Missing the big picture.

[schlitt]

How many times have you been discussing/arguing with someone who is failing to understand your point?

Why are they seemingly incapable of putting together the elements required for the correct logical conclusion?

Like most things to do with human behavior, this comes down to thought capacity, which is intrinsically linked with genetics and circumstantial shaping. Individuals vary in their capability/method for thought.

So what is the difference between someone who is able to extrapolate informational elements to reach a sound logical conclusion, and one who is not?

I think it is important to differentiate between those who's thought process innately considers all pertinent relating elements and parameters, and those who do not have this ability, yet believe their conclusion is well founded.

There are those who will see the big picture through a cumulative self perpetuating thought process, and those who will stop well short of the big picture because their thought process lacks the capacity for linking informational elements and accurate consideration of logical ramifications.
The process of thought for someone who has a high capacity for logic is a series of interconnected pieces of information, forming links and interrelated conclusions which stay consistent with all of the pertinent information. A consideration starts a cascade of sub considerations, cross referencing new knowledge with all, opening links between pieces of information, forming logical pathways, and ensuring a final consideration is consistent with every linked piece of information. I believe this ability varies hugely, and plays the biggest role in superstitious belief.

Once we see the differentiation between possible thought processes, we can try to understand what is happening and why.

I think the key to this lies in informational linkage in the thought process, whether this is demonstrable through literally more neural connections or not, I am not sure as I am not a neurologist. But it would seem to make sense that the hardware would have a large part to play.

To illustrate what I mean, consider this example:

Two different people walk past a car on the side of the road, the car has a for sale sign on it, the price seems very low for the type of car.

Person A thinks: Wow! x amount of $ for that car! What a bargain! I’m going to go get a loan and buy it!

Person B thinks: Hmmm, x amount of $ for that type of car seems very low.
I wonder why it is so low?
Knowing the socio economic status of this area traditionally this type of vehicle would not been seen in these parts.
It is a very unconventional method of selling this type of car.
There is a high possibility of this car being stolen.
If the car is stolen there would be detrimental consequences for me if I purchased it.
Given the price and potential opportunity this is worth investigating, however I am going to be very cautious before departing with any money.

Person B’s thought process triggers of a whole new set of sub thought processes which work through various different elements, allowing him to see a much larger logical picture of the situation. Person A on the other hand, sees the situation from a very narrow frame. (This example is an oversimplification, you get the gist)

Person B's thought process does this immediately as part of his cognitive process, these informational links immediately fire when the original thought is considered, the brain innately takes the process down many pathways of linking information, parameters and relating elements resulting in a conclusion which is fairly sound.
A similar process is happening with person A, but the amount of pathways the thought process is traveling down may be much less. The information linkage between pertinent elements is not being made, and the resulting conclusion of a person A may be contradictory to many elements that were outside of the persons capacity to realize were important to the consideration.

The result of this manifests itself constantly in arguments and difference of opinion. Unfortunately it is impossible for someone to realize if their capacity for thought is low, because their conclusion makes sense in the context of all of the considerations they are capable of making.
Since a person’s conclusions will be based upon their capacity for thought, then whatever their conclusion is, it is correct to them. If their pathway of information linkage and consideration stops well short of another person’s, It will be deemed correct without realizing the possibility for further logical consideration, and realizing the further informational elements and processing that was done by the other person. The capacity is simply not there.

Let’s take “The secret” as an example.
Two people consider the premise of the secret; “thoughts create energy and vibrations, positive thoughts attract positive things, negative thoughts attract negative things”.

Thought process of person A.
http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=10201&stc=1&d=1203915793




Thought process of person B.
http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=10202&stc=1&d=1203915793

There is a LOT more to the process obviously, and it is quite hard to display such a complex thing in a diagram, but I’m sure you can see what I am getting at.
For person B, the links between the informational considerations happen immediately and inescapably. He is unable to ponder this without these links being opened, and his conclusion is going to be based on a much larger picture than person A.

