We build a system of thinking
In connection with the discussion that has arisen in habratopik , I would like to talk a little bit about the systems of thinking, freedom and number 42.
The topic in which the discussion arose showed that many IT professionals do not consider it necessary to read fiction for the formation of personality and the ability to think. It is believed that the logic, scientific knowledge and scientific method is enough to form an integral and correct opinion about the world.
')
This opinion, in my opinion, is wrong.
What is bad logic, scientific method and knowledge? Nothing. But there is, as stated in the joke, one nuance. Let's see how the train of thought goes - no matter if a person is developing a new project on the Internet or communicating in society. Naturally, we will simplify the process in order not to climb into the wilds of psychology.
Knowledge provides a basis for conclusions. Logic determines how to prevent mistakes in judgments, and the scientific method eliminates nonsense that could penetrate the barrier of logic — for example, Russell's teapots . Emotions make adjustments according to spiritual aspirations, for example, they add the concept of God, although the scientific method tries to weed it out on a par with the teapot.
At the exit of this process, we get the finished output. The system looks like this: knowledge-> logic-> scientific method-> emotions-> conclusions.
Something is missing, isn't it?
The point is that the connections between points are not simple vectors. They are not always one-sided, and the proportion of different components may differ. In addition, the additional term — let's call it inspiration or creativity, determines which elements we use in the reasoning and which are not. Inspiration unconsciously, we can not control it and the fact that it will slip us - depends solely on our subconscious. We cannot operate with the fact that it did not throw us in the quality of knowledge, logic, criteria of truth or emotions.
It is this template - communication + criterion of inspiration and can be called a system of thinking.
“Well, well,” you say. “I can think. Then what? ”The problem is not in the ability - even the gopnik with the seeds can somehow think. The problem is not even a qualitative difference in the systems of thought. The point is that the result of thought depends on the criterion of compliance with a certain general standard of the system of thinking.
Everyone who was first in some area thought outside the box. What are they different from others? Lucky star? Maybe. But there is another explanation. Moreover, the stars at all obviously would not be enough.
Let's see how the system of thinking of any person is formed.
The man was born. To begin with, he perceives language - the first of the systems of thought. Words form mental images, the structure of language is the connection between them. Heat is hot. It is raining.
The most important role in this process is played by parents - first as teachers of the language, afterwards - as objects for imitation. Copying the structure of speech, perceiving stories about the world, children are still only beginning to build the beginnings of their own system of thinking based on the interpretation of the data based on their own, while its small, experience and emotional warehouse.
Then there are children's institutions and, most importantly, the school. The school inculcates standardized knowledge to everyone passing through it. Subsequently, these functions take on universities. Individual thinking systems arise through combinations of emotional depots and thinking systems learned from different sources.
In terms of duration and power, educational institutions play a leading role in shaping our thinking systems. Educational institutions perform the main task - with the minimum permissible deviations convey to children and young people the generally accepted style of thought. In the future, and so similar operating systems operate by inertia. The media and the internal mechanisms of social groups help this.
That is why we think in a standard way. Rather, we do not think, since we are programmed for certain reactions. Remember the heat is hot and the rain is falling? A terrorist is a villain, lying is not good, it is bad to hang over, but if the pipes are burning ...
There is an answer to everything. Ready and not thought out. Templates procured. That is why in an extreme situation, many fall into a stupor.
However, it is known to most. We will finish with this homegrown psychology and move on to why all this was written.
The dominant system of thinking in society - the dominant - is always a stabilizing factor. By definition, it is conservative. Even if it is aimed at moving at this particular historical moment, it is a clearly directed, very conservative movement on straight rails at a given speed.
As part of the dominant, it is impossible to invent anything new, since its task is to have ready-made answers to all questions. Even the scientific process within the framework of the dominant is difficult - remember how at the end of the 19th century it was believed that physics “ended” as a science and everything was open? Several people who managed to look at this science from a different angle and notice inconsistencies changed the world and are known to all.
