Home › Forums › Philosophy › Has Critical Thinking Increased or Decreased?
This topic contains 36 replies, has 10 voices, and was last updated by 
peterfa 4 years, 11 months ago.
- AuthorPosts
Hello,
I would like to start a discussion/debate over the subject of critical thinking. Has it increased or decreased over time?
I myself am in my mid twenties and have observed that while my generation is more technologically literate than the previous, I believe they do not have basic life skills like the prior generations. We claim to be intelligent, but I respectfully disagree.
Several generations ago people had valuable roles in society, families had stronger bonds, and people seemed to have been more at peace with each other. Or was that an illusion and has nothing changed but rather been revealed? With all the “critical thinking skills” we possess today, we cannot seem to obtain a sense of peace and order on the micro or macro level or modern society. Or is this what peace is?
This leads to the questions of have we progressed at all? If so where to, and to what end? Is progress even the answer to our problems? Because it seems to have no clear or definite vision for our future, other than that of a grey fog.
We as men are affected personally and impersonally by these questions, and I would like to here the thoughts and opinions of others.
Hello,
I’m a 31 year old father who has recently returned to college for a career change. I feel like I have an excellent viewpoint to offer to this topic.
Obviously, since I am in a college environment, I’m surrounded by a large number of people younger than I by 10+ years, and I’m incredibly saddened by what I see every day. A prime example being that many of these younger “kids” seem to lack the ability to find something of their own accord, without Google, Bing or Wikipedia. I have been forced to take a communication course as a part of my general education program (which I must take to progress in my college program, a cash grab in my mind), we spent three weeks (12 hours class time) on how to effectively research a topic. In this course, we have been assigned to write a 750 word report on the ethics of our chosen field of employment. We have been given 3 weeks to write this report.
The very first question to be asked by a 19 year old girl, “Is it ok if it’s only 500 words?”
The second question asked by a 21 year old male, “I can’t seem to find any information on my subject, is it ok if I use Wikipedia?”
The third question by another youth, “Can we have a bit more time to work on this?”Thus far in the course, (about 3/4 complete) I have a weighted grade of 97.76%, with the class average just slightly over 67%.
My mother, a professor at another college in a nearby city said it nicely to me the other day:
“Todays generation, although they think they are technologically adapt have become inept from the simplicity that they have become accustomed to. Having the world at their fingertips since childhood, they’ve lost the need to think independently because they can just type a few words into google to get the answer. If you ask a 19 year old what something means, they can readily provide you with the definition as given by Merriam-Webster – but ask them to apply that knowledge and you get a blank look”
Today’s kids ARE NOT more technologically literate then my generation (80’s kid). In order to use technology, we HAD to figure it out. We were required to learn beyond what we were taught as children in order to use a computer efficiently. I can pick up almost any style of computer, tablet or “smartphone” and within moments have a basic understanding of how to operate it. At least a dozen times since the beginning of September 2014, I’ve heard students say something like “Oh, I didn’t finish my assignment this morning because only Macs were available in the library, and I don’t know how to use them, can I have until tonight when I can do it on my computer?” And as a college professor, my dear mother has it worse.
The current education system is skewed. Rather than pushing children to reach their potential as was done when I was in school, they focus on the spirit of inclusion and “no child left behind” They praise mediocrity, and work at a speed comfortable to the slowest child in the class. Rather than striving to bring the best they can out of the child, to constantly improve their thinking skills and their ability to utilize them, the curriculum seeks to validate a child’s emotions and excuses for not meeting expectations. Every year, the public curriculum LOWERS it standards. This is not the way to educate children, regardless what the “experts” say.
Whatever happened to the adage “Practice makes perfect”?
Am I the only one who had to write out a misspelled word 50 times after a spelling test to ensure I never get it wrong again?
Am I the only one who failed a report because I didn’t bother to pay attention to the class trip to library where the librarian explained the Dewwy Decimal System?I know I went off a bit of a tangent there OP, but the short answer to your question is that critical thinking has decreased with the increase in technology. While there are exceptions to the rule, most youth cannot be bothered to strive because the answer to their question doesn’t have to be figured out, only found with Google.
It’s like water and electricity. They will always choose the path of least resistance.
*
From the start of my post to the asterisk, I typed 742 words in 22 minutes…
I find it just sad that youth today consider that a great deal of work.The vast majority of people on this planet are not critical thinkers, they are emotional thinkers. This is a truism that I meet with great ire. It is not a facet of the modern age, but an unnerving fact of life that has persisted for all time. As a member of the elite and wholly fictitious “Vulcan masters of logical coherence” congress, and the not so imaginary social club MENSA, I am at constant odds with the intellectually inept with whom I am obligated to interact with. In my experience, most people believe that they possess an above average intelligence; by mathematical default this means that they do not. Critical thinking requires intelligence, a towering amount of it.
The error that most people make when they use their brain to subjectively measure it’s own power, is to transpose the definitions of the words “knowledge” and “intelligence”. They figure that because they know stuff they must be smart, but give them an IQ test and they will be disappointed to find themselves in the mean. Anyone can cram their cranium with facts, this does not make you smart. Anyone can posit Yahoo a query and illicit an answer, this does not mean you are a genius.
I never went to college. I took a couple of courses at the local community college whilst I mentally flailed about trying to chose a path in life. It was disappointing. The educators were very knowledgeable, but outside their chosen avenue of study, they lack either the desire or the ability for critical thought. My compatriots in the classroom however, quickly noticed my brainpower and would actually attempt to harness it for their gain, especially the menial womenfolk.
