Some people think better than others?

WISDOMfromPO-MO

Sorry, and this is not intended as a dig, this forum shows, if it wasn't obvious already, that some people do think better than others. — T Clark

Better according to what standard? Better according to what criteria?

Who sets the standard? Who picks the criteria?

To state categorically that some people think better than others makes no sense.

To state that some people are better able to realize their own goals/objectives with certain tools than others are makes sense. Some people are more effective with written language than others. Some people are more effective orators than others. Some people are more effective with math than others. Some people are able to more effectively use their motor skills than others. Some people are more effective with hand tools than others. Etc. Etc.

It depends on one's personal goals/objectives.

Or is there some universal, absolute goal/objective that humans' mental faculties exist to work towards and some of us have missed it? What is that goal/objective? A theory of everything? The meaning of life? The complete set of facts in the universe? Truth? What truth?

It strikes me as individually narcissistic and collectively ethnocentric to talk like one way of functioning mentally is the way all are supposed to function mentally, and to evaluate and rank everybody according to that way.

And just like there are different writing styles, communication styles, etc., there are different thinking styles.

Furthermore, even if one person is so blessed that he/she can excel at every style, when other people use the smaller number of styles that they excel at it does not mean that they are not good.

Or am I wrong and either you are Shakespeare or you are not good at writing?

Finally, how can you say that anybody is not good at thinking unless you know exactly what he/she is trying to accomplish? How do you know that the problem is not communication rather than reasoning ability? How do you know that you would be better able to work on the question/problem/puzzle someone else is working on? Sorry, but just because somebody else's thinking does not suit your's does not mean that you are a better thinker. Or are you able to read other people's minds?

BC

Better according to what standard? — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Saying that some people think better than other people do is a truism. It's like saying "Good food is better than bad food."

I think it's obvious that some people think better than I do (they are just smarter than me, more insightful, logical, etc.) and it's obviously that I think better than some people too. Some people are better looking, have bigger dicks, make better pie crust, are stronger, healthier, etc. than other people.

WISDOMfromPO-MO, are you aware -- if not, allow me -- that 50% of the population is below average?

Metaphysician Undercover

Some people are better looking, have bigger dicks... — Bitter Crank

Who cares about a dick when someone else has got a bigger IQ?

Bitter Crank is right. Based on what standard? On what criteria? Critical thinking skills. Critical thinking skills I take to include problem solving and thinking logically. If someone is the kind of person who it would take all day to figure out how to change a lightbulb, then they're likely not a good problem solver. If someone frequently commits logical fallacies, then they're likely not good at thinking logically.

Jamal

Without addressing your questions in much detail, let me just ask: have you never had the feeling that you are talking to someone who is more intelligent than you? It's obvious to me that some people, including some people on this forum, think faster and deeper than I can. It might be interesting to delve into what this means, but on the surface I don't see a problem.

It makes sense to say it because thinking is a general skill. To say someone thinks better is to make a general statement, which is appropriate when we're talking about a general skill. It's true that thinking combines different styles and motivations, and some may be better at logical development than intuitive or imaginative leaps, but to say someone is a better thinker in general is probably most often just to say that they are better at all of those things, and that their thinking skills can be applied widely.

Galuchat

[Think] Better according to what standard? Better according to what criteria? — WISDOMfromPO-MO

To state in my own words what has already been stated by others:

Cogitation (thinking) is controlled problem-solving, decision-making, and planning using active learning, explicit memory and declarative knowledge. As such, it depends on intelligence ( a measure of awareness, learning, and problem-solving proficiency; and knowledge, memory, and processing capacity).

Intuition is its automatic/passive/implicit/tacit counterpart.

The relationship between cogitation and intelligence is analogous to that of a skill developed from natural ability.

WISDOMfromPO-MO

Saying that some people think better than other people do is a truism. It's like saying "Good food is better than bad food."

I think it's obvious that some people think better than I do (they are just smarter than me, more insightful, logical, etc.) and it's obviously that I think better than some people too. Some people are better looking, have bigger dicks, make better pie crust, are stronger, healthier, etc. than other people.

WISDOMfromPO-MO, are you aware -- if not, allow me -- that 50% of the population is below average? — Bitter Crank

It does not make any sense to state categorically that some people think better than others, let alone to state categorically that it is obvious that some people think better than others.

Yes, some people can perform specific tasks, such as solving for checkmate, better than others.

But unless there is some universally agreed upon goal/objective for human mental functioning and some universally agreed upon threshold for good within that functioning--and nobody has said what those are--it makes no sense to state categorically that some people think better than others.

Humans perform a variety of mental tasks for a variety of reasons. If a person is able to employ his/her mental faculties to realize his/her goals/objectives then he/she is a good thinker. Other people's goals/objectives are irrelevant.

