To AR Is Human . . .

[Madelaine McMasters]

3 hours ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Meh, methinks you might be engaging in a presuppositional type of thinking wherein you start with a conclusion first (ie Arielle is wrong") and then backtrack to find proofs. Not at all uncommon and mostly pointing out that people tend to think fast and then slow. Well some at least. A lot, like maybe the 97% Rulkens mentions, think fast and then stop. "My cognitive bias" must be right so I can stop this really hard thinking!

You gave Paul Ralkens, or at least his pitch, as an example of "free thinking". I looked into it and found significant evidence to the contrary. I admit to being skeptical of "free thinking" as I've often heard it defined. I don't consider myself a free thinker by any definition you've provided. I hope I'm curious and critical. I also hope that'll do.

Rulkens tosses out lots of percentages, with nothing to back them up. That's not uncommon within the time constraints of a short talk, but he's got a website on which he could open his kimono to show the research. There is none. This is not uncommon...

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/motivate/201704/three-reasons-why-most-motivational-speakers-are-dead-wrong

I take that with less salt than Rulken, if only because it claims "most", not "always".

Both you and Rulkens seem to misunderstand the brain's parallel processing. We are not on autopilot 95% of the time, nor do we consciously switch into and out of fast thinking. We are on various autopilots 100% of the time, fast thinking at every moment. We'd be dead without that ability. Anyone thinking "my cognitive bias must be right" would have to be conscious of their cognitive bias, refuting the auto-pilot argument and acknowledging the presence of bias. Slow thinking gives us opportunity to avoid such self contradictions.

The first anecdote of Rulken's talk is of Einstein giving the same physics test two years in a row, defending the practice by noting that though the questions are the same, the answers (evidence) changed. You have (and you are not alone) criticized "flip flopping" that resulted from changing evidence. I understand the frustration that arises from change. Change doesn't care.
 

3 hours ago, Arielle Popstar said:

I'm not going to argue the triune brain theory either as I never alluded to it in the first place and your arguing it has little to do with being a Free thinker from the more classical definition of what is involved in being one and is an unnecessary derail. Bad Maddy! 🧨

I did not claim you alluded to triune brain theory. I simply used Rulken's lizard brain reference to point out that your example of a free (by your definitions) thinker, or of someone positing methods to achieve free thinking, hasn't seemed to achieve it himself. Do as I say...?

In my own defense, I have not claimed to be a free thinker, nor to value your definition of it. I do not think "Bad Maddy" means what you think it means.

3 hours ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Being a free thinker is to not automatically take on the thoughts and opinions of supposed authorities, self proclaimed or otherwise. Thinking your own thoughts, not following the herd, and being unique. Not being bound by other people thoughts and opinions. 

"Not following the herd" focuses on the wrong thing. The herd is not always wrong, and to go in their direction is not necessarily following. I am something of a contrarian, not because I think the "herd" is wrong, but because I like to look at things from many angles. I do this because, as it turns out, almost everything of importance has... many angles. Leveraging the knowledge and wisdom of others needn't bind one to it. Shunning the knowledge and wisdom of others guarantees ignorance.

As for being unique, that seems to argue against objective truth. A topic for another day.

3 hours ago, Arielle Popstar said:

“Freethinkers are those who think without prejudice and without the fear to understand and learn things that are not in accordance with their own customs, way of life or beliefs.”

I'd classify that as "open thinking". "Free thinking" seems to presuppose a sort of conspiracy of control that I simply don't see as clearly as you. As important is "critical thinking", which hopefully allows us to sort the things we let into our open minds.

3 hours ago, Arielle Popstar said:

“Free thinkers do not allow the news and the media shape their opinions and beliefs.”

Sure they do. What choice do they have? If "free thinkers" only work from direct evidence, they are necessarily ignorant. The moment their evidence is secondhand, they are no longer free of external influence. Humankind has come a hell of a long way on secondhand evidence and will continue to do so. As I see it, ain't nobody "free".

 

3 hours ago, Arielle Popstar said:

“Listening without judgement and criticism might be difficult, but this is one of the important characteristic of free thinkers.”

That's fine for listening, but I recommend exercising judgement and criticism before acting on what one hears. It was not until I'd watched both of Rulken's TED talks that I started analysis. The more I do, the worse it gets. To be fair, this is true of most things I analyze.