For person A, The links do not innately flow between the pieces of information, information may be stored in the brain that is pertinent, but a link may not necessarily be being made, during this consideration. It is the ability to link to knowledge whilst engaging in the consideration process that is key, not the knowledge itself. The conclusion requires a string of related information to be logically stepped through, each step linking in relevant information and forming a conclusion that conforms. If any part of the relevant information linking process, or interrelated conclusion making process does not happen, then the final conclusion will be flawed.
Person B could bring up a point that he has seen person A has failed to consider, but this will likely not resolve the problem, because this is just another starting point for person A to miss links and not have a long enough pathways of relating information to base a conclusion on. Therefore even with extra information, the limited capacity for linking information, and a thought process missing key parameters, will ensure the conclusion will still not be based on the big picture.


So there can be two issues.
1.) A person has the necessary capacity for information linkage and consideration for all relating variables involved, but lacks the information to link to. (A problem of education)

Or

2.) A person lacks the capacity for information linkage, and therefore lacks the capacity for truly considered conclusions based on every considerable parameter.

People with great capacity for information linkage can often make the mistake when talking to those with a lesser capacity, that introducing a certain piece of information will lead that persons thought process down the same branching and interlinked pathways that their own process went down.

I believe arguing with a person who lacks a competent information linkage capacity is an absolute waste of time. Because every step of the way, no matter what information is added, they will not be able to open all pathways needed for consideration. They will come up with a view that makes sense to them, but only because any consideration beyond that does not exist to them, since the capacity for creation of the correct conclusion requires a thought process that is beyond their capability.

Disclaimer: These are just my thoughts, and i do not claim them to be correct. :)

[Egg]

Interesting ideas, Schlitt. I know what you mean about people who don't seem to think things through or don't seem to consider the possible consequences of their actions.

You mention the importance of education, but I'm not sure there's enough stress on this for your model. If we think in terms of pattern recognising systems, education, knowledge and experience will play a huge part in the linking involved in the thought process. I would also add that I'd see imagination as playing a large part too.

To use your example of the cheap car:

Person A may have had little experience with stolen goods and therefore might not have the first thought that there was a good chance it was stolen.

Person B may have been burnt before and will therefore be automatically more suspicious.

Person C is very imaginative and on top of the same thought process as person B, also considers that the seller might be leaving the country and needs a quick sale, the seller is unaware of the true value of the car, there's some fault with the car and the price has been reduced accordingly, I might be out of touch with current car prices, the owner is having a prank played on them and the car isn't for sale at all...

[schlitt]

Interesting ideas, Schlitt. I know what you mean about people who don't seem to think things through or don't seem to consider the possible consequences of their actions.

You mention the importance of education, but I'm not sure there's enough stress on this for your model. If we think in terms of pattern recognising systems, education, knowledge and experience will play a huge part in the linking involved in the thought process. I would also add that I'd see imagination as playing a large part too.

To use your example of the cheap car:

Person A may have had little experience with stolen goods and therefore might not have the first thought that there was a good chance it was stolen.

Person B may have been burnt before and will therefore be automatically more suspicious.

Person C is very imaginative and on top of the same thought process as person B, also considers that the seller might be leaving the country and needs a quick sale, the seller is unaware of the true value of the car, there's some fault with the car and the price has been reduced accordingly, I might be out of touch with current car prices, the owner is having a prank played on them and the car isn't for sale at all...

I agree education, knowledge and experience have a huge role to play. But i believe ultimately they come second to thought capability.

To use the secret again.

Most people realize that with magnetism, opposites attract.
Most people also realize that attracting a red Ferrari to you, would not be practical if it literally flew through the air towards you.
If these peices of information along with many others are taken into account when pondering the secret, it ultimately leads down the logical path of a contradiction of the premise of the secret. For the conclusion "The secret does not make sense, as inanimate objects cannot have a negative ir positive vibration, therefore it would need be a contextual situation comprised of many objects that is being "attracted" to a person. However physical attraction though space of a situation does not make sense, therefore it would require an intelligent being to comprise a situation, give it a vibration level which corresponds to you, and then change the universe to impose this situation on you. This clearly contradicts the premise that it is merely vibrations attracting things to you. A malevolent god like creature would be required if anything like the secret were plausible."
Everyone has the pieces of knowledge that were used to construct that piece of logic, but not everyone has the capability of linking all the needed components together during contemplation. It requires thousands possibly millions/billions of fragments of information to be linked, contrasted, summed up, and concluded upon.



Believers have the needed knowledge components stored in some form or another. But these things do not get linked to in the thought process when contemplating the validity. It is the thought process itself which is letting them down, not the knowledge they have stored in their brain. (In many cases)

[-Fran-]

Good post, much to think about!

