The Art of Thinking — a consideration

[Pattern-chaser]

A person must hold a Ph.D. to be a proper parapsychologist. As such, my BSEEE makes me a layperson. The result is a rather bright line between academically trained researchers and laypeople like me. This divide looks a lot like the professor-student divide in college. One tells, one asks. It is not a reciprocal process.

I am not a teacher. I'm not temperamentally-equipped to be one. But my understanding is that the student and the teacher learn from one another. If this is not the case, is the teaching being done properly?

It is from my perspective of a practitioner and lay researcher that I witness the academic mentality.

It has been my experience that people with advanced degrees tend to be dogmatic about accepted "truth." Each of us tend to distrust "truth" that is very different from our worldview. I think because they are so well trained that Ph.Ds. always begin with culturally given truths. I think laypeople tend to be more open to new ideas because they are culturally taught to ask academics for guidance.

I think this is about the way that, in recent times, we have come to distrust 'experts' of all types and kinds. We don't need advanced degrees to be dogmatic, or even bigoted. We all do it; all of us, almost without exception. But the operative word here is "distrust", because I think this mindset is all about trust.

We distrust the sayings of experts because we suspect they have, or might have, ulterior motives that they are not admitting. But this lack of trust results from a humanity-wide distrust of everyone, for exactly the reasons I have just described. Experts is a word we use to describe those who have some learning in a particular field. These are people who we might reasonably expect to know more than most about their specialities. They are definitely the right people to ask for their opinions, when we are interested in their specialities. But we don't trust them. We don't trust politicians either, or media news channels, or the police... We don't trust anyone. We prefer to believe our own opinions, no matter what they might be.

This loss of trust has a very great cost. But it is not limited to academics, or those who are highly educated, I don't think. And I can't see how scientists differ from engineers in this regard.

[The Beast]

I wanted to improve on the understanding of what is wanted. So, I applied the flowchart to the question of thinking. Some opinion referred to ‘minutiae’ as the first report. That is the first hat. In the second report made of one twentieth of the first a redacted version based on my personal bias and logic was produced. From this a ten-paragraph report was done. A very good report. It has pictures. Very, very good report. However, the report is never finished as I could work the system from the last produced report. The last hat was an interesting one since it would be thinking logical against my bias. If I had a preference, I would outsource it to sculptor.

[Tom Butler]

This loss of trust has a very great cost. But it is not limited to academics, or those who are highly educated, I don't think. And I can't see how scientists differ from engineers in this regard.

Try this. Cultural norms are one of the most powerful influences on our thoughts. In science, it is the prevailing theory. In politics, it is the school of thought like conservative or humanitarian. In my study, there are three dominant schools of thought. I refer to them as Physicalism (all is explained with known principles), Physical Dualism (Physicalism is mostly right but there is also a nonphysical aspect of reality) and Strict Dualism (Physicalism is right for the physical but does not allow for a possible nonphysical aspect of reality).

There is hardly any crossover from one school of thought to another. Also, when Physicalists, for instance, authors a research report, they virtually never indicate their school of thought. The result is that it is difficult for people to tell if they have conducted good science or biased science.

Laypeople in my community are inclined to be Strict Dualists. When a Physicalist gives them guidance, most think it is coming from "a friend of their beliefs" because of the journal. When they discover the misdirection, that distrust you speak of come up. We also see this with pro-gun advocates, anti-climate change advocates, and recently, with anti maskers.

A defense from misguiding advice is to compare the implications of the different schools of thought. From my observations, people who become engineers are more inclined to examine the implications of a "truth." They are also trained to be aware of and compare the viability of different schools of thought. Scientists tend to embody the school of thought and seem to lack the tools to contradict cultural norms.

While scientists speculate "what if," engineers apply what is established. Intellectual honesty with scientists seems only a facto when they are teaching. Engineering honesty is virtually always a factor.

By the way, my version of the Golden rule is "Teach me as I teach you." We are all teachers in the sense that we are always role models for what we think is "truth."

[3017Metaphysician]

As James infamously points out, in our own stream of consciousness, conscious thoughts often times happen to us, not by us. In this sense, we have no control over it; it does what it pleases despite our will and in spite of ourselves to control it. It will take up subject’s entirely independent of us.

If you think of the functional area of mind as being "hardwired" to explain, the continuous input of environmental information is going to produce a mental chatter of information emerging into consciousness. The explaining is likely going to wander from about one input to another. In meditation, it is that chatter one seeks to organize into silence. A person learning lucid dreaming seeks to look "into" that chatter, so to speak, so as to understand the environmental inputs causing the chatter.

One of the more useful concepts in First Sight Theory is the idea that our perception forming mental processes tend to turn toward or away from information. For instance, our worldview is predisposed to turn toward environmental information pertinent to self-survival It turns away from environmental signals from the body related to ordinary living like the pressure of a chair on the butt.

