Can you see the blinders?

[coberst]

Can you see the blinders?

Quickie from wiki: “Blinders, also known as blinkers or winkers, are a piece of horse tack that restricts the horse's vision to the rear and, in some cases, to the side. They usually are made of leather or plastic cups that are placed on either side of the eyes, either attached to a bridle or to an independent hood. Many racehorse trainers believe this keeps the horse focused on what is in front of him, encouraging him to pay attention to the race rather than other distractions, such as crowds.”

Our culture and its associated educational system prepare young people for the work place so that as they reach adulthood they can easily assimilate into a work force that will help to maximize production and consumption, i.e. they will help maximize GDP. Our educational system graduates young people with a “set of winkers” sturdily attached to the cultural tack that will restrict the individual’s intellectual vision to those personal and community activities that will best enhance national GDP.

As a result our citizens are not prepared to deal with the complexities that result from our ingeniously developed high tech culture.

“Tradition” is a word for a complete set of blinders. Tradition provides us with sets of assumptions that we pick up, not through a process of contemplation, but through a process of social osmosis. Of course our family and our immediate community provide more provincial assumptions.

Our Western tradition is primarily forged from a Judeo-Christian heritage. Our idea of the universal moral status of each and every person is equal because we are created “in the image of God”. That which makes us equal is our essential human characteristic of reason. “That is, we all stand equally under the same moral laws, and so have the same duties toward ourselves and others. As rational, all are due equal respect as moral agents.”

“But the fact is that what we come to regard as this ‘universal’, ‘formal’, ‘limiting’ principle of reason (i.e. the principle of universal moral personhood) is only one among the many possible principles, values, goods, and ends we might reasonably come to embrace. It just happens to be the foundational principle for our moral tradition. But to say that it is foundational for our tradition does not make it a formal principle of reason itself.

Quotes from Moral Imagination by Mark Johnson

[DMB]

Not quite clear what point you are making here, coberst.

[Ray Moscow]

Perhaps Coberst could, if he wanted, make a point about critical thinking not being taught enough in school?

In which case, I might agree with him.

[Valheru]

You'd need the teacher to be a critical thinker first.

Imagine, for a moment, being a critically thinking teacher plonked in a bible belt middle school. Imagine the frustration of trying to reconcile and subtly correct all these competing horsehit ideas that the kids drag into the classroom. After a while, you'd probably get tired of your idealism and either leave the profession, or switch off and become part of the meat grinder.

The fact is - it's not schools that proliferate weak intellectual thinking - that shit is instilled from a very early age by parents and "spiritual leaders".

You don't need to fix the schooling - you need to somehow get people to grok how religious teaching to young'uns is emotional indoctrination and even child abuse.

I'll give y'all each a million bucks the day that happens, kay? :bang:

[Cath B]

Can you see the blinders?

Quickie from wiki: “Blinders, also known as blinkers or winkers, are a piece of horse tack that restricts the horse's vision to the rear and, in some cases, to the side. They usually are made of leather or plastic cups that are placed on either side of the eyes, either attached to a bridle or to an independent hood. Many racehorse trainers believe this keeps the horse focused on what is in front of him, encouraging him to pay attention to the race rather than other distractions, such as crowds.”

This is one of the themes which crops up in Margaret Atwood's chilling yarn The Handmaid's Tale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Handmaid%27s_Tale) which portrays a society far more repressive than the one I live in (unless the repression is so subtle I don't fully recognise it).

Have you ever read any of Margaret Atwood's books?

Our culture and its associated educational system prepare young people for the work place so that as they reach adulthood they can easily assimilate into a work force that will help to maximize production and consumption, i.e. they will help maximize GDP. Our educational system graduates young people with a “set of winkers” sturdily attached to the cultural tack that will restrict the individual’s intellectual vision to those personal and community activities that will best enhance national GDP.

I think there's some a lot of truth in what you're saying here.

But it's only part of the story.

Culture and educational systems are not static entities with a single purpose, they are fluid and multi-faceted.

[coberst]

Not quite clear what point you are making here, coberst.

Apparently you do not see the blinders.

[coberst]

Perhaps Coberst could, if he wanted, make a point about critical thinking not being taught enough in school?