The smartest man I met there was an instructor in the machining program. He is the stereotypical old master tradesman who opted for a simple life of pursuing his passion and therefore never “working” a day in his life. He possess an incredible amount of knowledge and an intelligence that can juggle it all into potent insight. This is the man I look up to. All those academics with their degrees and faux intelligence can’t hold a candle to this man when it comes to mind games.
Lust for comfort suffocates the soul
I am going to play devils advocate, bare with me.
maillesmith: How do you not know the kids were being lazy and were looking for an excuse to get out of work? How many times have you or I made up BS excuses to get out of work at their age? The argument seems less about critical thinking and more about work ethic.
If technology is taking away from the critical thinking skills of the youth, is it the amount or the type of technology?
Vilenord:
“In my experience, most people believe that they possess an above average intelligence; by mathematical default this means that they do not. Critical thinking requires intelligence, a towering amount of it.”
You are under the assumption that intelligence can be quantified and if it cannot be quantified or measured than it is not intelligence.
The problem is that the argument that one can measure intelligence, would have to be an intelligent statement in itself, otherwise it would not be true. You cannot reduce that statement to a quantity however. You can measure it. You can measure the number of words, or syllables, or even the number of concepts but you cannot reduce it to a quantity.
The problem, and I am assuming you are saying this, is that mathematics in itself cannot hold truth because the whole argument about mathematics being a means to truth is not mathematical.
“Critical thinking requires intelligence, a towering amount of it.”
For arguments sake, let us say you are right about the above statement. The next question would be what defines intelligence?. If I desired to be a critical thinker and worked to obtain more intelligence what would it be? Facts? If that is the case than the person who knows the most facts is more likely to have critical thinking skills. Savants would be most likely to have critical thinking skills, yet they do not possess enough to take care of themselves.
Do IQ tests even matter in determining critical thinking?
“This first intelligence test, referred to today as the Binet-Simon Scale, became the basis for the intelligence tests still in use today. However, Binet himself did not believe that his psychometric instruments could be used to measure a single, permanent and inborn level of intelligence (Kamin, 1995). Binet stressed the limitations of the test, suggesting that intelligence is far too broad a concept to quantify with a single number. Instead, he insisted that intelligence is influenced by a number of factors, changes over time and can only be compared among children with similar backgrounds (Siegler, 1992).”
http://psychology.about.com/od/psychologicaltesting/a/int-history.htm
However, you agree with me later in your paragraph “Anyone can cram their cranium with facts, this does not make you smart. Anyone can posit Yahoo a query and illicit an answer, this does not mean you are a genius.”
“The smartest man I met there was an instructor in the machining program. He is the stereotypical old master tradesman who opted for a simple life of pursuing his passion and therefore never “working” a day in his life.”
But
“The vast majority of people on this planet are not critical thinkers, they are emotional thinkers. This is a truism that I meet with great ire. It is not a facet of the modern age, but an unnerving fact of life that has persisted for all time.”
I am not familiar with logic because I never paid attention in class. However this seems to be a loop.
Unless the passion gave him intelligence. Or vice versa. Or both at the same.
This leads us to another question of whether or not passion is necessary for critical thinking. Also do generations of today have the same passion as that of our ancestors?
Gentlemen I look forwarded to your responses, hopefully they will be heated, but if not that will be fine too.
maillesmith: I find your view to be horridly subjective and missinformed.
Please do not act as if you or your generation has somehow produced exclusively great thinkers, philoshophers or some exclusive club of people that have “got it right”, the same way neither my generation, or the generation before you or the generation before that has. You can’t teach or breed or force brilliance and intellegence, you can only get so close before there is a breakoff point.
The problem isn’t that we have access to such massive amounts of information from a young age, if anything it is much better. Or do you argue that we need to be slapped, thrown into the wilderness on our own and re-discover and re-invent everything just because thats somehow better or more efficient? Because that’s idiotic. No, problem is that we are not driven to actually remember what we research, because we are not required to. The teachers only care for us to be able to recall some information for a limited amount of time, that is to say, until right after we pass a test. And this isn’t just some sick perversion of the modern climate. The education system worldwide was never set up to produce people with great knowledge, skills and reasoning. The same way the whole idea of putting kids into a crammed classroom with a single teacher was never a carefully scientifically thought of way of bringing across knowledge. It just exists because hundreds of years ago it was the most cost effective way of doing it and ti has stuck along, the same way the education system doesn’t exist to guide young folk to brilliance. It’s purpose is to manufracture thousands upon thousands of “Passable” work horses for the flawed economic system. Horses that will only know enough to serve a purpose, but never enough to actually notice that they have been played like idiots.
There are young folk now, i would like to argue myself included, as there were before that actually do not look up something on Google just to put it into a paper and then discard it. There still are massive amounts of us that actually have interest in gaining knowledge and preserving it, that have the drive and passion to question and be questioned, and to question that what has been questioned and even question that what has been accepted. Personally, i would have never gained even half of my knowledge base and skills if all i ever did was sit in a classroom and relay on a schoolbook and a teacher to bestow knowledge upon me. Then there is also the fact that you should accept that looking something up on Wiki, Gooogle or wherever is about 1000% more efficient than having to scour trough a Encylopedia, one that for all intends and purposes might be 20 years out of date.