4 hours ago, Arielle Popstar said:

It is the opposite of being dogmatic which I see as being indicative of a "group think" or "hive mind" and the reason I pointed it out is that when I posted a couple of youtube links to a rapper with some deep lyrics, a couple of posters ran to what they thought is an authority on acceptable group think about the singer and posted on the character rather then the content. With such superficiality of thought, it doesn't allow for any real substance.

This happens, I've done it, it's been done to me. I don't see that as evidence of "group think" or "hive mind", but as evidence of me being more invested in certain things than others. That explains a lot, doesn't it?

[Arielle Popstar]

4 hours ago, Arielle Popstar said:

 “Listening without judgement and criticism might be difficult, but this is one of the important characteristic of free thinkers.”

1 hour ago, Innula Zenovka said:

On the contrary.   In my experience, far too many people find it all too easy to suspend their judgement and critical faculties so long as they're being told what they want to hear, and being flattered into congratulating themselves for being such free thinkers that they're prepared to believe what seems to the less enlightened to be utter tosh.

I'm all in favour of keeping people keeping an open mind, but not so open that their brains fall out. 

Are you not speaking here of the difference between judging the messenger vs the message? In the case of the free thinker, the idea is to not to automatically reject the message because the messenger is from a different race, creed, religion, political affiliation etc. but rather judge the content.

[Lindal Kidd]

On 7/13/2022 at 5:11 PM, Arielle Popstar said:

Being a free thinker is to not automatically take on the thoughts and opinions of supposed authorities, self proclaimed or otherwise. Thinking your own thoughts, not following the herd, and being unique. Not being bound by other people thoughts and opinions.

Yes indeed, that is the classic definition of a free thinker. Note, however, that the concept applies to social norms, accepted moralities, and the opinions of others (my emphasis).

It does NOT entitle one to make up one's own facts. (You did say something to that effect early in the thread).

Free thinkers (like Maddy...or, given her dislike of the term, "independent thinkers") absolutely love facts. Facts are what enable them to go against the accepted wisdom and steer their own course through life.

If someone else gives you some facts (as opposed to opinions), you (generic you, not you personally, Arielle) are not free to ignore them and make up your own.

Robert A. Heinlein was a free thinker. Here is how he put it:

“What are the facts? Again and again and again – what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history” – what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!”

 

Edited July 15, 2022 by Lindal Kidd

[Arielle Popstar]

29 minutes ago, Lindal Kidd said:

If someone else gives you some facts (as opposed to opinions), you (generic you, not you personally, Arielle) are not free to ignore them and make up your own.

Many however confuse a fact with its interpretation. A fact can be laying in the middle of the road but then the who, what, where, when, why and how questions need to be answered. This is where there can be a variety of opinions that hopefully lead to the most likely answer but also leads to the most conflicts. The fact however remains unchanged.

[Persephone Emerald]

1 hour ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Many however confuse a fact with its interpretation. A fact can be laying in the middle of the road but then the who, what, where, when, why and how questions need to be answered. This is where there can be a variety of opinions that hopefully lead to the most likely answer but also leads to the most conflicts. The fact however remains unchanged.

There is of course the 3 blind men with an elephant problem with interpreting truth. If none of us can see the whole picture, we're obviously going to fill in what we don't know with our own biased expectations. On the other hand, when there is a perfectly good video of a herd of elephants rampaging, it's foolish to say an elephant is more like a butterfly than like a rhino.

[Innula Zenovka]

On 7/14/2022 at 2:42 AM, Arielle Popstar said:

Are you not speaking here of the difference between judging the messenger vs the message? In the case of the free thinker, the idea is to not to automatically reject the message because the messenger is from a different race, creed, religion, political affiliation etc. but rather judge the content.

No, I'm not.    I'm simply saying that I think it's very bad advice to suggest people should suspend suspend their normal critical faculties in order to become "free thinkers."  

 

[Love Zhaoying]

10 hours ago, Persephone Emerald said:

There is of course the 3 blind men with an elephant problem with interpreting truth. If none of us can see the whole picture, we're obviously going to fill in what we don't know with our own biased expectations. On the other hand, when there is a perfectly good video of a herd of elephants rampaging, it's foolish to say an elephant is more like a butterfly than like a rhino.

An elephant is warm, soft and smelly! (That's my favorite blind man finding on the elephant, who only feels his poop.)