In which case, I might agree with him.

I will take this opportunity to highlight my favorite subject:

Bertrand Russell on Critical Thinking


ABSTRACT: The ideal of critical thinking is a central one in Russell's philosophy, though this is not yet generally recognized in the literature on critical thinking. For Russell, the ideal is embedded in the fabric of philosophy, science, liberalism and rationality, and this paper reconstructs Russell's account, which is scattered throughout numerous papers and books. It appears that he has developed a rich conception, involving a complex set of skills, dispositions and attitudes, which together delineate a virtue which has both intellectual and moral aspects. It is a view which is rooted in Russell's epistemological conviction that knowledge is difficult but not impossible to attain, and in his ethical conviction that freedom and independence in inquiry are vital. Russell's account anticipates many of the insights to be found in the recent critical thinking literature, and his views on critical thinking are of enormous importance in understanding the nature of educational aims. Moreover, it is argued that Russell manages to avoid many of the objections which have been raised against recent accounts. With respect to impartiality, thinking for oneself, the importance of feelings and relational skills, the connection with action, and the problem of generalizability, Russell shows a deep understanding of problems and issues which have been at the forefront of recent debate. http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Educ/EducHare.htm

[DMB]

Not quite clear what point you are making here, coberst.

Apparently you do not see the blinders.

You draw an unwarranted conclusion. Do a bit of critical thinking here! The OP seems to be about how values are culturally determined. But you don't take it anywhere.

[coberst]

Valheru

You are correct. The way to fix our schools is for adults to become more intellectually sophisticated by becoming self-actualizing self-learners.

[coberst]

Cath

I must reluctantly admit that I read little ficton and no SciFi.

[Cath B]

Cath

I must reluctantly admit that I read little ficton and no SciFi.

OK, fair enough.

But do you ever read, and think about, any threads on this discussion board other than those you've started yourself?

If you do so you might realise that DMB has an unusually clear grasp of the interplay between people past and present and their cultural heritage.

And you might learn a few other things too.

[Jobar]

I must reluctantly admit that I read little ficton and no SciFi.

You should, you know. 1984 and Brave New World are both SF, and both novels are extremely relevant to the subject of social influence on individual thought processes. You also might try Ursula K. LeGuin's works, and those of Frank Herbert. Much of the best science fiction is deeply philosophical.

[coberst]

I must reluctantly admit that I read little ficton and no SciFi.

You should, you know. 1984 and Brave New World are both SF, and both novels are extremely relevant to the subject of social influence on individual thought processes. You also might try Ursula K. LeGuin's works, and those of Frank Herbert. Much of the best science fiction is deeply philosophical.

I did read these two many years ago. I read both about 50 years ago when I was traveling back to te US after spending two years in the Army.

[coberst]

Cath

I must reluctantly admit that I read little ficton and no SciFi.

OK, fair enough.

But do you ever read, and think about, any threads on this discussion board other than those you've started yourself?

If you do so you might realise that DMB has an unusually clear grasp of the interplay between people past and present and their cultural heritage.

And you might learn a few other things too.

My learning philosophy is to study the works of the great thinkers. There is so much to learn and so little time to learn it that I see no good reason to study any but the great thinkers in hstory. That is why I generally provide a reference in my posts so that the reader can know where to go if s/he wants to learn more.

[Cath B]

My learning philosophy is to study the works of the great thinkers. There is so much to learn and so little time to learn it that I see no good reason to study any but the great thinkers in hstory. That is why I generally provide a reference in my posts so that the reader can know where to go if s/he wants to learn more.

A highly focused goal certainly and there isn't time to do or read everything so some selectivity is inevitable.

I wonder what criteria you use for identifying those people you consider the great thinkers.

Many folk here, myself included, would put Charles Darwin in that category.

And many of his insights owed much to his meticulous study of the natural world as opposed to taking the so-called wisdom of the great thinkers in his era as sacrosanct.

[DMB]

How do you decide who is a great thinker?

[David B]

Cath

I must reluctantly admit that I read little ficton and no SciFi.

OK, fair enough.

But do you ever read, and think about, any threads on this discussion board other than those you've started yourself?

If you do so you might realise that DMB has an unusually clear grasp of the interplay between people past and present and their cultural heritage.