I don't know the statistics concerning how some people's IQs compare to other's, but it doesn't matter. People realizing their goals/objectives is what matters.

T Clark

Without addressing your questions in much detail, let me just ask: have you never had the feeling that you are talking to someone who is more intelligent than you? It's obvious to me that some people, including some people on this forum, think faster and deeper than I can. It might be interesting to delve into what this means, but on the surface I don't see a problem. — jamalrob

Aw, shucks, jamalrob. Stop it. You're embarrassing me.

It makes sense to say it because thinking is a general skill. To say someone thinks better is to make a general statement, which is appropriate when we're talking about a general skill. It's true that thinking combines different styles and motivations, and some may be better at logical development than intuitive or imaginative leaps, but to say someone is a better thinker in general is probably most often just to say that they are better at all of those things, and that their thinking skills can be applied widely. — jamalrob

There is a lot of controversy around using IQ testing as a measure of intelligence, which could be interpreted as the general ability to think good. One part of the disagreement relates to the fact that the human mind is not monolithic. It is made up of a bunch of capacities, abilities, skills, talents, and intelligences. Those all combine together to form a unified whole. I guess it is a case of an emergent property.

Also, it is widely believed that IQ testing is not a fair measure because it is culturally biased.

WISDOMfromPO-MO

Without addressing your questions in much detail, let me just ask: have you never had the feeling that you are talking to someone who is more intelligent than you? — jamalrob

I never have.

It makes sense to say it because thinking is a general skill. To say someone thinks better is to make a general statement, which is appropriate when we're talking about a general skill. It's true that thinking combines different styles and motivations, and some may be better at logical development than intuitive or imaginative leaps, but to say someone is a better thinker in general is probably most often just to say that they are better at all of those things, and that their thinking skills can be applied widely. — jamalrob

No.

It implies that there is some goal/objective that all human thinking is directed at and some threshold that must be met or passed to be considered good, better, best, etc. at such an endeavor.

Nobody is telling us what that goal/objective and threshold are.

Harry Hindu

"Some people think better than others?"

Isn't this the same as asking if there are people that are more intelligent than others?

Wouldn't IQ measure this?

BC

unless there is some universally agreed upon goal/objective for human mental functioning and some universally agreed upon threshold for good within that functioning--and nobody has said what those are--it makes no sense to state categorically that some people think better than others. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

There doesn't have to be some 'universally agreed upon' because it is merely my assessment that some people think better than some other people. If we were going to claim that "Everyone living in the Western Hemisphere thanks better than everyone in Asia, or Africa, or Europe--there would be far more need for definitions and standards of mental functioning. Intelligence tests, for instance, are based o a set of definitions and standards for determining how intelligent someone is (in as much as it is possible for the best tests to do that).

But actually I am basing my personal judgement on something. I have thought about certain kinds of problems, and have made little headway towards a solution. Sometimes I talk to people who have thought about the same thing, and they have worked through it with ease and brilliance. Sometimes I am talking with people who are struggling with some problem, and to me it is obvious what a good solution would be (I'm not talking about personal matters here).

A good 'back of the envelope' test of whether people are thinking effectively is how well they solve complex every-day kinds of problems. If you look, you will see that success in solving problems looks different than failure to solve problems. Some people do it better than others.

Wayfarer

Better according to what criteria? — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Don’t understand your beef. There are better and worse tennis players, pianists, writers, artists, scientists - not everyone has the same degree of skill in thinking and writing, and understanding of philosophy.

it is widely believed that IQ testing is not a fair measure because it is culturally biased. — T Clark

My very first undergraduate essay was for Psychology, on the topic of Intelligence Testing. I argued, (quite eloquently I thought) that intelligence was not something that could be tested. I got F, with a single comment - 'wrong department' (i.e. I had submitted a philosophy essay for a psychology assessment). It stung, but it was a fair assessment, and I learned from it.

Wayfarer

The other point is, many people would be flabbergasted by the simple fact that the truths of philosophy are not obvious, judging by a lot of what is written on this forum.

Noble Dust

I think good, but other times I don't think so good.

Deleted User

↪WISDOMfromPO-MO

So presumably you're comfortable with the idea that we can tell when someone is happy, sad, angry, even though we cannot 'read their minds'. We do not constantly premise these conclusions with "in my opinion..." we're quite satisfied that very few facts can be stated unequivocally, and we needn't acknowledge that in each utterance.

Since we're all human beings, and human objectives are really not that varied it stands to reason (once we've had a little bit of data) that we can make a pretty good guess as to the general nature of another person's objectives. Hence it's not an unreasonable conclusion that some appear better than others at solving the problem of how to achieve them.

We assume this level of knowledge about other people's intentions all the time, to communicate, to help out in society, to make other people happy, I really don't see why we suddenly need to abandon all our insight and replace it with a completely blank page when making judgements about people's thinking ability.

