This is a highly questionable statement. It does not follow that just because one thinks in bigger chunks that one is thinking in a non-linear way. What is critical in this assessment is the level of abstraction. Take for instance a history textbook that covers the 20th century. In effect, it will be much more broad in scope than a text that deals specifically with the 1930s. The narratives may be consistent, but the level of abstraction is what varies. The former case is much broader than the latter, yet not necessarily less linear in terms of the reasoning, coherence, and so forth. In fact, in many ways there is a lot of evidence for the opposite thesis. Namely, that coherence and linearity are enhanced by a higher level of abstraction which is linked to the block-thinking orientation. In summary, while on a micro-level it may appear as though the step thinker is more linear, if one steps back-as global historians do-there could be a much broader linear theme at work. It would be correct to point out that my interpretation is based on a specific definition of block-thinking, wherein block-thinking can occur within the confines of linearity. Perhaps the best way to describe it, which is honestly the way I think about it, is through a mathematical analogy with sets. In effect, a cluster of ideas is housed in a set. The set is what we might otherwise call a concept. And when I communicate I typically communicate in sets (concepts) in a linear way. If one inquires into the nature of a particular set, then I elaborate on a lower level of abstraction-perhaps citing on the ground examples and logical reasoning to the support validity of the set (concept).