Flowchart I made

I'm not at all convinced that your conclussion follows from the observation. 

As Tisdall quotes Lein in his book "Improve Your Chess Now!", "I don't think like a tree -- do you think like a tree?"

Of course Lein is talking about Kotov's tree of analysis. But I think the point is extensible to all fabled "thought processes" that proport to solve all the ills of the average chess player. 

I don't dispute the utility of psychological tools such as a systematic framework to help stem bad habits. I do dispute that the utilization of such systematic frameworks on every move is desirable for best performance. 

Yes, I actually do. I just don't search the tree in grades of "depth" (first 1ply, then 2ply, 3 ply and so on), but rather follow every interesting line until I evaluate a resulting position as quiescent and better than in the best line I have already searched (then it is my new "king of the hill), or worse (then I discard it). Ideally, I do this until I'm confident about the move I'm going to make. Sometimes, of course, I instead get tired, distracted etc. and then I'm likely to play crap.

You miss GM Lein's point. No one naturally thinks like a tree. The only reason you sort of do (and King of the Hill analysis isn't precisely Kotov's tree method, but that's a minor quibble) is that you have imposed an artificial thought process upon your analysis. 

It is not how the human brain naturally processes such information. 

It may not be natural, but it helps alot. Anyway, I agree that Kotov's advice is not practicable - that's why I said I don't do go down the tree all branches one ply, then all branches two plys etc. But even in the "king of the hill"-method, the lines still have a branching tree structure.

Actually, on the neural level, the brain does some heavy "parallel processing", still the conscious thought process is serial.

It's more than that - very few people can produce a list of candidate moves for each branch that is both reasonable adn complete. Indeed, the way MOST people really do analysis is something more like:

"Hmmm, I'd like to get my knight to that outpost square. What paths can I take for it to get there? Oh, look, I can go this route, or that route. This route is shorter. I'll calcualte That knight move first.

So knight moves, then he will do something. But what? Hmm, not sure, the position is pretty quite. Oh, wait, he can move his bishop and skewer the knight to my queen. Then what? 

Maybe I should try the other route. Ok, so I move my knight and then he ... oh, darn, he can take the knight with his queen if I go there. Dang it.

Well, what about that first move then? Maybe I should move my queen first and then I can move my knight to that first square. Where can I move my queen? Any threats I can make? Oh, yeah, I can threaten a pawn. So I move my queen, he either protects the pawn iwth the rook or he advances it, neither really threatens anything, then i move the knight. Will that work? Yup, sure looks like it. Ok, so here we go."

And the thing is -- that way IS more efficient. You do a quick scan for immediately winning tactics, if there aren't any, find the positional feature you want to exploit, and find a way to do that, jumping back and forth between lines using information from prior analysis to help with move selection going forward. It exploits the fact that our brain does, as you note, "heavy parrallel processing," and it allows our natural thought processes to function as they are designed to function. 

We still have to always calculate lines and make certain our moves are not tactically refuted. But the best thought process is going to exploit what our brains do well, not try to make our brains function like a serial computer. 

I understand where you guys are going with this...I was quite the baseball player once and I play a mean guitar...chess is my third hobby and im somewhat new at it...in baseball and in music I had a coach to drill in the fundamentals until it became natural...to this day I still naturally swing down on baseball with my bat as I should...but I don't think of it.  I suppose I am hoping to eventually "force" some fundamental thinking before I make a move...I suppose another way would be to sit on my hands for a bit as well!  I think in time I will reach exactly as you say...a scan for tactics approach...if none then improve my position looking for exploits....I just need a road to get there....

For some reason out of anything ive done in life... chess is the most difficult...and it only drives me more mad to be better at it..I know over the last 6 months ive hit a wall and completely turned to tactical puzzles and slowing down my thinking.  I should probably get a coach at this point...I just can't find any locally.  Thanks for everyone's input.

This is not a flowchart, you can say this is a flow diagram. Actually this is an mind map and its really good. Still valid to the day  . Checkout these flowchart examples for further clarification.

i think it should be the other way around to how you have done it, find a plan first and then figure out your moves

Well, offense would be GOOD offensive moves. Like, roasting the other player