![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
thewaynehttps://qr.ae/pCZEPA
Question: How many Democrats are pro-Maduro?
Reply: Zero.
Back in my uni days, I took a class in cognitive science that was one of my favorite courses. One of the many, many things we talked about in class was the difference between abstract thinkers and concrete thinkers.
This difference appears to be architectural, a consequence of how your brain is wired, not a matter of choice or education.
Concrete thinkers see the world in strict black and white terms. They have difficulty drawing indirect connections between things, struggle to see multiple perspectives, and tend to hold an all or nothing, with-us-or-against-us mentality.
Abstract thinkers understand complex associations, can understand multiple perspectives at the same time, and can see second and third order relationships between things.
And crucially, abstract thinkers can understand concrete thought patterns, but generally speaking, concrete thinkers seem physically incapable of understanding abstract thought patterns.
So here’s the thing:
Abstract thinkers are capable of grasping multiple ideas at once. Like, “Maduro is an illegitimate totalitarian ruler with an authoritarian bent who presided over an illegitimate government” and also “a unilateral move to depose Maduro is illegal under international treaties and morally wrong.”
Concrete thinkers be all like “you’re either good or your bad, and if you’re bad you deserve anything bad that happens to you, anyone who says Maduro shouldn’t have been kidnapped must live and support Maduro.”
Abstract thinkers be like “no, you can believe a person is bad and also believe that breaking the law to kidnap that person is bad too, both of those things can be true at the same time.”
Very interesting, I wish we had classes available here on such a topic. I'm not sure how much I agree with it being a structural thing vs an education thing, I'd want to see some information on that, I'd be open to discussion.
I can certainly see where some conservative people whom I know/knew had problems with abstract thinking. I think I would hazard to say that concrete thinkers might be more easily persuaded by ideologues since they would be more likely to present their arguments and ideas in more concrete 'for or against' terms with straw man arguments that appear harder to refute.
Personally I've never had problems to easily see and argue multiple sides of an argument. When I first started working here at the university, around 20 years ago in the computer lab, we had one guy who had a degree in philosophy, and we had a security guard who was an ex-cop and a former preacher, and another who just liked discussing things in a lively fashion. And we had these informal round tables where we'd argue the issues of the day, going around and round, picking up and discarding different viewpoints. It was tremendous fun. But it only lasted about a year before I left and the group broke apart.
I know I definitely prefer to associate more with abstract thinkers, they're much more fun to talk and argue (more in a discuss way, not combative ) things with.
Question: How many Democrats are pro-Maduro?
Reply: Zero.
Back in my uni days, I took a class in cognitive science that was one of my favorite courses. One of the many, many things we talked about in class was the difference between abstract thinkers and concrete thinkers.
This difference appears to be architectural, a consequence of how your brain is wired, not a matter of choice or education.
Concrete thinkers see the world in strict black and white terms. They have difficulty drawing indirect connections between things, struggle to see multiple perspectives, and tend to hold an all or nothing, with-us-or-against-us mentality.
Abstract thinkers understand complex associations, can understand multiple perspectives at the same time, and can see second and third order relationships between things.
And crucially, abstract thinkers can understand concrete thought patterns, but generally speaking, concrete thinkers seem physically incapable of understanding abstract thought patterns.
So here’s the thing:
Abstract thinkers are capable of grasping multiple ideas at once. Like, “Maduro is an illegitimate totalitarian ruler with an authoritarian bent who presided over an illegitimate government” and also “a unilateral move to depose Maduro is illegal under international treaties and morally wrong.”
Concrete thinkers be all like “you’re either good or your bad, and if you’re bad you deserve anything bad that happens to you, anyone who says Maduro shouldn’t have been kidnapped must live and support Maduro.”
Abstract thinkers be like “no, you can believe a person is bad and also believe that breaking the law to kidnap that person is bad too, both of those things can be true at the same time.”
Very interesting, I wish we had classes available here on such a topic. I'm not sure how much I agree with it being a structural thing vs an education thing, I'd want to see some information on that, I'd be open to discussion.
I can certainly see where some conservative people whom I know/knew had problems with abstract thinking. I think I would hazard to say that concrete thinkers might be more easily persuaded by ideologues since they would be more likely to present their arguments and ideas in more concrete 'for or against' terms with straw man arguments that appear harder to refute.
Personally I've never had problems to easily see and argue multiple sides of an argument. When I first started working here at the university, around 20 years ago in the computer lab, we had one guy who had a degree in philosophy, and we had a security guard who was an ex-cop and a former preacher, and another who just liked discussing things in a lively fashion. And we had these informal round tables where we'd argue the issues of the day, going around and round, picking up and discarding different viewpoints. It was tremendous fun. But it only lasted about a year before I left and the group broke apart.
I know I definitely prefer to associate more with abstract thinkers, they're much more fun to talk and argue (more in a discuss way, not combative ) things with.