I got to think about one thing when I read the example about the car for sale... I've noticed one thing about some of my friends. They are very street smart, their critical thinking ability seems to work perfectly when it comes to practical situations such as the one you describe with the car. I am thinking specifically about one friend who I know would think exactly like person B if she saw a car like that. She would never be fooled by spam- or phising mail, and are tough and critical with phone salesmen and things like that... This ability does not affect her beliefs in psychics and ghosts in the least!

She is fully capable of thought, obviously, but incapable, or unwilling, I don't know which, to use it in all situations. It sometimes amazes me how totally skeptical she actually can be with some things, and how she just swallows some other things. To me, I don't see the difference between being skeptic about a suspiciously good sell, and a psychic with supernatural claims. But there's a group of people, it seems, that are highly selectively skeptic.

[schlitt]

Good post, much to think about!

I got to think about one thing when I read the example about the car for sale... I've noticed one thing about some of my friends. They are very street smart, their critical thinking ability seems to work perfectly when it comes to practical situations such as the one you describe with the car. I am thinking specifically about one friend who I know would think exactly like person B if she saw a car like that. She would never be fooled by spam- or phising mail, and are tough and critical with phone salesmen and things like that... This ability does not affect her beliefs in psychics and ghosts in the least!

She is fully capable of thought, obviously, but incapable, or unwilling, I don't know which, to use it in all situations. It sometimes amazes me how totally skeptical she actually can be with some things, and how she just swallows some other things. To me, I don't see the difference between being skeptic about a suspiciously good sell, and a psychic with supernatural claims. But there's a group of people, it seems, that are highly selectively skeptic.

Is it possible they may have learned through experience or a trusted source, rather than a well developed thought capacity?

[CaptainManacles]

TLDR

But from what I skimmed....the human brain is an evolved little mush of meat that adapted to serve a specific function just like every other mush of meat in our bodies. This one helped us dig roots out of the ground, and considering that, it's quite an accomplishment that they work in our newly created environment as well as they do. The difference between those who can think and those who can't? Education. You've been taught or taught yourself certain methods that handle some situations well. Don't make the mistake of thinking you can't be fooled, and my general impression is that attributing such problems to a general lack of "linking" capacity is probably not accurate, and any one of us would have some "linking" problems if shoved into the right circumstances. There is quite a lot of evidence to that affect.

The problem is that most false beliefs are based off of a framework of hundreds of other self-reinforcing false beliefs. The human mind isn't build to, and rightly so, flip the minute new data enters the picture. Arguing over the internet or in person is almost never going to change someone's mind in one go. You may be able to break down a few nodes in the web though, and you've perhaps increased your odds that time and luck will do the rest.

[schlitt]

TLDR

But from what I skimmed....the human brain is an evolved little mush of meat that adapted to serve a specific function just like every other mush of meat in our bodies. This one helped us dig roots out of the ground, and considering that, it's quite an accomplishment that they work in our newly created environment as well as they do. The difference between those who can think and those who can't? Education. You've been taught or taught yourself certain methods that handle some situations well. Don't make the mistake of thinking you can't be fooled, and my general impression is that attributing such problems to a general lack of "linking" capacity is probably not accurate, and any one of us would have some "linking" problems if shoved into the right circumstances. There is quite a lot of evidence to that affect.

The problem is that most false beliefs are based off of a framework of hundreds of other self-reinforcing false beliefs. The human mind isn't build to, and rightly so, flip the minute new data enters the picture. Arguing over the internet or in person is almost never going to change someone's mind in one go. You may be able to break down a few nodes in the web though, and you've perhaps increased your odds that time and luck will do the rest.


There is a whole lot more to what I am getting at than just the capability to link information in for consideration, it is the logical thought process as a whole that I am referring to, but the ability to miss links and ramifications is one part which is more easily describable in an inherently indescribable phenomena.

I agree that knowledge is very important in determining action. However I do not believe that all thought capacity is created equal, and it is merely a case of education and everyone will have the same opinions. At some point the fundamental differences of each individual’s brain system will have a role to play, and it is these variations that i am interested in. As i think they hold the key to woo.