And another point: Do you seriously think that everyone has the capability of being a thinker, a philoshopher, a writer, a scientist or some other form of accepted “higher being”? Because the answer to that is No. It always was, it always will be. There will always be thinkers and writers and scientists and philosophers but there also always will be more simple folk. Folk that might be a bit slow, blind to certain ascepts or simply not capable of giving a s~~~. . And throwing them an old Encylopedia or shutting them into a classroom won’t change that.
The right man at the wrong place can make all the difference in the world.
You are under the assumption that intelligence can be quantified and if it cannot be quantified or measured than it is not intelligence.
The problem is that the argument that one can measure intelligence, would have to be an intelligent statement in itself, otherwise it would not be true. You cannot reduce that statement to a quantity however. You can measure it. You can measure the number of words, or syllables, or even the number of concepts but you cannot reduce it to a quantity.
The problem, and I am assuming you are saying this, is that mathematics in itself cannot hold truth because the whole argument about mathematics being a means to truth is not mathematical.
I do believe intelligence can be quantified. When I use the word intelligence, I am meaning a capacity for abstract thought. Metal puzzles, anagrams, sets of numbers, logic problems, etc. All these tasks can be undertaken and timed to arrive at a quantifiable level of intelligence. “By mathematical default” was my shorthand for explaining that if most people believe they are above average, then they are not. They would simply become the new average.
If you argue that mathematics is not a means to truth, then you might as well argue that there is no such thing as truth. There is an ongoing, age old debate over whether mathematics is a creation of the human mind or if it is the law of reality and we are simply transcribing it. Either way you fancy it, mathematics is the truth of reality as best as we can know it, and if that truth isn’t enough for you…….then you will forever yearn and never rest easy. A miserable and avoidable fate if you ask me.
“The smartest man I met there was an instructor in the machining program. He is the stereotypical old master tradesman who opted for a simple life of pursuing his passion and therefore never “working” a day in his life.”
But
“The vast majority of people on this planet are not critical thinkers, they are emotional thinkers. This is a truism that I meet with great ire. It is not a facet of the modern age, but an unnerving fact of life that has persisted for all time.”
I am not familiar with logic because I never paid attention in class. However this seems to be a loop.
Unless the passion gave him intelligence. Or vice versa. Or both at the same.
This leads us to another question of whether or not passion is necessary for critical thinking. Also do generations of today have the same passion as that of our ancestors?
His passion is machining. Machining is a mathematical endeavor and emotions should be left at the door. I brought his presence to the discussion simply to point out that the most intelligent people I know are also the most basic, easy going people. What I mean by emotional thinker is, someone who cannot contain their emotions long enough to see past the moment. Someone who must act immediately when angered or in love. I’ve heard people use the phrase “emotional intelligence” before, but what is that? Someone who has a great deal of empathy? There is nothing wrong with being a spur-of-the-moment kind of guy, but if you are consistently finding yourself in trouble because of your impulsiveness, then I would classify you as an emotional thinker.
I’ve been told I have no soul, that I’m just a machine masquerading as a human, but I don’t buy it. I live my life with facts and reason at the forefront because I believe that intelligence is the greatest power we hold over the animal kingdom. Fear is an emotion, and animals have fear. 1+1=2 and there is no Devil’s advocate for that.
Lust for comfort suffocates the soul
@keymaster
Wish granted! I added a video!Yeah I ain’t going nowhere!
Lust for comfort suffocates the soul
Keymaster said:
A dog doesn’t entertain a thought (or pick up an item), explore every facet of it, question every detail, tear it apart, exhaust every mathematical possibility… and then put it back down to either accept it, or reject it. Not too many humans do that either. This doesn’t even require much intelligence – only an inquisitive mind and the will to explore it. Someone could be extremely intelligent and lack all willingness to even accept a basic truth. We see this every day.
This is a good point. This is what I’ve always referred to as “faux intelligence.” I’m thinking of one particular guy I know. He displays all the usual signs of intelligence, a quick wit, a keen eye for detail, a love of knowledge, an awareness of logic…..but he is blinded by his own aura and believes he was born an ancient soul adorned with sacred blessings and guided by the divine. So in my eyes, he is smart enough to understand what logic is, but he isn’t smart enough to employ it. He believes that subjective experiences have a greater weight in determining reality than objective evidence does and I’ve literally crushed him with the power of logic, but he comes up smiling every time. I guess, for some people, for whatever reason, reality is just forever beyond their grasp.
Lust for comfort suffocates the soul
And it might yet be proven that I am in the wrong and that my friend is the one who is on the correct path in life. We are both thoroughly convinced of our ways. While I cling desperately to logic, and he to emotion, we are both simply trying to come to terms with the fact that we exist at all.
There are certainly some people out there who possess the intellectual capacity for critical/abstract thought and simply chose not to employ it. I don’t mean to imply that a person of average intelligence is stupid or incapable, they simply aren’t as capable as me. I’ll add here that this is my SUBJECTIVE experience and being such, it could be incorrect. I would be surprised though if you didn’t hold the same sentiment about yourself Keymaster.
And yes, the idea is what matters. The flourishes I add are almost entirely for my own enjoyment, though it puts me at a disadvantage when talking with non-native speakers.
Lust for comfort suffocates the soul
keymaster:
“Not too many humans do that either. This doesn’t even require much intelligence – only an inquisitive mind and the will to explore it. Someone could be extremely intelligent and lack all willingness to even accept a basic truth. We see this every day.”
