Is Email Fading?

[jvnshr]

Whether you knew what I meant or not your words are still true jvnshr.

I didn't know, I do now, brightleaf. Thanks for the clarification. I agree with you, but we can't expect everyone to use his brain. I assure you, this world would have been a worse place if everyone had used their brains.

 

[Chasing Embers]

I assure you, this world would have been a worse place if everyone had used their brains.

+1
Sometimes ignorance is bliss.

 

[brightleaf]

Hence the need for Republican government.

The danger of people having access to power(their minds in this case) beyond their emotional maturity has been a common theme in stories.

I for one love knowledge. The information age has been a blessing to me.

 

[deathmetal]

I assure you, this world would have been a worse place if everyone had used their brains.

More like "most people are idiots."
Every time I hear "think for yourself," I think of Bill Cosby on mind-expanding drugs: "but what if you're an asshole?"
He has a point.
As far as the direction of society, you would have to be oblivious not to notice that we are in full decline just as Rome was.
But most people confuse their personal state with that of the world. It is called solipsism, and it is the disease of not just millennials but the Me Generation. Don't worry: Generation X is going to gleefully kick you into your graves and take the markers in the night so no one will remember you. It's going to be lulzy, as long-suppressed hatred usually is.
People try to make absolutes such as "life has always been bad," but if you understand the monkeyspeak of the human brain-stem, that simply means, "I want to believe life has always been bad, so that I can stop caring about whether we're screwing up or not, and just enjoy my retirement savings and die."
Individualism is always popular, but it is also never the path to heroism.
Anyway, some hard-earned learning that I pass on in the hopes that it makes your lives more significant. Note I did not say "happier."
@brightleaf:

Critical thinking is the name applied to the thought process after learning about the common mistakes that often trip us up. It is learning our personal bias, prejudice, emotional triggers, ways that we are manipulated and led to believe things that aren't true.

You're getting gen-gapped here. "Critical thinking" was replaced by "critical theory" in the 1990s. The problem with critical thinking is that 13% of the population has the biological intelligence to do it and the rest are out in the wind. So, I'd suggest something else: gut instinct. Less frippery, more results.
@Cosmic:

It was crappy back in the day, and it's been getting better and better. (Unless you were the right gender, race, wealth, or of noble birth)

Technology has, at least. But if there is one thing I have learned, it is that each group takes care of its own. Machiavelli beats Russell and Adorno every day of the week. And on royalty, I'll side with Schopenhauer.
@carver:

I have a very nice fountain pen I got a while back, it's a Graf von Faber-Castell, cost me an arm, and it's a pity that I don't use it more often.

Dude. Duuuude. Those things are beautiful. They are not the right fit for my hand, but every time I see one, I hear baroque choirs.

 

[brightleaf]

"You're getting gen-gapped here. "Critical thinking" was replaced by "critical theory" in the 1990s. The problem with critical thinking is that 13% of the population has the biological intelligence to do it and the rest are out in the wind. So, I'd suggest something else: gut instinct. Less frippery, more results." - deathmetal
I disagree with your assessment of critical thinking and the idea that critical theory is any sort of contender for it. Critical Theory is something you may learn about when studying sociology, but Critical Thinking is much more than sociology. Critical Thinking is the process of being Critical about how we Think. Sociology can be useful for insight but it is hardly free from political bias, nor is it very comprehensive in the grand scheme of thinking. Critical Theory could only be considered a piece of the puzzle at best.

I also disagree with the idea that not everyone can participate and benefit from learning about common deceptions, and faults in our thought process. Everyone can get conned, and everyone can learn from that experience. Learning how we are manipulated and knowing what questions to ask is important and can be learned. Realizing that it takes effort to check facts, and that it is essential to learning the truth, isn't beyond anyone except the lazy.

 

[deathmetal]

I use "replaced" in the historical sense, as in "idea B replaced idea A," with no judgment of fitness.
I must point you to a couple articles:
https://www.newscientist.com/data/doc/article/dn19554/instant_expert_13_-_intelligence.pdf

https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/1998generalintelligencefactor.pdf
Once one realizes that IQ is genetic, and does not change, life becomes much clearer. Stephen Pinker's The Blank Slate is also very informative.

 

[sablebrush52]

Interesting pair of articles. The second one, which gave examples of the types of occupations requiring different levels of intelligence, lost me when it assigned a high level of intelligence necessary for becoming an attorney. It doesn't take a lot of intelligence to become an attorney. Just look at our legal system.

I like my attorney. He's a real mensch, and he's pretty damned smart, highly respected by his fellows. But I still have to correct some of his contract language from time to time, and I'm not an attorney.
In any case, it's all theory, which is to say, not provable, though observable.

