I agree. There are definitely many styles of thinking, and they seem to be developed or discovered independently of the skills which they are associated with,

I agree. There are definitely many styles of thinking, and they seem to be developed or discovered independently of the skills which they are associated with, i.e. you can learn Java without learning how to think like a programmer. We can call it "talent" and say it's innate, but I think that's a cop out from the hard problem of trying to find better ways to develop it. In a sense, it's not unlike personality disorders, in that that those who "have it" generally don't know where they got it, and frequently don't recognize it as an "it" that not everyone has it, at least until they're confronted with evidence. I happen to have recently transcribed something from Seymour Papert's Mindstorms, about LOGO, that seems relevant: "By deliberately learning to imitate mechanical thinking, the learner becomes able to articulate what mechanical thinking is and what it is not. The exercise can lead to greater confidence about the ability to choose a cognitive style that suits the problem. Analysis of "mechanical thinking" and how it is different from other kinds and practice with problem analysis can result in a new degree of intellectual sophistication. By providing a very concrete, down to earth model of a particular style of thinking, work with the computer can make it easier to understand that there is such a thing as a "style of thinking." And giving children the opportunity to choose one style or another provides an opportunity to develop the skill necessary to choose between styles. Thus instead of inducing mechanical thinking, contact with computers could turn out to be the best conceivable antidote to it. And for me what is most important in this is that through these experiences these children would be serving their apprenticeships as epistemologists, that is to say learning to think articulately about thinking."