This is a common thing among people. One observes on thing but choses to accept or believe another. Is there some evidence tying emotional and logical development together? What would qualify as that evidence?
“The difference between us and the womanfolk (who are apparently “smarter than men”) is really quite apparent: where one woman asks a question she should already know the answer to… the other never even asked herself the QUESTION.”
Although more common amongst women, I know that many “men” do this too.
“Where a generation makes a VISIBLE difference here is not in IQ, intelligence, or comprehension but in LAZINESS.
That’s what I was getting at. That’s what’s missing.
My 5 year old nice looked up at her father as said “Im bored”. I wanted to f~~~ing smack that kid. Not because she knew exactly how to operate a remote control before her 3rd birthday…. but because she had no f~~~ing IMAGINATION. No WILL to entertain herself.”
This ties into a point that Maillesmithe and Vilenord inadvertently brought up. Will, desire, passion, or whatever it may be seems to be a factor in the acquisition of critical thinking skills.
“I always thought / believed math was a discovery and not an “invention” or a human creation.”
Why does it have to be either? Who has discovered something without first inventing something to discover? Example: Columbus and ship. Who has first invented something without a discovery? Example: Fire->metal working-> Columbus ship.
What if the argument over mathematics is not a question of either/or but rather both/and? What if mathematics comes from the heart’s desire for order?
“I know an extremely bright female. Easily in the top 5 of all the people I’ve ever met. Her understanding of the lexicon is SICK. I’ve never seen her equal in that regard. Her silver tongue is unbelievable. In her presence, I once used a made-up word. She told me I can’t use it. It’s not a real word. It doesn’t exist. I had to explain we are not bound by the lexicon and can add to it – any word we like. That’s how all the words in the lexicon came into existence in the first place.
This simple thought hadn’t even occurred to her and it was impossible to refute.
So, not too bright after all.”
I disagree, she is still bright (if you can measure intelligence). She just has never given thought to a subject/made a mistake/etc. Which applies again to this argument about critical thinking. What limits critical thinking?
Yuri:
“The education system worldwide was never set up to produce people with great knowledge, skills and reasoning. The same way the whole idea of putting kids into a crammed classroom with a single teacher was never a carefully scientifically thought of way of bringing across knowledge. It just exists because hundreds of years ago it was the most cost effective way of doing it and ti has stuck along, the same way the education system doesn’t exist to guide young folk to brilliance.”
If I am correct, the origin of the modern education system was out of Prussia as a way to help prepare youths for military service. If that is correct, than by its very nature the modern education system is design to control critical thinking to some extent. Now whether that is a good or bad thing is up to argument. On one hand it can be used to weed out BS. On the other it can protect original thinking etc. As to its use today, I think most of us would agree its for the negative since it limits all ideas to one side.
“There still are massive amounts of us that actually have interest in gaining knowledge and preserving it, that have the drive and passion to question and be questioned, and to question that what has been questioned and even question that what has been accepted. Personally, i would have never gained even half of my knowledge base and skills if all i ever did was sit in a classroom and relay on a schoolbook and a teacher to bestow knowledge upon me.”
This goes back to Maillesmithe’s, Vilenord’s, and Keymaster intentional and unintentional point of the necessity of will/desire/passion/etc. in acquiring critical thinking skills.
“And another point: Do you seriously think that everyone has the capability of being a thinker, a philoshopher, a writer, a scientist or some other form of accepted “higher being”? Because the answer to that is No. It always was, it always will be. There will always be thinkers and writers and scientists and philosophers but there also always will be more simple folk.”
The problem with western thought, sometimes, is that is labels people as thinkers, writers, scientists, etc. rather than looking at thinkers, writers, scientists as people. What simple folk hasn’t had a philosophical or scientific thought at one point of time or another? Does the potential to do these things make them any different than the men that do?
Are thinkers, writers, scientists really higher beings than the animals they observe? Because one can without a doubt see they share the same fate: that of seeking to fulfill their desires and then being crowned with death for their efforts.
Vilenord:
“The problem, and I am assuming you are saying this, is that mathematics in itself cannot hold truth because the whole argument about mathematics being a means to truth is not mathematical.”
I miswrote this but you seem to catch the point anyhow. It should have said “The problem, and I am assuming you are saying this, is mathematics is an original truth in itself. Mathematics in itself cannot hold truth because the whole argument about mathematics being a means to truth is not mathematical.” Any confusion is my fault.
“I do believe intelligence can be quantified. When I use the word intelligence, I am meaning a capacity for abstract thought. Metal puzzles, anagrams, sets of numbers, logic problems, etc. All these tasks can be undertaken and timed to arrive at a quantifiable level of intelligence.”
Again my point is this. You state that intelligence can be quantified but use “tests” that in themselves are not always quantities (ex: puzzles, logic problems.) The whole argument for the ability for intelligence to be quantified is limited by the argument itself. No quantities or use of mathematics were used to argue mathematics as a sort of primal/original truth. Rather words were used, leading one to the question of mathematics be similar to a tool rather than an end within itself.
“By mathematical default” was my shorthand for explaining that if most people believe they are above average, then they are not. They would simply become the new average.”
My apologies for any confusion, but although you point about averages is correct the argument was against the premise that intelligence can be measured in the first place. If we kept the premise that intelligence can be measured, then you would be correct. However, if the argument was made that intelligence cannot be measured, then the above is nil.
“If you argue that mathematics is not a means to truth, then you might as well argue that there is no such thing as truth.”