 

[mso489]

I hold a reserved opinion of "intelligence quotient" as a concept. Since it was developed by people who were successful and rewarded in the classroom, and excelled at test taking, it of course exalts that narrow category of people. Having spent about 35 years in an organization made up substantially of the highly educated, some of whom had stellar IQ, Mensa members, etc., I both appreciated their talents and became acutely aware of their limitations. Not at my workplace but elsewhere, one of the highest scoring IQ people I've known was pounded by a substance abuse problem that curtailed career, family life, and other functions. Having spent four years in the Navy in the lowly enlisted ranks, I became familiar with the applied intelligence of hundreds of sailors who were generally not high IQ people nor necessarily educated who could exhibit intense intelligence when in pressure situations. I have observed artists who lacked both academic acumen and common sense who could create work way above the scale. So I think it pays to hold in reserve your opinions about human intelligence related to specific individuals and regard the "tests" as essentially silly for most purposes. If you happen to need a math whiz, or a quick study tech person, these tests might help a little, if other traits and habits fall in line. Otherwise, look closely at the person and not the test scores.

 

[Chasing Embers]

I.Q. has more to do with problem solving ability than academic prowess.

 

[deathmetal]

I think C.E. has it here, MSO, and the reason is that if you look at the upper band cutoff, there is no particular disposition to academic success or earning money above the 130 mark.
Also it is worth noting that Mensa accepts people on the basis of standardized test scores that correlate to above 120 but are far from genius (demi-genius: 140+, genius: 160+).
Sable, interesting point. It seems to me that attorneys are 120-125 generally and have higher spatial than verbal reasoning, although we'd think it was the opposite. As far as their judgment skills... well, that's a much wider issue! haha

 

[warren]

Let's not forget that IQ does not necessarily translate to success. We all know "smart" people without a lick of common sense or, upper IQ types unwilling to put out the effort to attain the skills required to take advantage of such "smarts." IQ tests only show what may be possible.

 

[sablebrush52]

My favorite definition of "intelligence" is...
The Ability To Make Connections
Which would substantiate CE's statement, as well as any number of tests that I've taken for fun. It also allows for those adept at wreaking self serving havoc that leaves them looking like heroes while their victims look like villains, rather than being problem solvers.

 

[mso489]

I went back and read my original post, and I just feel I have to draw back a bit on my "social media on the ascent" notion. I think with the eroding of net neutrality and questions about the sometimes manipulative and coercive power of some of the social media platforms, a serious dissent from social media is being expressed and could well cause a significant abandonment of those formats, or at least a lot of push back on how they are administered. The idea that social media are benign ways that masses of people become communities of good will is quickly becoming seen as absurd. Social media members beware. (As in buyers beware.)
'metal, good points on what IQ tests are meant to measure. If they measure anything, I think the measurement is exaggerated in its import. The tests' credibility probably increases when the test is favoring oneself. Who wouldn't latch onto an instrument that was telling you you are brilliant? But objectively I'd keep the lid on enthusiasm, whether one is being dissed or lauded.

 

[Chasing Embers]

I.Q. doesn't always equal motivation either. I graduated in the top 10% of my class, and all of us are working in leadership positions in factories.

 

[brightleaf]

Deathmetal I think you are overemphasizing genetics and I.Q. tests in order to diminish to potential available to most people. While I do agree that people are different in their mental capacities, I think that most people can understand any concepts or skills when approached in a way that is tailored for them. In general I find very little merit in I.Q. tests if administered to people of grossly different backgrounds and educational styles. IMO the constantly debated argument of genetics vs. environment has never identified one as being more important than the other. And since genetics are a constant we must do what we can with the variable of education. I believe I could teach almost anyone how to do proper research and come to a conclusion based on many different viewpoints relevant to the problem. The greatest difficulty is discovering the bigger picture, once that is formulated it becomes a simple task to validate or find fault with it. The problem isn't that most people are unintelligent, it is that the system of education they were forced to go to is not designed to educate them or teach to use their brains. The education system offered to most people is designed to instill obedience to authority and acclimatization to meaningless repetitive daily tasks.
Neither of your linked articles showed how critical theory replaced critical thinking historically. I still see no relation in the concepts.

 

[warren]

I've written this before and probably will again: Never, ever allow another person to define your capabilities/expectations/dreams, be it teacher, parent, spouse or friend, no one! To do so lallows others to be in control.
One should go out and determine their own limitations and then, should they wish, stretch them until they break. Never deny yourself a chance at success or failure based on the opinions of others.

 

[brightleaf]

You described one of the beliefs that operate as a teaching method in my favorite educational style. The method is known as Coyote Teaching and constantly seeks to identify and stretch the pupil's boundaries. Coyote Teaching is described well in this book isbn 1579940250. Although many styles of education are good.

 

[deathmetal]

A general link -- not in direct response to anyone here -- on the problem of human self-organizing systems:

As empirical evidence of meta-ignorance, I describe the Dunning–Kruger effect, in which poor performers in many social and intellectual domains seem largely unaware of just how deficient their expertise is. Their deficits leave them with a double burden—not only does their incomplete and misguided knowledge lead them to make mistakes but those exact same deficits also prevent them from recognizing when they are making mistakes and other people choosing more wisely.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780123855220000056

In other words, "think for yourself" as advice depends on the ability of the thinker.

 

[brian64]

Nothing is more important than asking the right questions, imo.

 

[deathmetal]

I think Socrates would agree.