[skeptifem]

i 2nd the 'TLDR' thing. anyway, i dont have that problem with most people for very long if i try. 90% of the time if i explain something more than one way a previously confused person will understand. i dont think its a black or white capacity for linkage thing at all. there is more than one way to reach a conclusion.

[-Fran-]

Is it possible they may have learned through experience or a trusted source, rather than a well developed thought capacity?

It's possible, yes. Maybe a more developed thought capacity shows when you can apply this thinking to different situations. And that if it only "works" in some type of situations it would show that it is more based on experiences from similar situations. As I said, it often surprises me that she sees the deception so clearly with some things, and not with others, that, to me, are of the same nature, really.

The tricky thing with all this is that, as you say, discussions fails from the get go, and that if you would try to explain this concept, it would sound way too much like "you are quite stupid, while I am the smart one" to her.

Taking my friend from above as an example again, she is sure not stupid and she was, many times, better than me in school. But I see more and more that our ways of thinking differ very much on some fundamental level, yet, I do not feel particularly smart - unfortunately :o

[schlitt]

It's possible, yes. Maybe a more developed thought capacity shows when you can apply this thinking to different situations. And that if it only "works" in some type of situations it would show that it is more based on experiences from similar situations. As I said, it often surprises me that she sees the deception so clearly with some things, and not with others, that, to me, are of the same nature, really.


The tricky thing with all this is that, as you say, discussions fails from the get go, and that if you would try to explain this concept, it would sound way too much like "you are quite stupid, while I am the smart one" to her.

Taking my friend from above as an example again, she is sure not stupid and she was many times better than me in school. But I see more and more that our ways of thinking differ very much on some fundamental level, yet, I do not feel particularly smart - unfortunately :o

I know what you mean. People read far to much into the ability to get good grades. I know many people who scored A grade average at university and many who scored C grade. Out of all of them, the person who i consider the smartest scored C grade, and some of the A graders are monumentally stupid when it comes to real life.

[schlitt]

i 2nd the 'TLDR' thing. anyway, i dont have that problem with most people for very long if i try. 90% of the time if i explain something more than one way a previously confused person will understand. i dont think its a black or white capacity for linkage thing at all. there is more than one way to reach a conclusion.

I agree it is not black and white. I am asserting this as 1 peice of a hugely intricate puzzle.

You say "there is more than one way to reach a conclusion", that is exactly my point. A conclusion reached from a larger picture of elements will generally be more sound than one from a picture lacking necessary considerations.

90% is a good ratio. You tried plumjam or DOC? ;)

BTW, i am not familiar with TLDR, i am assuming it is "Too Long, Didn't Read"?

[CaptainManacles]

There is a whole lot more to what I am getting at than just the capability to link information in for consideration, it is the logical thought process as a whole that I am referring to, but the ability to miss links and ramifications is one part which is more easily describable in an inherently indescribable phenomena.

I agree that knowledge is very important in determining action. However I do not believe that all thought capacity is created equal, and it is merely a case of education and everyone will have the same opinions. At some point the fundamental differences of each individual’s brain system will have a role to play, and it is these variations that i am interested in. As i think they hold the key to woo.

It can't hold the key to woo, because people who are otherwise very intelligent fall for woo all the time. This is an important aspect of what people like Randi demonstrate. Woo is not the realm of idiots and sub-normals. Very smart people believe very silly things. Everyone makes assumptions. You wouldn't be able to function if you didn't. But these assumptions can be wrong.

Being able to create links isn't really a problem even slower people have either. Associative thinking is rather easy, but in our highly social world where dying at 40 is considered a catastrophy, jumping to a wrong conclusion has worse results, and thus, the standard for accurate objective thought is higher, and sequential, logical thinking is more neccisary. Split second thinking is unnecisary, but people are still using the "split second thinking" areas of their brain to purchase cars, which is simply associative "CAR GOOD, CHEAP GOOD" instead of using sequential thought, as in your example, to work out a likely model of what is going on, and weigh the risks of certain choices.

What's the key difference between 100BC and now? Do you think we evolved all that much smarter in that much time? No, it's education. If we stopped teaching people what we've learned about how to deal with reality then we'd be back in the stone age in a generation or two, the existence of "smart, linking" people not withstanding. This goes the other way too, if we want to see the world "fixed", if we want to see another golden age, I'm optimistic enough to think that if we laid an educational groundwork of philosophy, scientific method, critical thinking, language, culture, ect, that we'd have one in a generation as well. Simply poo-pooing the delusional as leser beings will not accomplish this.