If mathematics is a means to truth, that means that it is a means (pardon the pun) and not an original truth. The answer is already in the statement. It is “a means to” leads mathematics to something outside itself. It is my observation that mathematics is more of a tool, similar to a hammer, except it is abstract. It helps mold the world to our will. Does that mean we make the hammer the sole creative force? No, it is a tool.
“There is an ongoing, age old debate over whether mathematics is a creation of the human mind or if it is the law of reality and we are simply transcribing it.”
“Either way you fancy it, mathematics is the truth of reality as best as we can know it, and if that truth isn’t enough for you…….then you will forever yearn and never rest easy. A miserable and avoidable fate if you ask me.”
This statement ties the importance of emotion to mathematics, contrary to how you previously stated the importance of the two being separate (assuming I interpreted what you said correctly) If mathematics could have saved us from despair, it would have or at least give some evidence it might. If their was evidence that it might, then that evidence may be prone to subjectiveness due to its interpretation.
“His passion is machining. Machining is a mathematical endeavor and emotions should be left at the door.”
Then what is passion if not some form of emotion or will? Can it be quantified? If so then you would have to place values on a number of factors for an algorithm to prove it. And those values would fundamentally have to be subjective to the beliefs, emotions, will of who created the algorithm.
“What I mean by emotional thinker is, someone who cannot contain their emotions long enough to see past the moment. Someone who must act immediately when angered or in love. I’ve heard people use the phrase “emotional intelligence” before, but what is that? Someone who has a great deal of empathy? There is nothing wrong with being a spur-of-the-moment kind of guy, but if you are consistently finding yourself in trouble because of your impulsiveness, then I would classify you as an emotional thinker.”
If the emotions only last for a brief moment then how real are they? Are deep seeded emotions not emotions because they don’t act impulsively? Does time determine whether an emotion is an emotion or not? Does speed (fast/slow) determine whether or not something exists? Impulse and emotion are to separate things. Love or hate is different than the desire for sex or food. Empathy and impulse are too separate things.
This leads me to another question, one that might have to be entered as a separate category: The importance of language, how and what has changed it over time? Has it lost or gained value?
Although the argument about mathematics and its relationship to critical thinking has some solid points, it has one fatal flaw. The flaw is that mathematics was not used during the entire argument about mathematics. One might state that 1+1=2 as an example of truth, but rather it proves that existence as definite properties. Me saying truth is truth or red is red also proves definite properties.
“I live my life with facts and reason at the forefront because I believe that intelligence is the greatest power we hold over the animal kingdom.
Much of intelligence only brought us to seek the same things as animals do food, sex, shelter. And they have that too. We share the same fate as they do to some extent. What power do we really have, or mathematics has, if both are either subject to or are used for food, sex, shelter? Animals have comfortably reached these things without mathematics. We use mathematics for the same things. How are we different in that respect than an otter who uses a rock on a clam to obtain its meat?
“Fear is an emotion, and animals have fear.”
The only thing mathematics has proven as a tool is how deeply rooted fear is within the human being. It does so to the point of being a rival truth in the human condition.
“1+1=2 and there is no Devil’s advocate for that.”
Does 2 always lead us to 1+1?
My point is, and hopefully it is clear this time, is that mathematics seems to fit the functions of a tool rather than an ends or original truth in itself. It helps with critical thinking but critical thinking is not subject to it nor is mathematics subject to critical thinking.
“The problem, and I am assuming you are saying this, is that mathematics in itself cannot hold truth because the whole argument about mathematics being a means to truth is not mathematical.”
I miswrote this but you seem to catch the point anyhow. It should have said “The problem, and I am assuming you are saying this, is mathematics is an original truth in itself. Mathematics in itself cannot hold truth because the whole argument about mathematics being a means to truth is not mathematical.” Any confusion is my fault.
I have always understood mathematics as an interpretation of the natural order of the universe. I believe that whether or not it is a tool that we use or a code that we are decrypting, the value is in the underlying truth that we realize from studying it. What mathematics is as a stand alone entity is not as important to me as the knowledge we gain from it. Language is the most precise way humans have of communicating ideas. It might be true that mathematics as a tool cannot be “true” but it is as precise a tool as language.
“I do believe intelligence can be quantified. When I use the word intelligence, I am meaning a capacity for abstract thought. Metal puzzles, anagrams, sets of numbers, logic problems, etc. All these tasks can be undertaken and timed to arrive at a quantifiable level of intelligence.”
Again my point is this. You state that intelligence can be quantified but use “tests” that in themselves are not always quantities (ex: puzzles, logic problems.) The whole argument for the ability for intelligence to be quantified is limited by the argument itself. No quantities or use of mathematics were used to argue mathematics as a sort of primal/original truth. Rather words were used, leading one to the question of mathematics be similar to a tool rather than an end within itself.
If I take 1,000 people and have them solve the same logic problem, and I record the amount of time it takes each individual to solve it, have I not created useful data? It is not the most controlled experiment, I will give you that. The data would require further classification in order to break it down into subsets, I will give you that as well. But this is the best that we can do. I would not define this data as absolute truth, there are too many known unknowns for such a statement. We have however managed to measure something, we have put a number to something. I chose to call this something “intelligence”, so I say that because we can put a number to it, it can be quantified. If you disagree with this, I hope your disagreement is in my calling this “something” intelligence, not in this “something” being unquantifiable.