[Love Zhaoying]

12 hours ago, Lindal Kidd said:

Robert A. Heinlein was a free thinker. Here is how he put it:

“What are the facts? Again and again and again – what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history” – what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!”

Quoting RAH, that's some hardball!!!

[Love Zhaoying]

I think..and this is just an opinion..that we need some "Free Thinker" Lindens and Moles to help moderate posts where "Free Thinking" may be involved!

Because the rest of us (including non-Free Thinker Lindens and Moles) may not follow the complex logic required.

[Kiera Clutterbuck]

On 7/13/2022 at 1:01 PM, Madelaine McMasters said:

I became a fan of Nobelist behavioral economist Daniel Kahneman after reading his book "Thinking Fast and Slow". Nothing has shaken my confidence in "free thinking" more than that book, except my own lifetime of self observation and being my father's daughter. I had a bit of a scare while hunting up those "lizard brain" links. Kahneman's name unexpectedly popped up in my search results. Here's one example...

https://synergist.aiha.org/201911-battling-the-reptilian-brain

I could hardly criticize @Arielle Popstar's free thinker Paul Rulkens if Kahneman was making the same mistake. It's been years since I read the book, but I didn't recall Kahneman mentioning the debunked triune brain alluded to in the link above, just his System 1(Fast) and System 2(Slow) ways of thinking. It's odd that people quote Kahneman as describing three thinking systems in a book claiming only two in the title.

Fortunately, I have "Thinking Fast and Slow" in my e-book library and was quickly able to search it for

• reptile
• reptilian
• lizard
• mammalian

I found none of those terms in the book.

Kahneman has made mistakes and he's owned up to them. He did not make the mistake of basing his theories of human cognition on long debunked neuroscience. Rulkens might be, like the rest of us, the victim of his own energy conserving and error prone fast System 1 thinking.

I had this suspicion even before watching the TED talk, based on the unwarranted certainty in the title "The Majority is Always Wrong". One should almost never say "always", or at least couch it as Ibsen did in his original aphorism.

Realizing that our fast System 1 thinking likes quick, simple answers, it's also easy to see how such ideas, even if wrong, are compelling. Paul Rulkens, like any good speaker is able to use slow thinking to take advantage of our fast thinking. I'm not immune to this. Kahneman readily admits he isn't either. Still, we can hope that our awareness is helpful, can't we?

Since I question whether I'm a free thinker, I'm gonna scrutinize anyone else who makes that claim.

ETA: I forgot to bring this back to the title of this thread, in which @Scylla Rhiadra riffs off the very nature of this derail.

Though the majority isn't always wrong, to err is human.

Interesting book (Thinking Fast And Slow).  And it's available for free if one is a a Prime member at Amazon.

Whenever I embark on a book I like to become more aware of what my current position is. I suspect he's going to  emphasize the primacy of the slow thinking (conscious mind) over the fast thinking (intuition)?  But I place more value in the intuitive process, or at the very least I think it should guide the conscious mind or be in the driver's seat. 

But I haven't delved into it yet, so maybe he doesn't do what I'm imagining and at least emphasizes the value of the interplay between the two processes without choosing sides.

[Madelaine McMasters]

2 minutes ago, Kiera Clutterbuck said:

Interesting book (Thinking Fast And Slow).  And it's available for free if one is a a Prime member at Amazon.

Whenever I embark on a book I like to become more aware of what my current position is. I suspect he's going to  emphasize the primacy of the slow thinking (conscious mind) over the fast thinking (intuition)?  But I place more value in the intuitive process, or at the very least I think it should guide the conscious mind or be in the driver's seat. 

But I haven't delved into it yet, so maybe he doesn't do what I'm imagining and at least emphasizes the value of the interplay between the two processes without choosing sides.

I won't spoil it for you, but I do recommend the book.

If you read it, you may understand why I don't claim to be a "free thinker".

[Kiera Clutterbuck]

3 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

I won't spoil it for you, but I do recommend the book.

If you read it, you may understand why I don't claim to be a "free thinker".

I will continue reading it for sure.

All we can do is try to be a "free thinker". The first step in achieving this more often does seem to be understanding one is frequently not a "free thinker".

What we are seeing so much today is those who simply go against the mainstream or establishment and consider themselves as "free thinkers" because of that. But as you said earlier, mainstream thinking can sometimes be right and so this position is illogical. 

