I’d like to know if these examples of psychology - manners of thinking are correct or not,
I find this is the best way for me to list my own examples of manners of thinking for personal use
_thinking you’ll never amount to anything - psychology _
_thinking you’ll amount to something - psychology _
_thinking highly of others - psychology _
_thinking highly of yourself - psychology _
_thinking you’ll do well in a test - psychology _
thinking you’ll do poorly in a test - psychology
Awesome.
Thinking you’ll never amount to anything/you’ll amount to something is all of these: Being, Conceptualizing, Conceiving, and Becoming.
Thinking highly of others or yourself - Conceptualizing, Conceiving, and Being.
Thinking you’ll do well/poorly in a test - Conceiving, Conceptualizing, Being (and I could see a case for Becoming)
Just added to them to the list in Subtext - thanks!
The easiest way to check this on your own is to look at the parts of the quad underneath the Element you’re looking at in-depth - if you can find examples of it within the child you’re good to go!
I wouldn’t try to lay the following comment out there if the answer that the original poster was looking for (they’re great examples of Psychology) hadn’t already been given, and i probably shouldn’t attempt it anyway. But I’m going to! That said, be warned that this comment will attempt to use deep theory and will amount to an answer of “well, it depends”, and knowing me is likely to end up being confusing and potentially misguided in its efforts. Proceed at your own risk! That said…
Well, it depends. It’s not the elements themselves that are important so much as the relationship between them. For instance, I believe it’s accurate to say that Dramatica isn’t looking at your story to make sure that your story contains a Psychology element, but rather it’s looking at story and saying that the OS Gist is to the RS Gist as Psychology is to Physics. It’s this relationship that needs to hold true over anything else.
One way to look at that statement is that Dramatica isn’t looking at Element 1 (E1) in your story and saying that it is an absolute measure of Psychology, but that it’s saying that E1 in a vacuum isn’t a measure of anything. Only when E1 is viewed in conjunction with E2 and E2 appears as a measure of Physics relative to E1 does E1 begin to look like a measure of Psychology.
Another way to view it would be that there’s not even multiple elements in a story. There’s just E1. And when E1 is viewed from one corner of the mind, the relative position of that corner in the mind will make E1 look like a measure of Psychology when the dynamically opposing view makes E1 look like Physics.
Now, IF that’s accurate, then it wouldn’t make sense to merely ask if “thinking highly of yourself” is a good example of Psychology UNLESS it was assumed to mean is it a good example of Psychology relative to a good example of Physics.
Just as an example, if one asks “is thinking highly of yourself a good example of Psychology in relation to building a shrine?” then the answer might be yes because thinking highly of yourself is to building a shrine what Psychology is to Physics. But if one asks “is thinking highly of yourself a good example of Psychology relative to thinking you’ll never amount to anything?” then the answer might be no, because those two do not have a Psych-Physics equivalent relationship.
Hopefully, that all holds true so far. Now, hoping that it does, I’ll try to go a step further and look at what happens if one were to ask “is thinking highly of yourself a good example of Universe in relation to a good example of Mind?” Can the answer to that question be yes?
I think it can as long as one takes a particulate view of thinking highly of oneself. That means it won’t be seen as a mental process describing how one feels about oneself, but that ‘thinking highly of oneself’ as a thing in the environment will be seen as a feature of that environment, or as the state of things.
Just to try to illustrate the difference, in a Psychology story, it could be that every time John thinks highly of himself there is conflict. But in a Universe story, it wouldn’t be the process of thinking of oneself that created conflict but the very existence within ones environment of the unchanging concept of thinking highly of oneself that creates conflict.
But now that I’ve typed all that out, I feel less like I’ve taken a daring and dangerous path and more like I took the long way around to saying something that could have been easy and maybe not even all that controversial. 
the environment not the psychology/manner of thinking is what takes center stage in the environment.
Being in an environment where you’re allowed to think highly of oneself.
Sam is in an organization where he’s allowed to think highly of himself.
Being in an organization.
Being apart of an organization.
@Greg Here are some more examples that I think could describe Mind or A fixed attitude or a process of Minding or A Fixating Attitude:
Being rooted in something
Being founded on something
Being founded on someone
Being centered on something
Being centered on someone
Being firm in your beliefs
Being firm in someone else’s beliefs
Taking a position on something
Being grounded on something
Being aligned with something
Being aligned with someone
Standing for something
Standing for someone
Being fulfilled by something - subconscious
Being fulfilled by someone - subconscious
Being satisfied with something - subconscious
Being satisfied with someone - subconscious