Deleted User

the simple fact that the truths of philosophy are not obvious, — Wayfarer

Apart from that truth, which you seem to think is obvious.

Hanover

To state categorically that some people think better than others makes no sense. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

It does make sense. You're just measuring an overall score. Restaraunt A is overall better than B even though B has better fries.

dnote

I have a friend which attributes this to the newness of a human. I think he means this in the context of reincarnation, as though we have lived many lives.

Him and I will have deep discussions and he has often said - 'my wife won't entertain this type of discussion, she's a newer human...'

Quite funny.. I think my wife is a newer human as well haha

Buxtebuddha

↪dnote

By that logic an older human has been around the block many times and failed to do any better with each try.

creativesoul

Sorry, and this is not intended as a dig, this forum shows, if it wasn't obvious already, that some people do think better than others.
— T Clark

Better according to what standard? Better according to what criteria?

Who sets the standard? Who picks the criteria?

To state categorically that some people think better than others makes no sense — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Asking 'who sets' the standard presupposes that all standards are set by an agent/us. I would say that some standards are discovered as compared/contrasted to invented.

BC

"I try to think, but nothing happens."

charleton

↪WISDOMfromPO-MO

Horses for courses. Sharks think better than humans when it comes to doing the calculations for swimming and eating fish in the ocean.
But they do not know how to start a computer.
Two humans. One quickly finds the answer to a problem (such as a maths one) whose solution is irrefutable; the other never finds the solution.
QED Some people think better than others.
The same pair of people being quizzed on a matter of emotional intelligence the result might find the maths failure can find the solution whilst the maths whizz fails even to understand the emotional problem.
QED Some people think better than others.
The point is clearly made.
NP

Rich

Life is just one big competition - or not. Apparently we have a new one, thinking better. Sounds like an Olympic sport. We can have judges judging on execution, originality, speed, and of course hubris.

Personally, I'm open to forum competition. Anyone interested in nominating themselves as Bestest Thinker?

Sam26

I agree with other posts "thinking better" is relative to the subject matter. However, if what we are referring to are philosophical arguments, then there are objective criteria that are important. Also, intelligence is important, but being knowledgeable, all things being equal, will win the day over intelligence. There are many intelligent people who can't think logically, or they can't do it well. Also, because someone is an expert in biology, history, or any other subject that doesn't mean they know how to form good arguments. I've listened to biologists arguing their points about this or that, and they can't argue to save their life.

Finally, just because someone has studied philosophy, that doesn't mean they can form good arguments either, it takes a lot of practice, it's a skill. So thinking well in philosophy requires the ability to analyze and form good arguments, this, it seems to me, is the backbone of philosophy.

Rich

So thinking well in philosophy — Sam26

Thinking well is an interesting objective criteria. What we have here is a competition similar to figure skating or synchronized swimming. Can I be a judge? Or do we need judges to pick judges?

In general, humans continue to amaze me in their desire to have Kings of Hills. It's like it is the only way to bring meaning into a life. In Yoga it is who can twist themselves into the most contorted pretzel. It's interesting to observe.

Sam26

↪Rich

It's not about competition any more than mathematics is about competition. Sure for some people it's about who's the best, but in philosophy, ideally, it's about truth, at least partly.

Also, when I talk about objective criteria, I'm referring to the rules and principles of logic. So the criteria for well-formed arguments is not a matter of opinion, at least for the most part.

Rich

but in philosophy, ideally, it's about truth, at least partly. — Sam26

That would be a different the of competition, i.e. who had the greater Truth. Now it becomes more religious in nature and people compete for the King of the Truth Hill. Science, Buddhism, Catholicism, Islam? Who do you think had the greater Truth?

There are no objective rules for logic, only everyone's different versions which are debated on philosophy forums.

Sam26

↪Rich

Have you studied logic, it's not opinion based. I would agree that the general public uses the word logic in a very subjective way, but there are clearly defined rules that stipulate how one should draw conclusions from statements. In some ways, it's very similar to mathematics. If logic was subjective, as you're saying, then yes, there would be no objective criteria that would define good arguments, but that's just not the case. Lookup on Youtube, classes on symbolic logic, and you'll see what I mean.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M14ReHfPFUw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1asxHpewYi8&t=230s

↪Sam26

I'd take no notice of what Rich says if I were you. I've seen him do this before. Seems as though he has a chip on his shoulder.

Rich

Have you studied logic, it's not opinion based. — Sam26

I just observe the discussions on the forum. Sometimes observation provides a better understanding of life than cookbook textbooks.

Rich

↪Sapientia

.2 deduction for Fallacy of Ad hominem. An unfortunate stumble which probably eliminates you from gold medal chances.

Some people think better than others?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions