The Art of Thinking — a consideration

[LuckyR]

Not everyone is capable of a high standard of conversation, and, of those that are, many prefer to spend their time on more pleasing (to them) pursuits. Personally, I find this baffling, but I must accept the empirical evidence. Many genuinely-bright people don't read when they can avoid it. Can you imagine?!

It was not always the way. Mainstream society has dumbed down. One need not be a reader, certainly if one's preferred learning style is strongly visual, auditory or kinaesthetic. There's plenty of high quality multimedia content and interactive programs available.

It comes down to curiosity, or the lack. The education system does little to fire up curiosity.

There are other issues behind the growing collective loss of the ability to reason. Desensitisation. Excessive abstraction of reality. Tribalism. Inequality. Fear of the future. Loss of touch with nature. Loss of faith at having any chance to live the "[insert nation] Dream" or make a mark on the world. Nihilism due to loss of religious crutch. People struggle to think clearly when they are afraid or angry.

I totally agree. In the past information was generally presented in such a way that in order for it to be put into context for an individual, it needed a certain amount of processing (typically by that individual). In the Information age, most content comes preprocessed, precollated and conclusions already drawn. In fact information is catalogued by conclusion. Thus instead of collecting data and formulating a conclusion, now your conclusion is deduced by an algorithm then a search engine feeds you information that supports that conclusion.

[Sy Borg]

Not everyone is capable of a high standard of conversation, and, of those that are, many prefer to spend their time on more pleasing (to them) pursuits. Personally, I find this baffling, but I must accept the empirical evidence. Many genuinely-bright people don't read when they can avoid it. Can you imagine?! 😱

It was not always the way. Mainstream society has dumbed down. One need not be a reader, certainly if one's preferred learning style is strongly visual, auditory or kinaesthetic. There's plenty of high quality multimedia content and interactive programs available.

It comes down to curiosity, or the lack. The education system does little to fire up curiosity.

There are other issues behind the growing collective loss of the ability to reason. Desensitisation. Excessive abstraction of reality. Tribalism. Inequality. Fear of the future. Loss of touch with nature. Loss of faith at having any chance to live the "[insert nation] Dream" or make a mark on the world. Nihilism due to loss of religious crutch. People struggle to think clearly when they are afraid or angry.

I totally agree. In the past information was generally presented in such a way that in order for it to be put into context for an individual, it needed a certain amount of processing (typically by that individual). In the Information age, most content comes preprocessed, precollated and conclusions already drawn. In fact information is catalogued by conclusion. Thus instead of collecting data and formulating a conclusion, now your conclusion is deduced by an algorithm then a search engine feeds you information that supports that conclusion.

Yes, blind faith and context-free rote learning in lieu of thinking for oneself. In the end, if we use machines to do all the hard work and to hold all of your information, who - or what - is in control? Without being able to influence the systems we created, we are reduced to following the system's instructions.
The tinfoils have a point, but they make the same mistake as ancient cultures - personalising the impersonal. They probably do it for the same reasons, because one can influence persons but one cannot influence natural phenomena, or in this case, profound and unprecedented changes in societal dynamics. As with the ancients, the mistake is understandable, because none of this has happened before.

On a practical level, a 19th century rote educational style appears to not be keeping up with changes driven by technological advancement. This is also understandable, given the latencies of deep structural change. There may be a significant advantage available to any society that can successfully transition to education systems that reflect circumstances in 2022.

It's not sensible to cram many little apes in a room to be talked at by an experience ape. Then, during breaks, many young apes are compelled to inflict trauma on others to reduce their potential to compete. We know this dynamic and have some idea of the pointless loss of human potential, yet we don't control it.

I don't know how an appropriately modern education system would look, but there appears to be a need for one.

[Tom Butler]

There is a problem with a "one size fits all" approach to the question of how we learn. A story: years ago, a telephone PBX salesperson lost a sale to a very large new hotel-casino. When he asked the manager of the casino why, the manager said that the salesperson approached him as if he was a high roller. "Do you think the owners would trust me with all this money if I was a high roller," he asked.

The lesson was that the salesperson had not done his due diligence to learn the client's personality type. He knew better because part of his training was the “David Merrill & Roger Reid: Social Styles” https://www.pocketbook.co.uk/blog/2017/ ... al-styles/ The manager was the more conservative Analytical-Amiable temperament than the Driver temperament the salesperson expected.

I am learning that, after instincts but before cultural training, temperament is perhaps the most important determinant for what we allow into our worldview. For instance, I find video the least useful means of acquiring information. Others, I know, learn more by watching. I think those differences are driven by difference in temperament or learning styles.

It is true that I am seeing more video talks these days. I think it is intellectually lazy because the speaker need not organize his or her thoughts to the same extent as writing. At the same time, video presentation tends to keep the speaker from adequately considering what is said. Sometimes I cannot tell if the speaker is ignorant of the facts or just forgot them.

[Pattern-chaser]

Not everyone is capable of a high standard of conversation, and, of those that are, many prefer to spend their time on more pleasing (to them) pursuits. Personally, I find this baffling, but I must accept the empirical evidence. Many genuinely-bright people don't read when they can avoid it. Can you imagine?!

It was not always the way.

No? Really?

Mainstream society has dumbed down.

I once read an excellent complaint about how schools are becoming more lax, and our children are not learning all that they should. It was considered, and carefully thought out and presented; it appeared relevant and contemporary.

It was written by a commentator who lived in Ancient Greece, thousands of years ago.

This seems to be an idea that just won't go away. But is it correct? I feel that it is, but the evidence doesn't seem to be there...?

[Sy Borg]

I don't think schools are becoming more lax, I think they have fallen behind modern society.

I expect that the Geek complaining about education was Socrates, who also did not believe in democracy because the masses were incapable of making an informed vote and would become vulnerable to the appeals of base populism. Enter The Don.

[Pattern-chaser]

I don't think schools are becoming more lax, I think they have fallen behind modern society.

I expect that the Geek complaining about education was Socrates, who also did not believe in democracy because the masses were incapable of making an informed vote and would become vulnerable to the appeals of base populism. Enter The Don.

The thing that bothers me about schools and education is that 'they' insist that standards remain roughly constant, but A-level students these days average As, with the occasional B. When I was in school, the average was much lower; many of us took only 2 A-levels instead of 3. So the indication is that modern kids are a great deal more intelligent than we were, and that I don't accept. We weren't better than modern kids, but I can't see that we were so much worse…?

[Sy Borg]

I don't think schools are becoming more lax, I think they have fallen behind modern society.

I expect that the Geek complaining about education was Socrates, who also did not believe in democracy because the masses were incapable of making an informed vote and would become vulnerable to the appeals of base populism. Enter The Don.

The thing that bothers me about schools and education is that 'they' insist that standards remain roughly constant, but A-level students these days average As, with the occasional B. When I was in school, the average was much lower; many of us took only 2 A-levels instead of 3. So the indication is that modern kids are a great deal more intelligent than we were, and that I don't accept. We weren't better than modern kids, but I can't see that we were so much worse…? 🤔

I am in no position to assess that. My observations are that the smart proportion young people are indeed smarter than in my generation. However, there also seem to be more vacuous young people than before. As with seemingly all parts of society, there looks to be a widening division between the strongest and weakest.