Turning away or toward something is not directly manageable. However, by habitually wondering about our world, conscious self sends an intentionality signal to our perceptual processes to selectively pay attention. For instance, the task of a spiritual seeker is to align worldview with the actual nature of reality. That is the definition of lucidity. One way this alignment is accomplished is to habitually examine the implication of thoughts, choices and actions with the intention to understand their implications.

You talked about "wonder" in your "viewtopic.php?f=2&t=18176" post. That seems another way to say the person seeks to correctly sense. Wondering tells mind to turn toward greater understanding. I think temperament is also an important factor.

By the way, have you noticed a difference in attitude about the treatment of information between a scientists and engineers? It seems to be a pragmatic-myopic dichotomy.

Interesting discussion.

TB!

Yeah Tom, I think it certainly can lead us back to the 'synthetic a priori' kinds of thinking. Meaning, most all theories start with synthetic propositions that can in-turn be tested. In this context, it becomes logically necessary to have a sense of wonderment and/or a curious mind from the start. And in that sense the thing called wonderment is the cause of much quality of life stuff that we continue to value. Too, that also leads to the mysteries associated with wonder itself, since it confers little if any biological survival advantages (when instinct is all that's necessary to effect its purpose).

I think whether its an anthropic principle of some kind, or some other theological system of morphic resonance, a self-organized thing-in-itself that causes existence does indeed remain an intriguing phenomena. The thing that processes genetically coded information is that which Hawking was searching for in his equation's.

[LuckyR]

Engineers are trained to never be wrong, since folks aren't into bridges falling down. They typically apply known principles to both routine and novel problems. In rare instances they can be called upon to apply new types of information and/or the incompletely known, but this still falls into the situation where there is no tolerance of error.

Scientists are trained to think outside of the box, to consider the unlikely and/or counterintuitive AND THEN find out the correct answer.

I agree with the general tone of your reply, but I would point out what I think might be a misconception. Engineers are normally and usually called upon to design and develop new solutions to (new?) problems. If a solution already existed, the engineer's services would not be required. This is not rare, it is typical. But the tolerance for errors is still as you say!

As for your last sentiment: it is my own understanding that scientists are specifically not trained to "think outside of the box". Speculation, for example, a vital component of the practice of science, is not taught, or even referred-to, during a scientific education.

I think we are in agreement, but better definitions of terms are warranted. True, engineers commonly solve unique SITUATIONS, but they do so with well understood materials and physics equations, thus novel designs are the challenge. In rare cases they need to use novel materials whose properties under these unique conditions are UNKNOWN, this is the situation where guesswork is involved (and commonly where failure occurs for that very reason).

As to scientists, you are correct as to didactic, classroom instruction, but advanced degrees in science have research requirements that are hopefully all about breakthroughs (a new understanding) and not minimal incrementalism. Though you are right, it is possible to obtain an advanced degree in science without considering breakthrough ideas, but the ability to obtain funding for an academic research career by proposing research that merely pushes the boundaries of understanding by a small degree is actually quite difficult.

[Sy Borg]

Barring PhDs, it seems to me that universities simply extend the rote learning and required regurgitation processes of high school. If we want people to think better, we need to find better ways of educating than the usual 19th century stick-lots-of-them-in-a-room-and-talk-at-them approach. The setting is grotesque for sensitive teens, and it generally does not help students think. The evidence of the failure of the education system is in the number of young people who implicitly believe what they are told on social media.

I think educators could do worse than consider Elon Musk's ideas: https://insideevs.com/news/541442/tesla ... education/

While it's important to pass knowledge down, it's ever more important for young people to learn to think logically and rationally. Maybe they will reject rationalism for idealism, but it would at least be an informed decision. However, leaders throughout history have had a vested interest in keeping the populace clueless so they can more easily get away with sly skulduggery.

[LuckyR]

Barring PhDs, it seems to me that universities simply extend the rote learning and required regurgitation processes of high school. If we want people to think better, we need to find better ways of educating than the usual 19th century stick-lots-of-them-in-a-room-and-talk-at-them approach. The setting is grotesque for sensitive teens, and it generally does not help students think. The evidence of the failure of the education system is in the number of young people who implicitly believe what they are told on social media.

I think educators could do worse than consider Elon Musk's ideas: https://insideevs.com/news/541442/tesla ... education/

While it's important to pass knowledge down, it's ever more important for young people to learn to think logically and rationally. Maybe they will reject rationalism for idealism, but it would at least be an informed decision. However, leaders throughout history have had a vested interest in keeping the populace clueless so they can more easily get away with sly skulduggery.

Well I was referring specifically to advanced degrees, which would almost be required to work as a scientist (as opposed to getting a science degree).

So you're saying that young people are less likely to be fooled by online content than old people?