“If you argue that mathematics is not a means to truth, then you might as well argue that there is no such thing as truth.”
If mathematics is a means to truth, that means that it is a means (pardon the pun) and not an original truth. The answer is already in the statement. It is “a means to” leads mathematics to something outside itself. It is my observation that mathematics is more of a tool, similar to a hammer, except it is abstract. It helps mold the world to our will. Does that mean we make the hammer the sole creative force? No, it is a tool.
Well stated. I never intended to argue that maths was a truth wholly unto itself.
“There is an ongoing, age old debate over whether mathematics is a creation of the human mind or if it is the law of reality and we are simply transcribing it.”
“Either way you fancy it, mathematics is the truth of reality as best as we can know it, and if that truth isn’t enough for you…….then you will forever yearn and never rest easy. A miserable and avoidable fate if you ask me.”
This statement ties the importance of emotion to mathematics, contrary to how you previously stated the importance of the two being separate (assuming I interpreted what you said correctly) If mathematics could have saved us from despair, it would have or at least give some evidence it might. If their was evidence that it might, then that evidence may be prone to subjectiveness due to its interpretation.
What I was eluding to is MY belief that if a person lives their life with the notion that there is no absolute truth and therefore all understanding is void, I can’t comprehend them leading a fulfilled life. This has been my subjective experience when dealing with nihilism though. Perhaps there are those in this world who find solace in nothingness, but it is counter-intuitive to me.
“His passion is machining. Machining is a mathematical endeavor and emotions should be left at the door.”
Then what is passion if not some form of emotion or will? Can it be quantified? If so then you would have to place values on a number of factors for an algorithm to prove it. And those values would fundamentally have to be subjective to the beliefs, emotions, will of who created the algorithm.
This is the purpose of my belief that intelligence can be quantified. The idea that intelligence can be quantified is what separates it from emotions.
“What I mean by emotional thinker is, someone who cannot contain their emotions long enough to see past the moment. Someone who must act immediately when angered or in love. I’ve heard people use the phrase “emotional intelligence” before, but what is that? Someone who has a great deal of empathy? There is nothing wrong with being a spur-of-the-moment kind of guy, but if you are consistently finding yourself in trouble because of your impulsiveness, then I would classify you as an emotional thinker.”
If the emotions only last for a brief moment then how real are they? Are deep seeded emotions not emotions because they don’t act impulsively? Does time determine whether an emotion is an emotion or not? Does speed (fast/slow) determine whether or not something exists? Impulse and emotion are to separate things. Love or hate is different than the desire for sex or food. Empathy and impulse are too separate things.
I may be wrong, but this is my take on it: Impulse is not an emotion, it is an action taken upon emotion. Impulse is an action taken without/in defiance of logical thought. Impulsive actions can be made regardless of the length of time someone has mulled the actions over in their head.
This leads me to another question, one that might have to be entered as a separate category: The importance of language, how and what has changed it over time? Has it lost or gained value?
The syntax of language changes over time, but the importance of it as a tool to transmit thought has not. As long as the language you use correctly translates the thoughts in your head to the person you are trying to communicate with, language has tremendous value. Until we can digitally transfer thought waves from one brain to the other, language as a tool has value.
Although the argument about mathematics and its relationship to critical thinking has some solid points, it has one fatal flaw. The flaw is that mathematics was not used during the entire argument about mathematics. One might state that 1+1=2 as an example of truth, but rather it proves that existence as definite properties. Me saying truth is truth or red is red also proves definite properties.
Ok. Mathematics and critical thinking are separate entities which share a common underlying principle of logic. Maths and critical thought are logical in nature because 1+1=2 is the same as Statement A + Statement B = Statement C. In logic, either of the statements in the equation could be false, leading to a false conclusion. The same is true in mathematics because 1+3≠2. If you define critical thought as something apart from logic or as something which includes more than just logic, then you have a valid point. I define critical thinking as thinking in terms of logic alone. Critical thought is not the only form of thought, it is simply the form of thought which employs logic.
“I live my life with facts and reason at the forefront because I believe that intelligence is the greatest power we hold over the animal kingdom.
Much of intelligence only brought us to seek the same things as animals do food, sex, shelter. And they have that too. We share the same fate as they do to some extent. What power do we really have, or mathematics has, if both are either subject to or are used for food, sex, shelter? Animals have comfortably reached these things without mathematics. We use mathematics for the same things. How are we different in that respect than an otter who uses a rock on a clam to obtain its meat?
Intelligence provides us a separate path from instinct. Without it we would not be at the top of the food chain.
“Fear is an emotion, and animals have fear.”
The only thing mathematics has proven as a tool is how deeply rooted fear is within the human being. It does so to the point of being a rival truth in the human condition.
Precisely. That is why emotion should be considered AFTER critical thought. Emotion is too subjective to have any weight on reality.
“1+1=2 and there is no Devil’s advocate for that.”
Does 2 always lead us to 1+1?
No it does not. Your question doesn’t alter the truth of 1+1=2 any more than asking if “the dog bites the man” is the same as “the man bites the dog”. They mean separate things because they are separate things.
Lust for comfort suffocates the soul
I think we agree more than we disagree.
To simplify my side of the argument, however:
-Mathematics is a tool and not a self sustaining truth that exists on its own.
+ Theoretically speaking and this might need a whole new thread of its own, what if mathematics was the result of a desire for order? An act of will? Is it possible, and not in the sense that “anything is possible” but actually possible? Is it possible the free will and mathematics are connected (assuming the premise of free will existing) and only used amongst animals with free will (ie people?) If we chose to debate this we might want a separate thread.
