¿Cómo puedes desafiar los mitos comunes de las habilidades analíticas?

I think debunking common myths about analytical skills is crucial for personal and professional growth. Myth 1: Analytical skills are only relevant to STEM students… Indeed, this myth can limit individuals' perceptions of their own capabilities. Analytical skills transcend academic disciplines. They involve critical thinking, problem-solving, and the ability to make evidence-based decisions. In fields beyond STEM, such as business, the arts, social sciences, and more, analytical skills are invaluable. Challenging this myth involves recognizing the applicability of analytical thinking in various contexts. Learning how others in diverse fields employ these skills can broaden your perspective and enrich your problem-solving abilities.

Expanding your analytical skills toolkit to include different types of data analysis is a great way to challenge this myth. For instance, text analysis and sentiment analysis can help you understand the context, sentiment, and nuances in written or spoken language. Network analysis can help you understand relationships and structures within a network. Visual analysis can help you interpret and understand visual data. Analytical skills are indeed multifaceted and go beyond just numbers and data. They’re about making sense of complex and ambiguous situations, regardless of the type of data you’re dealing with.

To more accurately discuss aspects of analytical skills and their potential myths I would first suggest reading books like Pherson & Pherson - Critical Thinking for Strategic Intelligence Pherson & Heuer - Structured Analytic Techniques for Intelligence Analysis THEN I would suggest not using ChatGPT as the main source as it is calculating which words to use and not to provide the correct answer... But that's just me.

I think the biggest myth about analytical skills is: "the more skilled at analysis, the more often you're 'right.'" Skilled analysts reduce uncertainty and give insight, enabling decision-making to shape situations to their audience’s advantage. The moment this happens, the environment changes from the one analyzed – often unpredictably. Even more, the better an analyst provides warning to identify threats, the more often that analyst is ‘wrong.’ This is the Paradox of Warning – by effectively enabling the audience to prevent or deter threats, the threat doesn’t materialize and the analyst is ‘wrong.’ So, counter-intuitively, I think the better/more refined your skills, the more often you’re ‘wrong,’ but wrong for the right reasons.

Do not forget the goal. Synthesis can often be the goal of analysis: break things down in order to build or manage them in a better way. Do not be charmed by analysis results, discovered dependences, interactive graphs etc. until found a strong yet simple practical use.