[schlitt]

It can't hold the key to woo, because people who are otherwise very intelligent fall for woo all the time.


It all depends on what standard you judge them to be intelligent by.
I am speaking about capacity for logical thought with a view to encompass the total process. Someone may have a greater capacity than another, yet they both may arrive at the same conclusion. Someone with a lesser capacity may have all of the variables needed to be a top scientist. Yet there is ultimately always going to be fundamental differences in the way logic is determined, and I believe this plays a large part in woo belief. Knowledge/education all obviously extremely important, but it is what you do with it that counts.


This is an important aspect of what people like Randi demonstrate. Woo is not the realm of idiots and sub-normals. Very smart people believe very silly things. Everyone makes assumptions. You wouldn't be able to function if you didn't. But these assumptions can be wrong.


I agree, but that is exactly what i am getting at, what causes these assumptions to be wrong. The varying ability that individuals posses to make these assumptions.


Being able to create links isn't really a problem even slower people have either. Associative thinking is rather easy, but in our highly social world where dying at 40 is considered a catastrophy, jumping to a wrong conclusion has worse results, and thus, the standard for accurate objective thought is higher, and sequential, logical thinking is more neccisary. Split second thinking is unnecisary, but people are still using the "split second thinking" areas of their brain to purchase cars, which is simply associative "CAR GOOD, CHEAP GOOD" instead of using sequential thought, as in your example, to work out a likely model of what is going on, and weigh the risks of certain choices.


I'm not sure you are understanding what i am getting at when i am talking about information linking. I am talking about it being a process of complete connection between all possible variables resulting in an accurate conclusion, due to the very fact that all information/variables/elements/consequences are weighed up in a process simultaneously. A process completely free of cognitive dissonance. I believe the ability for this varies due to hardware differences. I am not meaning this as a concious step by step process.


What's the key difference between 100BC and now? Do you think we evolved all that much smarter in that much time? No, it's education. If we stopped teaching people what we've learned about how to deal with reality then we'd be back in the stone age in a generation or two, the existence of "smart, linking" people not withstanding. This goes the other way too, if we want to see the world "fixed", if we want to see another golden age, I'm optimistic enough to think that if we laid an educational groundwork of philosophy, scientific method, critical thinking, language, culture, ect, that we'd have one in a generation as well. Simply poo-pooing the delusional as leser beings will not accomplish this.

You are correct, but it is not really relevant to what i am saying. Individual variation in thought capability existed in 100BC as it does now.

[CaptainManacles]

It all depends on what standard you judge them to be intelligent by.

What I said is true of almost any standard you choose. Unless "doesn't believe any woo" is your standard, but then your hypothesis becomes rather empty.

I am speaking about capacity for logical thought with a view to encompass the total process. Someone may have a greater capacity than another, yet they both may arrive at the same conclusion. Someone with a lesser capacity may have all of the variables needed to be a top scientist. Yet there is ultimately always going to be fundamental differences in the way logic is determined, and I believe this plays a large part in woo belief. Knowledge/education all obviously extremely important, but it is what you do with it that counts.

The irony being that your failure here is a failure to see the big picture. Meta-irony in that my arguement is that everyone has this failing if you give them the proper context.

What you do with it is also determined by the quality of your education. Sure, there are PHDs that are idiots, and people without college degrees that are really smart, but most of the smart ones can still point to some very good teachers in their past that paved the way for what they became. I'm not saying that intelligence isn't important, but you're trying to create a "key factor" here, and all evidence says you're on the wrong track.

I agree, but that is exactly what i am getting at, what causes these assumptions to be wrong. The varying agree that individuals posses to make these assumptions.

Experiences that lead to rational but incorrect conclusions. Incorrect thinking methodology. Incorrectly prioritizing evidence. I think those three are the big players, and none of them are really primiarly effected by intelligence.

I'm not sure you are understanding what i am getting at when i am talking about information linking. I am talking about it being a process of complete connection between all possible variables resulting in an accurate conclusion, due to the very fact that all information/variables/elements/consequences are weighed up in a process simultaneously. I believe the ability for this varies due to hardware differences. I am not meaning this as a concious step by step process.