And you might learn a few other things too.

My learning philosophy is to study the works of the great thinkers. There is so much to learn and so little time to learn it that I see no good reason to study any but the great thinkers in hstory. That is why I generally provide a reference in my posts so that the reader can know where to go if s/he wants to learn more.

Well, I can see a blinder.

"Oh! it is only a novel!' replies the young lady; while she lays down her book with affected indifference, or momentary shame.--'It is only Cecilia, or Camilla, or Belinda;' or, in short, only some work in which the greatest powers of the mind are displayed, in which the most thorough knowledge of human nature, the happiest delineation of its varieties, the liveliest effusions of wit and humour are conveyed to the world in the best chosen language."

David

[coberst]

My learning philosophy is to study the works of the great thinkers. There is so much to learn and so little time to learn it that I see no good reason to study any but the great thinkers in hstory. That is why I generally provide a reference in my posts so that the reader can know where to go if s/he wants to learn more.

A highly focused goal certainly and there isn't time to do or read everything so some selectivity is inevitable.

I wonder what criteria you use for identifying those people you consider the great thinkers.

Many folk here, myself included, would put Charles Darwin in that category.

And many of his insights owed much to his meticulous study of the natural world as opposed to taking the so-called wisdom of the great thinkers in his era as sacrosanct.


I began my journey about 25 years ago. While reading a book about the Vietnam War I asked myself how a civil war could cause families to break apart to such an extent as to brutalize one another. This led me to study the American Civil War, which led me to reading a large number of books about this era of American history.

This led me to changing my question to “why do humans do the things they do and can we do better”.

While searching for answers to this question I began to find certain authors mentioned often in the books that I was reading. I acquired a “Friends of the Library” card from a college close to my house; which gave access to a great library, which allowed me to borrow books by the authors named in my reading. This led me to Ernest Becker who I discovered had asked himself the same question and had written four books about the answer to the question.

While pursuing my answer I find many authors mentioned and with access to a great library it was easy to find authors that were well respected by the authors that I was reading. It is a process of following where my questions led me and having access to a large library. From that point it amounts to a matter of judgment.

[coberst]

How do you decide who is a great thinker?

This is where CT (Critical Thinking) comes in handy. CT is the art and science of good judgment. We are dependent upon good judgment and thus a careful study of CT is the logical place to start any intellectual effort.

CT is an acronym for Critical Thinking. Everybody considers themselves to be a critical thinker. That is why we need to differentiate among different levels of critical thinking.

Most people fall in the category that I call Reagan thinkers—trust but verify. Then there are those who have taken the basic college course taught by the philosophy dept that I call Logic 101. This is a credit course that teaches the basic principles of reasoning. Of course, a person need not take the college course and can learn the matter on their own effort, but I suspect few do that.

The third level I call CT (Critical Thinking). CT includes the knowledge of Logic 101 and also the knowledge that focuses upon the intellectual character and attitude of critical thinking. It includes knowledge regarding the ego and social centric forces that impede rational thinking.

Most decisions we have to make are judgment calls. A judgment call is made when we must make a decision when there is no “true” or “false” answers. When we make a judgment call our decision is bad, good, or better.

Many factors are involved: there are the available facts, assumptions, skills, knowledge, and especially personal experience and attitude. I think that the two most important elements in the mix are personal experience and attitude.

When we study math we learn how to use various algorithms to facilitate our skill in dealing with quantities. If we never studied math we could deal with quantity on a primary level but our quantifying ability would be minimal. Likewise with making judgments; if we study the art and science of good judgment we can make better decisions and if we never study the art and science of judgment our decision ability will remain minimal.

I am convinced that a fundamental problem we have in this country (USA) is that our citizens have never learned the art and science of good judgment. Before the recent introduction of CT into our schools and colleges our young people have been taught primarily what to think and not how to think. All of us graduated with insufficient comprehension of the knowledge, skills, and attitude necessary for the formulation of good judgment. The result of this inability to make good judgment is evident and is dangerous.

I am primarily interested in the judgment that adults exercise in regard to public issues. Of course, any improvement in judgment generally will affect both personal and community matters.