-Mathematics/logic are intricately tied with ones emotions/passions. Yes they can affect each other for the worse, but both require each other to some extent. They can do this without conflict or contradictions.
+ They both have an effect on critical thinking when the complement each other. Both are needed. Not one or the other.
-Impulse is a lack of control over the passions/emotion/etc. A deficiency in the emotion itself.
– Intelligence cannot be quantified.
+An incomplete measurement is still incomplete inconclusive.
-Critical thinking cannot be quantified. (Title question is answered. It is a fundamentally contradicting question meant more for mental exercise than anything.)
– 1+1=2 is correct. However, any number on its own can lead to an infinite number of possibilities, leading us to question the nature of numbers itself.
– Nihilism is a useless ideology. Pardon the pun, again. Just because one cannot do something does not imply any Nihilistic “truth”.
Hopefully that simplified things.
I concur. I haven’t been terribly confused by any of your arguments and I believe that if we were having this discussion in person, one of us would make headway with the other. I am prone to think of theories only seconds before I say (write) them and therefore they are more like “feelers” that I put out there to gauge whether or not they hold any validity. You have been critical of my theories and I appreciate that.
Lust for comfort suffocates the soul
More and more a society becomes feminized, more and more it becomes irrational and against critical thinking: for females feelings are more important than facts.
Very true, Lauder.
It is easier to control emotions rather than a logical argument. Which is part of the reason why I believe feminism is promoted. I will go back to an example I provided on a separate thread: When I raised pigs with my father, the way we controlled the heard was to castrate the males.
Feminism does this on the macro level to society. I believe it is promoted by the elite as a way to bring about a neo-feudal type of slave state. I do not mean to make it sound like a conspiracy theory, but I see no other reason why.
If you take away the b~~~~ and critical thinking skills of a few generations you will have a kingdom of serfs. Due to industrialization the power shift from the individual king to the individual consumer. With that came a power structure change. In order to gain/maintain power industries would have to manage and control consumer habits. In order to do this, a change in the belief system and values is necessary. Critical thinking is an enemy of this new shift to different beliefs and values from our ancestors.
I believe it is promoted by the elite as a way to bring about a neo-feudal type of slave state.
I’m thinking Marxist state. I agree in all other aspects.
Society asks MGTOWs: Why are you not making more tax-slaves?
I understand what you are saying about a Marxist state, because there are a lot of correlations and causation arguments about feminism and its relation to Marxism.
But I do not think it can be strictly related to Marxism because it seems to be industry promoted.
Feminism is promoted by a lot of separate industries. Most industries, by their very nature, need consumers to exist. By giving more economic rights to women a broader consumer base is created. Add to the fact that female minds are maliable and that most “logical” men end up getting pussy whipped by their girlfriends/wives, feminism helps develop and change consumer habits over time. I mean look at a lot of commercials you see and I can guarantee you they are directed 9 out of 10 times to women. Women who work are going to spend their money on themselves. Their boyfriends/husbands will spend their hard earned money on their girlfriends/wives.
A team is only as strong as its weakest link. In relationships, society, etc. women are that weakest link. Feminism targets that weakest link in order to subjugate a people.
So getting back to your point, yes I agree that feminism and Marxism are closely related. However you have to look at the fact that industry promotes feminism and has a lot to benefit from it also. Feminism has benefits in a capitalistic society, that’s my point.
Although a lot of critical thinking by the participants in this topic was done.
I read this entire thread 22 post and came to a one word conclusive answer to the question.
Has critical thinking increased or decreased over time?
decreased
I won’t criticize any of the thinking that was done in relation to coming to your answers.
Here is how I came to my answer.There is an overlapping definition of critical thinking, but I used this one.
Critical thinking is that mode of thinking – about any subject, content, or problem – in which the thinker improves the quality of his or her thinking by skillfully taking charge of the structures inherent in thinking and
imposing intellectual standards upon them. The Result is A well cultivated critical thinker, who does these thingsraises vital questions and problems, formulating them clearly and precisely
gathers and assesses relevant information, using abstract ideas to interpret it effectively comes to well-reasoned conclusions and solutions, testing them against relevant criteria and standards
thinks open-minded within alternative systems of thought, recognizing and assessing, as need be, their assumptions, implications, and practical consequences
communicates effectively with others in figuring out solutions to complex problems.
Critical thinking is, in short, self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking. It presupposes assent to rigorous standards of excellence and mindful command of their use. It entails effective communication and problem solving abilities and a commitment to overcome our native ego-centrism and sociocentrism.
Are you f~~~ing kidding me? Was there any reasoning behind all the thinking involved to come to the conclusion that, the easier it gets to access information the more lazy people become? People love being told what to think so they don’t have to learn how to think.
KeyMasters dog does more critical thinking than 90% of the lazy sheeple stumbling around like zombies in todays modern society. Can I eat it? Can I screw it? And if the answer is no…. then he just p~~~es on it and moves on.
I was bound to be misunderstood, and I laugh at those who misunderstand me. Kind mockery at the well intentioned, but unfettered cruelty towards those would be prison guards of my creative possibilities. This so as to learn as much from misunderstanding as from understanding. Taking pleasure in worthy opponents and making language fluid and flowing like a river yet pointed and precise as a dagger. Contradicts the socialistic purpose of language and makes for a wonderful linguistic dance, A verbal martial art with constant parries that hone the weapon that is the two edged sword of my mouth.
