one can get raised to think or learn to think? I always thought it was potential one is born with and IS able to think. if not, the person spends the lifetime in the shallow end.
you?
you?
do you think...
- Thread starter Tee
- Start date
Outrun The Scythe
Supreme Slayer Of Assbags
I think that all truly depends on that whole first five years of a child's life deal, you know, the years that count the most and the most knowledge and whatnot is soaked up like a sponge into the rapidly developing brain.
At around 5, you should know how to think.
At around 5, you should know how to think.
Neon Black
Cheesehead
here's how i see it, without much thinking 
-- you're born with the ability to process thoughts but 'thinking' as an analytical skill is something you can learn.
-- you're born with the ability to process thoughts but 'thinking' as an analytical skill is something you can learn.
the question is, what is the percentage of people capable of coming to quality intelligent conclusions: verbalizing the thought in an intelligent way, while using the presumed learned skill to think analitically....
I know, the question is also what is quality and intelligent, and who decides
I know, the question is also what is quality and intelligent, and who decides
Tee said:
This makes me think about programming and conditioning again.
You could learn a child norm and value - you could see that as it's programming- to make it form a mind of their own.
When the child is able to relativate, it will be able to think about itself and his enviroment. They wil learn the effects of their behaviour, because they 'mirror' themselves in others reactions and therefor know what to do, to get what they want. Kids love it, when they find out that manipulation causes effect, it makes them realise they are an individual. ( repetative behaviour, like saying certain words or throwing a bottle on the ground, right after you took it from the ground and give it back to the child. It's all part of their game and they love the reaction it causes, that is what feeds them.)
When it's time to learn what they need or what is right or/and wrong, they need to be able to relativate on others and themselves. To learn them to see life from an 'holistic point of view', will feed their minds to get a perspective on their own because they learn from the effect on others.
When they lack in that ability, conditioning and structurizing their daily life, would be the only way. That what is known shall give them safety. Every change or new aspect, will not be interpret as a challenge or invitation but as a threat and something to fear. They are not able to make their own choices, not aware of their individualism and they will freak out or get annoyed because they do not know how to act in a new situation. Those who do not think for themselves, do dwell in the shallow ends, simply because they do not know how to adapt to a new situation or 'every new enviroment', to say it with S6' words. Ok, enough babblin' ... i'm going back to work!
derek
Grey Eminence
I tend to agree with Neon Black. I don't believe "thinking" is innate, but I do believe it can be learned/taught.
On the other hand tho, it could be said that it is innate but that some stimulation is needed to allow it to grow. Either way, i dont think we naturally find ourselves in a state of being able to "think" - there is some nuture involved.
On the other hand tho, it could be said that it is innate but that some stimulation is needed to allow it to grow. Either way, i dont think we naturally find ourselves in a state of being able to "think" - there is some nuture involved.
Final_Product said:
Input to get output. It needs stimulation, otherwise it will not develop.
Brains need 'triggers' (and boy, the media has its ways!!) and stimulation to get in shape and stay healthy.
No input, means no triggers, means no fuel for brainactivity to develop a personality/ individualism... it's only function -or instinct- that is left then, is to keep the body alive and in such a case, taking care of that baby/ human is needed because it cannot provide or take care for itself.
derek
Grey Eminence
^I didnt really dispute that, and i tend to agree with what you have said. The curious point, for me anyways, is whether the ability to think is innate or not. For example could some folks have as much stimulation in the world and never be able to "think"?
LORD_RED_DRAGON
New Metal Member
derek
Grey Eminence
^not necessarily. I mean thinking in the sense of analytical thinking, in a sense higher than that of functional thinking.