To put the matter into a nut shell:
1. Normal men and women can significantly improve their ability to make judgments.
2. CT is the domain of knowledge that delineates the knowledge, skills, and intellectual character demanded for good judgment.
3. CT has been introduced into our schools and colleges slowly in the last two or three decades.
4. Few of today’s adults were ever taught CT.
5. I suspect that at least another two generations will pass before our society reaps significant rewards resulting from teaching CT to our children.
6. Can our democracy survive that long?
7. I think that every effort must be made to convince today’s adults that they need to study and learn CT on their own. I am not suggesting that adults find a teacher but I am suggesting that adults become self-actualizing learners.
8. I am convinced that learning the art and science of Critical Thinking is an important step toward becoming a better citizen in today’s democratic society.

[DMB]

Sounds as though your career as an autodidact started a bit late. :D I think I got off the ground at the age of about 15.

The process you describe is familiar, but it doesn't clarify the criteria you use to determine who is or is not a great thinker.

[David B]

If one is interested in Critical Thinking, as I am, it might be worth wondering whether the views of Ernest Becker, whose thinking seems to have been based on the work of early psychotherapists, are of any great or lasting importance, since neither he nor his influences were aware of evolutionary psychology, and the advances in the understanding of the human condition that have been made by ev psych and numbers of other fields since the early 20th Century.

You might consider eminent thinkers like Pinker, Dennett et al better informed than Becker ever was, or could have been.

David

[coberst]

If one is interested in Critical Thinking, as I am, it might be worth wondering whether the views of Ernest Becker, whose thinking seems to have been based on the work of early psychotherapists, are of any great or lasting importance, since neither he nor his influences were aware of evolutionary psychology, and the advances in the understanding of the human condition that have been made by ev psych and numbers of other fields since the early 20th Century.

You might consider eminent thinkers like Pinker, Dennett et al better informed than Becker ever was, or could have been.

David

A good place to begin your study of CT is with this short description on Bertrand Russell's ideas about the matter:

Bertrand Russell on Critical Thinking


ABSTRACT: The ideal of critical thinking is a central one in Russell's philosophy, though this is not yet generally recognized in the literature on critical thinking. For Russell, the ideal is embedded in the fabric of philosophy, science, liberalism and rationality, and this paper reconstructs Russell's account, which is scattered throughout numerous papers and books. It appears that he has developed a rich conception, involving a complex set of skills, dispositions and attitudes, which together delineate a virtue which has both intellectual and moral aspects. It is a view which is rooted in Russell's epistemological conviction that knowledge is difficult but not impossible to attain, and in his ethical conviction that freedom and independence in inquiry are vital. Russell's account anticipates many of the insights to be found in the recent critical thinking literature, and his views on critical thinking are of enormous importance in understanding the nature of educational aims. Moreover, it is argued that Russell manages to avoid many of the objections which have been raised against recent accounts. With respect to impartiality, thinking for oneself, the importance of feelings and relational skills, the connection with action, and the problem of generalizability, Russell shows a deep understanding of problems and issues which have been at the forefront of recent debate. http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Educ/EducHare.htm

[DMB]

So do I take it that Russell meets your idea of a great thinker?

[David B]

If one is interested in Critical Thinking, as I am, it might be worth wondering whether the views of Ernest Becker, whose thinking seems to have been based on the work of early psychotherapists, are of any great or lasting importance, since neither he nor his influences were aware of evolutionary psychology, and the advances in the understanding of the human condition that have been made by ev psych and numbers of other fields since the early 20th Century.

You might consider eminent thinkers like Pinker, Dennett et al better informed than Becker ever was, or could have been.