I know that you are not, which is exactly my criticism. Weighing up all these variables in a simultaneous process can be done by the lower tiers of the intellectual ladder. What you were describing in your car example is more sequential, NOT associative thinking, and it most certainly doesn't account for all variables, if such a thing were even possible.

You are correct, but it is not really relevant to what i am saying.

It is quite relevent. It shows education is more important then any hardware differences.

[schlitt]

What I said is true of almost any standard you choose. Unless "doesn't believe any woo" is your standard, but then your hypothesis becomes rather empty.


As you note, ability at one thing does not necessarily translate to another. Therefore judging someone as "intelligent" beacause they have a PhD is only meaningfull of the context of being able to complete a PhD. The processes required for such a thing, can be completely independent of what i am refering to.


The irony being that your failure here is a failure to see the big picture. Meta-irony in that my arguement is that everyone has this failing if you give them the proper context.


There is no such irony here. I am talking about varying ability, of course people will fail in different contexts. However amoung the varying capacities for thought, some will be better equipped than others.


What you do with it is also determined by the quality of your education. Sure, there are PHDs that are idiots, and people without college degrees that are really smart, but most of the smart ones can still point to some very good teachers in their past that paved the way for what they became. I'm not saying that intelligence isn't important, but you're trying to create a "key factor" here, and all evidence says you're on the wrong track.


Do you believe that cognitive ability is identical for all humans, and it is merely a case of education? That is frankly absurd.



Experiences that lead to rational but incorrect conclusions. Incorrect thinking methodology. Incorrectly prioritizing evidence. I think those three are the big players, and none of them are really primiarly effected by intelligence.


Well it depends on your context of intelligence, but i agree. And that is what i am getting at. What would cause a conclusion to be faulty. Elements in the process have been missing. Every variable needed for correct consideration was not present, which leads to faulty conclusions.

Lets say you could explain to someone why "the secret" is not true, and it goes like this.

"It cannot work, because it is refering to magnetic vibration, and we know that in reality, opposites attract"

Suddenly upon explaining this they realize "Hey! You're right! The secret cannot be true".

Now why did they require the explanation? They already knew that opposites attract, but this knowledge was just not being linked to and considered with their own thought process.
This is a failing of taking the larger picture into account. A failing of linking between all pertinent information.





I know that you are not, which is exactly my criticism. Weighing up all these variables in a simultaneous process can be done by the lower tiers of the intellectual ladder. What you were describing in your car example is more sequential, NOT associative thinking, and it most certainly doesn't account for all variables, if such a thing were even possible.


The car example is flawed, and does not make my point very well, I admit.
It was an attempt to introduce informational consideration, and branching logic.
Sequential thinking can be done at any level of capacity. It is the ability not to leave out any element, and clearly see the large picture which i am contending varies.



It is quite relevent. It shows education is more important then any hardware differences.

Education is extremely important. But if the capacity is not there, it is not there. You cannot teach a person with severe mental disabilities highly advanced physics, even with the best teacher. This is a failing of hardware. There is a vast amount of variation between hardware capability between individuals.

[Silentknight]

90% is a good ratio. You tried plumjam or DOC? ;)

90% is the same ratio I use, coincidentally. I'd also add Radrook and edge to that category, just because of some of the things they've said recently.


I suppose would be one of those people who has been burned before, so to avoid making mistakes of that kind in the future, I try to apply the thinking of Person B to everything I encounter. Skepticism did not come easy for me, I had to learn it and train myself to use it. The reason I get so offended by people's lack of common sense is because, like just about everyone else, I readily see in others what I'm reluctant to see in myself. I don't want to do anything stupid in the future, and I don't want my past stupid mistakes to matter anymore, so I argue against the same flaw when it manifests itself in others. However this isn't out of hypocrisy, it's out of not wishing anyone else to go through what I did.


Nice diagrams BTW. As Person B though, I would prefer to mock Person A:

You think you can control the universe with your mind; has that ever worked before? Consider the starving people in war-torn African nations; did they inflict this fate on themselves? Now think about the person who wrote the book, which you just bought. How did she get all the revenue for her book? By attracting it to herself? No, it was by getting idiots like you to pay for it!