[Sy Borg]

Barring PhDs, it seems to me that universities simply extend the rote learning and required regurgitation processes of high school. If we want people to think better, we need to find better ways of educating than the usual 19th century stick-lots-of-them-in-a-room-and-talk-at-them approach. The setting is grotesque for sensitive teens, and it generally does not help students think. The evidence of the failure of the education system is in the number of young people who implicitly believe what they are told on social media.

I think educators could do worse than consider Elon Musk's ideas: https://insideevs.com/news/541442/tesla ... education/

While it's important to pass knowledge down, it's ever more important for young people to learn to think logically and rationally. Maybe they will reject rationalism for idealism, but it would at least be an informed decision. However, leaders throughout history have had a vested interest in keeping the populace clueless so they can more easily get away with sly skulduggery.

Well I was referring specifically to advanced degrees, which would almost be required to work as a scientist (as opposed to getting a science degree).

So you're saying that young people are less likely to be fooled by online content than old people?

Older people were educated more or less the same way. We became less gullible through experience and independent learning than being droned at by a teacher along with dozens of semi-civilised, and sometimes dangerous, beings.

[LuckyR]

Barring PhDs, it seems to me that universities simply extend the rote learning and required regurgitation processes of high school. If we want people to think better, we need to find better ways of educating than the usual 19th century stick-lots-of-them-in-a-room-and-talk-at-them approach. The setting is grotesque for sensitive teens, and it generally does not help students think. The evidence of the failure of the education system is in the number of young people who implicitly believe what they are told on social media.

I think educators could do worse than consider Elon Musk's ideas: https://insideevs.com/news/541442/tesla ... education/

While it's important to pass knowledge down, it's ever more important for young people to learn to think logically and rationally. Maybe they will reject rationalism for idealism, but it would at least be an informed decision. However, leaders throughout history have had a vested interest in keeping the populace clueless so they can more easily get away with sly skulduggery.

Well I was referring specifically to advanced degrees, which would almost be required to work as a scientist (as opposed to getting a science degree).

So you're saying that young people are less likely to be fooled by online content than old people?

Older people were educated more or less the same way. We became less gullible through experience and independent learning than being droned at by a teacher along with dozens of semi-civilised, and sometimes dangerous, beings.

I agree that people acquire wisdom over time, but that is independent of education styles.

[Sy Borg]

Barring PhDs, it seems to me that universities simply extend the rote learning and required regurgitation processes of high school. If we want people to think better, we need to find better ways of educating than the usual 19th century stick-lots-of-them-in-a-room-and-talk-at-them approach. The setting is grotesque for sensitive teens, and it generally does not help students think. The evidence of the failure of the education system is in the number of young people who implicitly believe what they are told on social media.

I think educators could do worse than consider Elon Musk's ideas: https://insideevs.com/news/541442/tesla ... education/

While it's important to pass knowledge down, it's ever more important for young people to learn to think logically and rationally. Maybe they will reject rationalism for idealism, but it would at least be an informed decision. However, leaders throughout history have had a vested interest in keeping the populace clueless so they can more easily get away with sly skulduggery.

Well I was referring specifically to advanced degrees, which would almost be required to work as a scientist (as opposed to getting a science degree).

So you're saying that young people are less likely to be fooled by online content than old people?

Older people were educated more or less the same way. We became less gullible through experience and independent learning than being droned at by a teacher along with dozens of semi-civilised, and sometimes dangerous, beings.

I agree that people acquire wisdom over time, but that is independent of education styles.

Only because almost all of us have come through the same antiquated system.

[The Beast]

Meta

think whether its an anthropic principle of some kind, or some other theological system of morphic resonance, a self-organized thing-in-itself that causes existence does indeed remain an intriguing phenomena. The thing that processes genetically coded information is that which Hawking was searching for in his equation's.

There is the basic process and its methods.
the theological system of morphic resonance.
What is it? I would consider the Anthropic principle as “survival” and the theological system of morphic resonance as good or the privation of good if this is the intended.

Syborg

Only because almost all of us have come through the same antiquated system.

as the meaning of good.

[LuckyR]

Well I was referring specifically to advanced degrees, which would almost be required to work as a scientist (as opposed to getting a science degree).

So you're saying that young people are less likely to be fooled by online content than old people?

Older people were educated more or less the same way. We became less gullible through experience and independent learning than being droned at by a teacher along with dozens of semi-civilised, and sometimes dangerous, beings.

I agree that people acquire wisdom over time, but that is independent of education styles.

Only because almost all of us have come through the same antiquated system.

Intriguing question, but causality has yet to be established.

[Sy Borg]

Older people were educated more or less the same way. We became less gullible through experience and independent learning than being droned at by a teacher along with dozens of semi-civilised, and sometimes dangerous, beings.

I agree that people acquire wisdom over time, but that is independent of education styles.

Only because almost all of us have come through the same antiquated system.

Intriguing question, but causality has yet to be established.

The famously poor standard of the public conversation on any given topic establishes at least some degree of causality.

[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?!

[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.