This thread is old.
I came to the conclusion that the actual question was bunk, because one cannot measure critical thinking due to a number of subjective variables.
We actually agreed more than disagreed on a lot of subjects. Although critical thinking cannot be measured we came to a branched off conclusion that people are raised to process their environment emotionally than critically. Although one cannot measure critical thinking itself, one can observe whether or not it is being used.
People love being told what to think so they don’t have to learn how to think.
Then you talk about who you follow and why.
KeyMasters dog does more critical thinking than 90% of the lazy sheeple stumbling around like zombies in todays modern society. Can I eat it? Can I screw it? And if the answer is no…. then he just p~~~es on it and moves on.
Is there something I am missing?
Don’t get me wrong, I really enjoy reading Keymaster. But I am not his follower. And I don’t think he would want that from me or anyone here. He runs a pretty open minded forum and does an excellent job at it.
@ John Doe: As “old” as you may label this thread, I still think it is an interesting one after all. And yes, your observations about Keymaster and his running of this amazing “free thinking” website are equally valid. I guess indeed that he doesn’t want or need any of us being his “followers” (or to be more precise: blind followers, besides how could/should anyone of us be that anyway..?). Personally I don’t consider myself as a follower of each and every one of his posts by agreeing with all of them and that’s all fine by me.
@ harpomason: You really hit the nail on the head, I think, when it comes to a definition of critical thinking, well done there, mate. Since it is vital to ever be able to answer the John Doe’s question in the first place.
Now, based on that I would like to hope (call me naive) that this way of critical thinking has neither increased nor decreased and maybe it’s not even necessary or it doesn’t matter that much for a possible trend to go into either of the two directions.
Personally I would consider myself as quite an intelligent and critical thinker largely based on common sense and peace of mind. How come…?
Well, this has by and large been seeded by the way I was brought up and raised by my parents (thanks to the both of you very much here, bless..!). Having been raised in the 70s, very early in life I’ve been told not to ever take advertising at its face value but rather to write it off as BS which nowadays makes me quite BS proof. So as from that point early in my life forward I quickly came to terms in my continuing thought process to go like: “Ok, so I guess I should rather make up my very own mind about the quality or validity of any product or belief or whatever re-evaluating (and oftentimes questioning) everything I observe through trial and error employing my own capability of applied intelligence logic knowledge and so forth combined with the best effort to make plausible sense of it for myself…”
This my pattern of thinking did get another massive boost when I hit puberty and developed my actual character. I guess by now I largely threw most of my old kid like naivety away whilst keeping my again kid like natural curiosity mostly intact thus basically taking the best bits from both worlds as in adulthood and childhood with me to lead my life and to this day that still basic (critical) thinking pattern of mine has proofed to be virtually priceless, because if it wasn’t for that (with all the more and more aggressively applied adverts of today) otherwise by now I could easily have been totally bankrupt or even worse in s~~~ loads of personal dept. By the time I spent some time in the UK in the mid to late 90s, my inner eagerness to learn and experience new things for life, which up until then for a while was more like a bit dormant or slowed down, also did get another big boost which even until today hasn’t dwindled since then. Ever since until now I’m fascinated by language in virtually all kinds of its facets, my own creativity has increased and still does exist at the same of its level to this day. I for one have acknowledged that my whole life is a perpetual school in all of its aspects and we never ever stop learning, new ideas and observations are pretty much always interesting and hardly ever any waste of time, because of the valuable potentials for personal and grand scheme developments they offer and therefore most personal creativity is a plus for virtually everybody in their good mannered mind.
All of this also enables me to on the one hand work for the media industry (with all of its manipulative ways and petty tricks it applies admittedly, which I mostly know about and some of which I probably could even use to my advantage but why..?) and at the same time in part being critical about its methods and every now and then also questioning them, because I guess that’s what in this day and age defines real and proper media literacy.
Now again another step back in time: It was also during puberty, that I eventually questioned religion as a whole and ultimately gave it up and never looked back, being the now free thinking person that I am without considering myself spiritual but rather like a rational free and open minded thinker. I welcome new technology as a helpful tool, albeit I am still familiar with how to handle things without it (ie. being able to read maps as well as being able to use a sat nav)
This is just one example of how a human mind can develop in hopefully a good way and I reckon a few younger people nowadays can learn a thing or two from older generations be they existent in the “real life” or online ie. in forums such as this one…
In that I like to surprise as much as I like to be surprised and I like to inspire as much as I like be inspired (which is in its very essence why I am here btw).
My 2 €-cents
Ned T.
I'd rather die a natual death with a clear MGTOW conscience somewhere off the grid than one within "modern" civilisation with a big stress mark on my forehead and a couple of dozen tubes plugged into my body. Back to the plantation..? Me..? Hey, literally: I won't ever fucking kid myself...YZERLMNTSIC
- AuthorPosts
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
921526
921524
919244
916783
915526
915524
915354
915129
914037
909862
908811
908810
908500
908465
908464
908300
907963
907895
907477
902002
901301
901106
901105
901104
901024
901017
900393
900392
900391
900390
899038
898980
896844
896798
896797
895983
895850
895848
893740
893036
891671
891670
891336
891017
890865
889894
889741
889058
888157
887960
887768
886321
886306
885519
884948
883951
881340
881339
880491
878671
878351
877678