David

A good place to begin your study of CT is with this short description on Bertrand Russell's ideas about the matter:

Bertrand Russell on Critical Thinking


ABSTRACT: The ideal of critical thinking is a central one in Russell's philosophy, though this is not yet generally recognized in the literature on critical thinking. For Russell, the ideal is embedded in the fabric of philosophy, science, liberalism and rationality, and this paper reconstructs Russell's account, which is scattered throughout numerous papers and books. It appears that he has developed a rich conception, involving a complex set of skills, dispositions and attitudes, which together delineate a virtue which has both intellectual and moral aspects. It is a view which is rooted in Russell's epistemological conviction that knowledge is difficult but not impossible to attain, and in his ethical conviction that freedom and independence in inquiry are vital. Russell's account anticipates many of the insights to be found in the recent critical thinking literature, and his views on critical thinking are of enormous importance in understanding the nature of educational aims. Moreover, it is argued that Russell manages to avoid many of the objections which have been raised against recent accounts. With respect to impartiality, thinking for oneself, the importance of feelings and relational skills, the connection with action, and the problem of generalizability, Russell shows a deep understanding of problems and issues which have been at the forefront of recent debate. http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Educ/EducHare.htm

I've actually read quite a lot of Russell, thank you. Though a long time ago, now.

Could you remind me what he has to say about ad hoc hypotheses, affect bias, the autokinetic effect, the Clever Hans phenomenon, the clustering illusion, communal reinforcement, confirmation bias, the Forer Effect, the Gambler's Fallacy, the ideomotor effect, and the post hoc fallacy?

David

[coberst]

So do I take it that Russell meets your idea of a great thinker?

Absolutely! How did you know?

[coberst]

If one is interested in Critical Thinking, as I am, it might be worth wondering whether the views of Ernest Becker, whose thinking seems to have been based on the work of early psychotherapists, are of any great or lasting importance, since neither he nor his influences were aware of evolutionary psychology, and the advances in the understanding of the human condition that have been made by ev psych and numbers of other fields since the early 20th Century.

You might consider eminent thinkers like Pinker, Dennett et al better informed than Becker ever was, or could have been.

David

A good place to begin your study of CT is with this short description on Bertrand Russell's ideas about the matter:

Bertrand Russell on Critical Thinking


ABSTRACT: The ideal of critical thinking is a central one in Russell's philosophy, though this is not yet generally recognized in the literature on critical thinking. For Russell, the ideal is embedded in the fabric of philosophy, science, liberalism and rationality, and this paper reconstructs Russell's account, which is scattered throughout numerous papers and books. It appears that he has developed a rich conception, involving a complex set of skills, dispositions and attitudes, which together delineate a virtue which has both intellectual and moral aspects. It is a view which is rooted in Russell's epistemological conviction that knowledge is difficult but not impossible to attain, and in his ethical conviction that freedom and independence in inquiry are vital. Russell's account anticipates many of the insights to be found in the recent critical thinking literature, and his views on critical thinking are of enormous importance in understanding the nature of educational aims. Moreover, it is argued that Russell manages to avoid many of the objections which have been raised against recent accounts. With respect to impartiality, thinking for oneself, the importance of feelings and relational skills, the connection with action, and the problem of generalizability, Russell shows a deep understanding of problems and issues which have been at the forefront of recent debate. http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Educ/EducHare.htm

I've actually read quite a lot of Russell, thank you. Though a long time ago, now.

Could you remind me what he has to say about ad hoc hypotheses, affect bias, the autokinetic effect, the Clever Hans phenomenon, the clustering illusion, communal reinforcement, confirmation bias, the Forer Effect, the Gambler's Fallacy, the ideomotor effect, and the post hoc fallacy?

David

Sorry, I cannot help you there.

[DMB]

What has anyone here actually read of Russell's? And I am still waiting to know what coberst's criteria are for declaring someone a great thinker.

[Ray Moscow]

What has anyone here actually read of Russell's? And I am still waiting to know what coberst's criteria are for declaring someone a great thinker.

I've just read some of his essays (including the "Why I Am Not a Christian" volume) and bits of his history of Western philosophy.

[DMB]

I read his Principia Mathematica when I was an undergraduate. It had nothing much to do with my course, but I was interested. I also met his son Conrad, later Earl Russell, at that time. (He was a young don.) I read Marriage and Morals many years ago, but don't now remember a lot of it.

Quite a long time ago I read a book he co-wrote with his wife Dora about education, but I can't remember the title.

I read Why I am not a Christian some years ago. I thought it was straightforward common sense.

I have his Wisdom and the West sitting beside my computer as I type. It's useful as a reference book.

Over the years I came across a lot of his essays. I think he had a formidable intellect, but I sometimes had the temerity to disagree with some of the opinions he expressed.