LORD_RED_DRAGON
New Metal Member
THIS SEEMS TO BE A DISCRIPTION OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SOMEONE WHO IS "MENTALL RETARDED" AND SOMEONE WHO ISN'TTee said:
LORD_RED_DRAGON
New Metal Member
THIS IS REALLY GOOD EXPLINATION OF CULTURAL DIFFERENCES .... EVEN THOUGH USA SUPPOSEDLY HAS "FREEDOM OF RELIGION" THE PEOPLE WHO HAD CONTROL OVER THE CONTENT OF THE CONSTITUTION (1776) WERE ALL CHRISTIAN... THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEF(S) INFLUENCED THE CONSTITUTION TO SUCH AN EXTENSIVE DEGREE THAT WHEN (THIS YEAR) IRAQ NEEDED A CONSTITUTION, THERE REALLY WASN'T ANY WAY IN HELL THEY COULD HAVE USED THE AMERICAN ONE ... IF WE REALLY HAD "FREEDOM OF RELIGION" THEN WE WOULD HAVE HAD A LAW SYSTEM WHERE PEOPLE OF ALL RELIGIONS COULD BE GOVERNED BY THE SAME LAWS... SOME THING THAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN IN ANY COUNTRY ON THE OTHER SIDE OF ATLANTIC... MULTIPLE RELIGIONS EXISTING IN SAME LOCATION IS CONCEPT COMPLETELY NON-EXISTANT IN USA UNTILL 60'S...UNTILL THEN "RELIGIOUS FREEDOM" MENT MULTIPLE DENOMINATIONS OF CHRISTIANITY...THE EXISTANCE AND EXTREME DIVERSITY AMONG THE ECCESSIVE NUMBER OF DIFFERENT DENOMINATIONS CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE BIBLE IN ITSELF IS A CULT... IF THE BIBLE WAS REAL THEN CHRISTIANITY WOULDN'T HAVE HAD THE ABILITY TO SPLIT OFF INTO MULTIPLE VERSIONS OF ITSELFAnvilSnake said:
LORD_RED_DRAGON
New Metal Member
WITH OUT SOCIAL NORMS (AND PEOPLE PURPOUSLY IGNORING/VIOLATING THEM) THERE WOULDN'T BE ANY CULTURAL DIVERSITY... BECAUSE THERE WOULD BE NO CULTURE... WHICH WOULD HAVE THE EFFECT OF PEOPLE ALL BEING INTERCHANGEABLE (PSYCHOLOGICALY) THERE WOULD BE NO (PSYCHOLOGICAL) INDIVIDUALITY .... WE WOULD ALL BE ROBOTSTee said:
MajestikMøøse
Membrum virile
Most have the ability to think analytically if they want to, however many don't out of laziness.
LORD_RED_DRAGON
New Metal Member
THIS DEPENDS WHERE U R DURRING THOSE 1ST 5 YEARS ... IF YOU SPEND THOSE YEARS IN A STRICTLY MUSLIM/MORMAN/CATHOLIC ENVIRONMENT WHITHOUT ACCESS TO ATHIESTIC PEOPLE/IMAGERY(MEDIA) THEN YOU ARE GOING TO END UP A COMEPLETELY DIFFERENT PERSON THAN IF YOU SPEND THE 1ST 5 YEARS WITH ATHEISTIC PARENTS SHEILDING YOU FROM PSYCOSIS ENDUCING EFFECT OF BEING RELIGIOUSOutrun The Scythe said:
LORD_RED_DRAGON
New Metal Member
SOMETIMES NOT THINKING ANALYTICALY IS BECAUSE OF LAZINESS BUT IT IS VERY FREQUENTLY THE RESULT OF RELIGIOUS BRAINWASHING (ALL RELIGIONS ARE CULTS)MajestikMøøse said:
LORD_RED_DRAGON
New Metal Member
ALL RELIGIONS ARE CULTS... IF YOU ACTUALLY BELIEVE THIS... THEN THIS STATEMENT SORT OF ANSWERS YOUR QTee said:the question is, what is the percentage of people capable of coming to quality intelligent conclusions: verbalizing the thought in an intelligent way, while using the presumed learned skill to think analitically....
I know, the question is also what is quality and intelligent, and who decides
MajestikMøøse
Membrum virile
LORD_RED_DRAGON said:
Another frequent occurence, I admit. Unfortunately "religion" as it has come to be known in modernity has left the effect of, if you will, "rigid" thinking on some people. I'm not going to get too deep into this, but while I openly disdain the distortions and perversions that have occurred though over-literal interpretations of scriptures through loss of esoteric teachings. A fault of Christianity in particular is that it never had an esoteric component (or if it did, it was surely exterminated by the Roman Catholics) and therefore now nobody understands the texts. Is it interpreted literally? Or are the writings in the Gospels of symbolic significance?
Well, I suppose another fault here is that the Jews also had a tendency to imbue the mundane events of their history with cosmic significance. Therefore here you are left with myth and history. They're entangled in such a way that no one can discern which is mythic and which is historical. Therefore you get problems such as inbreds from the American mid-west claiming that evolution didn't happen because Jesus told them so.
Taking this into consideration, Jesus was probably just a hippie who smoked a lot of pot and got crucified for it, and then his disciples (who were all stoned) thought they saw him rise from the dead.
Aside from what I've said above (since it primarily deals with the Abrahamic faiths), a well constructed metaphysical doctrine is a beautiful thing, unfortunately most people will never be able to understand this because ultimately a doctrine of such would be regarded as unscientific, and will be completely discarded except for historical significance.
sorry, I got a bit carried away there.