[Rolig Loon]

3 minutes ago, Kiera Clutterbuck said:

What we are seeing so much today is those who simply go against the mainstream or establishment and consider themselves as "free thinkers" because of that. But as you said earlier, mainstream thinking can sometimes be right and so this position is illogical. 

That's called being "contrarian" or, in the case of my late brother-in-law, "curmudgeonly".

[Arielle Popstar]

On 7/13/2022 at 9:38 PM, Madelaine McMasters said:

You gave Paul Ralkens, or at least his pitch, as an example of "free thinking". I looked into it and found significant evidence to the contrary. I admit to being skeptical of "free thinking" as I've often heard it defined. I don't consider myself a free thinker by any definition you've provided. I hope I'm curious and critical. I also hope that'll do.

Rulkens tosses out lots of percentages, with nothing to back them up. That's not uncommon within the time constraints of a short talk, but he's got a website on which he could open his kimono to show the research. There is none. This is not uncommon...

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/motivate/201704/three-reasons-why-most-motivational-speakers-are-dead-wrong

I take that with less salt than Rulken, if only because it claims "most", not "always".

I ran across a Youtube video last night wherein the host tried to make the same argument you have here about reptilian brains No, You Don't Have a "Reptilian Brain" and while it was an interesting talk full of trying to deny that Paul MaClean's theory was in any way correct, he both admitted that Maclean was right in some aspects and used weasel words to deny his correctness in other respects. More telling though was a number of the comments below the video wherein quite a few posters related they saw the term "Reptilian Brain" as a metaphor or figure of speech which allude to those parts of the brain that are more involved in the instinctive realm. One comment especially I think pertinent to your argument was this:

 

Quote

 

Nice Robot

This argument only works if he's refuting the 'reptilian brain' as it was originally formulated. The term has, in my experience, come to mean a more informal reference to the more basal brain regions. I say this as an evolutionary paleontologist currently researching brain evolution. Many people in my field use the term 'reptilian brain' knowing full well that it is not intended to mean a separate brain, nor that that it is literally reptilian in evolutionary origin. It's a useful analogy, and it works since most 'reptiles' (in quotes because the classification 'reptiles' is paraphyletic, because it excludes two main descendants - birds and mammals) still have relatively simple brains that more closely resemble that of the original reptilian ancestor, since 'reptiles' have not undergone as dramatic brain modification and expansion as birds and mammals have. It's not literal and it is useful. This video is tearing down a straw man.

 

 

 

So people in the evolutionary paleontologist field even use the term so I think your attempt to cast shade on Rulkan using the term in an unrelated talk is just weak though probably to be expected. There are facts and then there are analogies. One sometimes needs to be able to discern between the two.

Quote

 

Both you and Rulkens seem to misunderstand the brain's parallel processing. We are not on autopilot 95% of the time, nor do we consciously switch into and out of fast thinking. We are on various autopilots 100% of the time, fast thinking at every moment. We'd be dead without that ability. Anyone thinking "my cognitive bias must be right" would have to be conscious of their cognitive bias, refuting the auto-pilot argument and acknowledging the presence of bias. Slow thinking gives us opportunity to avoid such self contradictions.

 

You mean like multi tasking? Yes, I understand that. So what? That has little bearing on one's predominant mode of thinking. This harks back to the reptilian brain argument. Straw men and women.

 

Quote

 

In my own defense, I have not claimed to be a free thinker, nor to value your definition of it. I do not think "Bad Maddy" means what you think it means.

 

 

The "bad Maddy" comment was not in relation to whether you are a free thinker or not but to dragging the topic so far off course.

To be con't...maybe

[Kiera Clutterbuck]

2 minutes ago, Rolig Loon said:

6 minutes ago, Kiera Clutterbuck said:

What we are seeing so much today is those who simply go against the mainstream or establishment and consider themselves as "free thinkers" because of that. But as you said earlier, mainstream thinking can sometimes be right and so this position is illogical. 

That's called being "contrarian" or, in the case of my late brother-in-law, "curmudgeonly".

And a need to have a side to blame does strange things to the mind.  LOL

[Love Zhaoying]

Peeve:  My reptilian brain is questioning its existence.  The darn thing is sensitive, apparently.  Hopefully, whether or not it exists, has no bearing on whether or not I am a free thinker.