[CaptainManacles]

As you note, ability at one thing does not necessarily translate to another. Therefore judging someone as "intelligent" beacause they have a PhD is only meaningfull of the context of being able to complete a PhD. The processes required for such a thing, can be completely independent of what i am refering to.

That doesn’t really work as a response to what I said.

There is no such irony here. I am talking about varying ability, of course people will fail in different contexts. However amoung the varying capacities for thought, some will be better equipped than others.

No, what you are talking about is intelligence being of more importance then quality of education, which I’ve shown to be wrong.

Do you believe that cognitive ability is identical for all humans, and it is merely a case of education? That is frankly absurd.

If you translate “I’m not saying that intelligence isn’t important” into “cognitive ability is identical for all humans” then you’re either incapable of reading or you’re being intentionally dishonest. You’re not making yourself look any smarter by using these kinds of tactics.

Sequential thinking can be done at any level of capacity. It is the ability not to leave out any element, and clearly see the large picture which i am contending varies.

Well, that’s just plain wrong.

Education is extremely important. But if the capacity is not there, it is not there. You cannot teach a person with severe mental disabilities highly advanced physics, even with the best teacher. This is a failing of hardware. There is a vast amount of variation between hardware capability between individuals.

I don’t think the average human is incapable of understanding the basic rules that we use to tell truth from fiction. It’s a matter of education, not breeding, for almost everyone. Critical thinking is not taught, children are not educated, they are force fed information. Philosophy is unheard of outside college and even then it’s rare.




Well it depends on your context of intelligence, but i agree. And that is what i am getting at. What would cause a conclusion to be faulty. Elements in the process have been missing. Every variable needed for correct consideration was not present, which leads to faulty conclusions.

Lets say you could explain to someone why "the secret" is not true, and it goes like this.

"It cannot work, because it is refering to magnetic vibration, and we know that in reality, opposites attract"

Suddenly upon explaining this they realize "Hey! You're right! The secret cannot be true".

Now why did they require the explanation? They already knew that opposites attract, but this knowledge was just not being linked to and considered with their own thought process.
This is a failing of taking the larger picture into account. A failing of linking between all pertinent information.





The car example is flawed, and does not make my point very well, I admit.
It was an attempt to introduce informational consideration, and branching logic.
Sequential thinking can be done at any level of capacity. It is the ability not to leave out any element, and clearly see the large picture which i am contending varies.




Education is extremely important. But if the capacity is not there, it is not there. You cannot teach a person with severe mental disabilities highly advanced physics, even with the best teacher. This is a failing of hardware. There is a vast amount of variation between hardware capability between individuals.[/QUOTE]

[schlitt]

That doesn’t really work as a response to what I said.


Why? You brung up the point that smart people also believe in woo. I am simply pointing out intelligence as a term is contextual, being smart in one area does not necessarily translate to all areas.



No, what you are talking about is intelligence being of more importance then quality of education, which I’ve shown to be wrong.


Where have i said that? That is not my point at all.


If you translate “I’m not saying that intelligence isn’t important” into “cognitive ability is identical for all humans” then you’re either incapable of reading or you’re being intentionally dishonest. You’re not making yourself look any smarter by using these kinds of tactics.


I'm afraid you are missing the point entirely. Intelligence would need to be defined in a context for it to have any meaning in this conversation.
I am not being dishonest here, you have made an assertion which basically amounts to saying that the physical capability of the brain comes second to education/knowledge, in some respects i agree, but overall, the variance for thought capacity is huge when taking both into account. Even with the same education and knowledge, some people will be logical thinkers, some will be illogical, it is down to the process of examining and connecting the knowledge, not just purely pieces of learned knowledge themselves. It seemed as if you were implying that if knowledge were available, than thinking would never fail.



Well, that’s just plain wrong.


How so?



I don’t think the average human is incapable of understanding the basic rules that we use to tell truth from fiction. It’s a matter of education, not breeding, for almost everyone. Critical thinking is not taught, children are not educated, they are force fed information. Philosophy is unheard of outside college and even then it’s rare.


For general purposes i agree, education is the most important factor in relation to societal improvement, and general critical thinking. However that is not at all what i am getting at. I am talking in situations where knowledge is present, but conclusions still deviate from logic, and how this happens.
To put it simply, it believe the conclusion is made without factoring in every needed element. The big picture is missed.