Personality Cafe banner

1 - 7 of 7 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
56 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I have posted this in the Debate Forum but got no replies. With the reason that I love lurking in this sub-forum because I LIKE IT HERE OK THERE I SAID IT, I have posted this here to see if you can comment on this thought. I am afraid that this is not so much relevant in this sub-forum, so if it is to delete the thread, I will just calmly accept the fate.

The various thinking/decision-making principles/techniques
such as the Game Theory, are indeed legit and specialized ways to correctly decide about a issue/question/problem. I am no specialist in it, nor is it specifically the point of this thread, I am just generalizing about the decision making theories as something specialized.

Now, in my opinion (which I haven't thought that deeply), these specialized ways of decision-making may undercut or diminish all the other conscious/unconscious ways or tools our brains are using to create a decision. I think that they are just limiting our thinking potentials. I'm afraid that these specialized techniques (even though they are the most effective used in the perfect situation), may block us from using the potential of pure raw thinking (just letting our brains use whatever technique it uses to come up with an answer). I am also afraid it undercuts the power of our unconscious thinking capabilities. With a simple/stupid example, if we have a decision to make, and we think about it only biologically (randomly chosen example), while the answer needed a psychological thought, we may block our unconscious that would (by itself) think about it psychologically and guess the correct answer. This is a broad generalization. I am curious about what your opinions.


One thing that bugs me is that I think I answered my own question. That the specialized thinking/decision-making principles are the most effective in their specific area. Are they? Are these specialized methods really more effective than the broad based raw thinking?

If we choose nothing, we have chosen everything.

*I apologize for the non-professional terms, and probable confusing sentences.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,795 Posts
Specialized techniques are merely refined ways of handling a specific given scenario. The person or persons that came up with the technique in the first place probably played with a huge number of variables to come up with the technique in the first place, so in the specific scenario it is likely to be a very efficient way of making decisions.

In the broader scope of things, humans have the ability to think outside the box, that's what makes us human. If you were able to write everything into a set of rules, then computers would essentially be our equals. It is the fact that you can't write a rule for every possible scenario that makes us different, and in my mind, better at solving certain problems than computers or people following a specific rule set are.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
500 Posts
To make the best decisions you not only have to know everything that matters for a given problem, but also to be able to mentally compute all the data and this way, solve the problem. There are some problems which can be solved using only your brain, but for a lot of data and given the importance of time, its a little more reasonable to let a machine do the trick. That's why we invented it in the first place.

Plus, not everyone has this "potential of pure raw thinking", and, as mentioned, it's limited.

What you call "unconscious thinking capabilities" (I call it passive cognitive integration) it's nothing more than (almost) "random" brain activity when you don't actively use it (like sleep, coma,...). However, it's not really random, but it depends on what you've been thinking about or what you've been using your brain for (active cognitive or cognitive-liguistic integration) before the unconscious period. That's what your brain will be "unconsciously" working on when you sleep or do something else that doesn't require to actively use the brain (like walking or other "brainless" or "cognitive-less" activities). To give an example for better undersanding, imagine an Eureka moment. One does not experience such a sudden discovery about something that he never thought about. They previously thought about the problem probably for a long time. In other words they've actively used their brain or speciffic brain networks (engrams) to think about (or to integrate) every aspect of the problem. An Eureka moment happens when active cognitive integration or conscious thinking fails. This means that the problem is solved by passively triggering those speciffic brain networks (passive cognitive integration). Here I fail to continue the explanation, but I hope this makes a little more sense.

So, unconscious thinking is important, but not so far that it will allow you to make the best decisions regardless of the complexity of the problem. It will only "reactivate" the neural networks involved when you consciously work on the data.

And "pure raw thinking" is a function of long hard work and time. It's the result of actively and extensively using your brain. There are no shortcuts to work. Unless you can prove otherwise. Please share if you do. I can be lazy sometimes too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
56 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
Thanks guys, you have clarified the concepts a lot. I realized after reading your replies, that the "pure raw thinking" and specialized techniques can be totally different species (like apples and carrots; both have their own most effective times to use), and sometimes can be similar (like apple and piece of apple, one being more effective than the other), so I guess it is a bit like comparing fire and water. I remember now, what Richard Feynman once said in an interview, that on new problems they use all the previous specialized techniques possible, and when nothing works, they have to work on new ways (I guess another specialized technique) to solve the problem.

And yeah the point you said that sometimes with big data, it is just impossibru to work it out only with our brains. And the point that not everyone has the same "pure raw thinking" capabilities, and as such it is sometimes (most of the times) better to use the already given specialized techniques. The passive cognitive integration, when our brain passively wanders around is also a fairly interesting. Ok, I should go study for my exam now ._.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
408 Posts
I have posted this in the Debate Forum but got no replies. With the reason that I love lurking in this sub-forum because I LIKE IT HERE OK THERE I SAID IT, I have posted this here to see if you can comment on this thought. I am afraid that this is not so much relevant in this sub-forum, so if it is to delete the thread, I will just calmly accept the fate.

The various thinking/decision-making principles/techniques
such as the Game Theory, are indeed legit and specialized ways to correctly decide about a issue/question/problem. I am no specialist in it, nor is it specifically the point of this thread, I am just generalizing about the decision making theories as something specialized.

Now, in my opinion (which I haven't thought that deeply), these specialized ways of decision-making may undercut or diminish all the other conscious/unconscious ways or tools our brains are using to create a decision. I think that they are just limiting our thinking potentials. I'm afraid that these specialized techniques (even though they are the most effective used in the perfect situation), may block us from using the potential of pure raw thinking (just letting our brains use whatever technique it uses to come up with an answer). I am also afraid it undercuts the power of our unconscious thinking capabilities. With a simple/stupid example, if we have a decision to make, and we think about it only biologically (randomly chosen example), while the answer needed a psychological thought, we may block our unconscious that would (by itself) think about it psychologically and guess the correct answer. This is a broad generalization. I am curious about what your opinions.


One thing that bugs me is that I think I answered my own question. That the specialized thinking/decision-making principles are the most effective in their specific area. Are they? Are these specialized methods really more effective than the broad based raw thinking?

If we choose nothing, we have chosen everything.

*I apologize for the non-professional terms, and probable confusing sentences.
yes, every specialisation is by definition also a limitation. To the extent that you specialise in something, anything, you have limited your ability to specialise in something else.

Theoretically, one could specialise in everything if there was infinite time and energy at one's disposal.
Obviously, there isn't. So we all end up specialising in some things, and therefore sacrifice our ability to be equally good and knowledgeable of some others.

I always very much liked Robert Heinlein's 'specialisation is for insects' quote. But I know that it is as much the description of the ideal and the possible, as it is of the unattainable. It is still inspiring.

In practice, I think that even though we cant specialise deeply in everything that there is, so long as we are 1) well aware of the limitations of our specialty and 2) at least somewhat aware of alternative avenues to a solution, we have managed to mitigate a lot of the risk that stems from specialising in any one approach
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,610 Posts
Sometimes limiting our thinking potentials are useful.

Like if you are a time budget and don't want to drag yourself through ideas that would take centuries to execute.

A simple time analysis would limit what you look at, but if you aren't willing to spend time on it thinking isn't really the main goal, but balancing thinking with success takes precedence. The suspension can be and probably should be treated as temporary, which seems fine.
 
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
Top