[Kiera Clutterbuck]

26 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

So people in the evolutionary paleontologist field even use the term so I think your attempt to cast shade on Rulkan using the term in an unrelated talk is just weak though probably to be expected. There are facts and then there are analogies. One sometimes needs to be able to discern between the two.

If outdated terminology like "lizard brain" is used to excuse murderous behavior in court, or used to denigrate animals, we need to get rid of it. Regardless of whether some amateurs or out-of-date scientists use the term as an analogy.  We are supposed to respect pop psychology now and people ranting on YouTube, and scientists who don't know current findings and so add to the confusion?

Edited July 15, 2022 by Kiera Clutterbuck

[Madelaine McMasters]

1 minute ago, Kiera Clutterbuck said:

I will continue reading it for sure.

I look forward to your book report. It needn't be 500 words, but if it is, I'll read them all.

10 minutes ago, Kiera Clutterbuck said:

All we can do is try to be a "free thinker". The first step in achieving this more often does seem to be understanding one is frequently not a "free thinker".

I don't believe I'll ever be a free thinker, in the sense I understand "free". I have detected many internal biases over my lifetime, and I don't mean in the social/political/ideological sense (though I detect those, too). I routinely catch myself attaching cause to things that, on reflection, are not causal. This is a bias we all share. I haven't time to reflect on all the errors in thinking I catch, and I can't reflect on those I don't.

I don't try to be a "free thinker" in the sense Arielle describes, simply because I don't see conspired manipulation on every horizon, from which to free myself. I see piles of people being people. If a hint of something interesting emerges from a pile, I start digging. I know I'm unlikely to get down to the actual facts, but if I gather enough indirect evidence, I can obtain some degree of confidence in my understanding. Still, I am always on the lookout for eruptions from the piles that do not comport with my understanding. I am, I hope, as open to discord as accord.

1 hour ago, Kiera Clutterbuck said:

What we are seeing so much today is those who simply go against the mainstream or establishment and consider themselves as "free thinkers" because of that. But as you said earlier, mainstream thinking can sometimes be right and so this position is illogical. 

Absolutely, bucking the mainstream does not make one free. It simply makes one contrary, as Rolig said. Still, you will sometimes find me being contrary, simply because it's great fun. I can get pleasure from watching you watching me be absurdly wrong.

[Rolig Loon]

6 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

Absolutely, bucking the mainstream does not make one free. It simply makes one contrary, as Rolig said. Still, you will sometimes find me being contrary, simply because it's great fun.

It is great fun. It's part of what makes a lot of humor, especially British humor, funny. The risk you take by making a career out of finding absurd holes in other people's behavior, though, is that you can start to take yourself too seriously and become a self-parody.  Like my late brother-in-law.

[Silent Mistwalker]

3 hours ago, Rolig Loon said:

That's called being "contrarian" or, in the case of my late brother-in-law, "curmudgeonly".

I remember back in the 60s they were calling it "nonconformist". Strangely, the majority of them ended up being conformist to a far right degree. From one extreme to the other. And here we are. 🙁

[Scylla Rhiadra]

"Free Thinking"

[Love Zhaoying]

6 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

"Free Thinking"

Makes sense.

Could not fly over land or 0-second Orbs would teleport them home.

Could not fly East because SL map does not work that way.

 

[Scylla Rhiadra]

4 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Makes sense.

Could not fly over land or 0-second Orbs would teleport them home.

Could not fly East because SL map does not work that way.

 

What he doesn't seem to understand is that the Japanese bombers began their journey in "1931" precisely because they knew it was going to take 10 years to reach Hawaii. If they were going to make it in time for the "day that will live on in infamy," they needed that much time.

So, yeah, this argument looks convincing, but is flawed.

[Rowan Amore]

16 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

"Free Thinking"

Can't decide if this is sad or just funny as hell.  It does make me want to see what other rubbish he's posted.

[Love Zhaoying]

Just now, Scylla Rhiadra said:

What he doesn't seem to understand is that the Japanese bombers began their journey in "1931" precisely because they knew it was going to take 10 years to reach Hawaii. If they were going to make it in time for the "day that will live on in infamy," they needed that much time.

So, yeah, this argument looks convincing, but is flawed.

I did not notice it said 1931, not 1941. 

So - I assume you are joking (I am comprehension-challenged), and "1931" is yet something else they got wrong in the meme!

Otherwise (again joking): Cool that this was planned "10 years before the war"!