rather strange ways. I tend to think of things in motion before I fully understand them in their static forms. In the example above, it would have meant that I was trying to store larger chunks of more complex data, when a simpler notation would have done just as well. I also find that it can distract me from recognizing the context around whatever I'm observing.
I'm only just beginning to be able to identify when that's happening.
Obviously, I want to address this. I just don't know how to go about figuring out what needs to be done. From how to gather more information, to what to do with it.
Ideas?
As a possible point of clarification:
The underwear itself really just happened to be the first time I recognized an example of aspects of my thinking that I'd been having trouble with. Specifically, that I tend to go about tackling problems in an exceedingly round-about way.
I posted it to this group because I found myself able to express the actual orientations and order of operations that my thoughts went through. It was a relatively isolated example, in that it didn't reference interactions with other people or processes. As such, it seemed ideal for exploring with the specific intent of generating alternative approaches that might generalize to other processes.
It appears that I might have missed a couple of factors in my choice of example. I hadn't considered the likelihood that such a common activity might encourage responses/solutions outside of the (I see now less-than-clearly) specified areas of focus. I also somewhat habitually underestimate the pull to judge examples deemed silly or unimportant.
FWIW, I have found quite a few pieces of useful information in the responses I've gotten, and you all have my appreciation and gratitude for coming with me on this little journey. :)