Even in everyday life, the dominant is trying to fix the state of society. In Russian society, with its behavioral-thinking model for stability, it is safer in school to tell children that Natasha Rostova is a positive character. Although, let's say, within the framework of the Muslim or Mediterranean dominant, it is clear what feelings this character would cause and what consequences this model of behavior would lead to in real life.
One should not, however, think that the general model of thinking is bad, that this is the “System” with which it is necessary to fight, waving ports over his head and glorifying anarchy.
The dominant is a given. Not bad and not good, contributing to the preservation of society. However, thinking is not suitable for creative activity. Moreover, as we found out, this is the absence of all thinking at all. Personally, I do not like this state.
It is impossible to just take and decide to think differently. It turns out funny and within the framework of the same model. In the end, the unconscious plays a huge role here.
But you can try to start thinking. In turn, the process of thinking will cause changes in the system of thinking - and we will get a chance to move away from the standard for just a little.
So, we pass from an automatic mode on the realized.
Awareness is a favorite topic of many "occult" writers. There are a lot of broken copies of it, but in fact, everything is not simple. Still easier. Armed with a few simple principles to combat stereotyped thoughts.
Many religious and philosophical currents called to the outside world as a set of lessons. Perhaps they were not so wrong if, of course, we discard the occult myrylulundium.
The point is the following - every event in which you participate or you hear about, each element of your own or someone else's experience should be analyzed. Consider the standard chain of reactions. Hearing the news about, say, the visit of the Zimbabwean president to Russia, a person, depending on the social group, emotional qualities and personal circumstances, thinks either "Fuck it," or "Good," or "Devil's Negroes! Gone far. ” This reaction mainly depends on the dominant, on which part of the person it belongs to. This reaction is in principle programmed at the level of probabilities, since it can vary due to the specific state of the person - the presence of personal interest, mood, and so on.
However, it is not much more complicated than the “Heat - Hot” associative chain.
Analysis will allow to look at the problem from a different angle.
The algorithm is as follows:
1) What do I think about this?
2) Does not emotion speak with my mouth?
3) What do the knowledge and logic tell me?
4) How about truth criteria?
5) And emotions and morals, what do they say now?
6) How is my current opinion different from the original?
However, this alone may not be enough to completely get rid of the template and develop your own opinion. It makes sense to drive an event in a similar way through several alternative systems of thought. Where do you get them from? It makes sense to learn foreign languages ​​and learn other cultures. Sometimes a thought formulated in another language gives surprises. But you cannot learn all languages. This is where fiction comes to our rescue. Naturally, I am talking about literature, and not about stamped handicrafts without thoughts and emotions.
Reading, we get the opportunity to get acquainted with the inner world of many authors - with their way of thinking, logic, emotions. Trying them on ourselves, discarding the unnecessary and completing new parts based on our perception, we get an excellent “building material” for our thinking structure. In psychology, the sum is more than individual terms, since very much depends on interpretation.
Another reason for the usefulness of literature, and not only its, but also other media products - our life experience is not very extensive. But from external sources you can get a large amount of material for analysis. The more analyzed, the more refined and individual the personal system of thinking becomes.
Analyze constantly - it's worth it.
I do not promise that by trying to live consciously, you will become Einstein. But what I know for sure - firstly, it will not be worse, and secondly - it really improves observation and ingenuity. And, as a result, it will become easier and with a creative approach. At least, I had just such an effect.
In addition, I do not call and watch his speech, although it is also harmless. Analyze the conversations described above - and you will notice that in a huge number of situations the answer is either easily calculated ("-How are you? -Ok!"), Or it does not mean anything ("-How is the film? -Full, but amusing! -Come, I'm going. .. ")
I did not say much about freedom, and it is not clear what it is. Continuing to live thinking is also harmful, the autopilot is sometimes necessary, and then you’ll go crazy with it - numerous occultists, who are starting in the process of “realizing” this example.
And I didn’t say anything at all about the number 42. But it certainly has something to do with all this, right?
What does pagite mean?
The topic in which the discussion arose showed that many IT professionals do not consider it necessary to read fiction for the formation of personality and the ability to think. It is believed that the logic, scientific knowledge and scientific method is enough to form an integral and correct opinion about the world.
')
This opinion, in my opinion, is wrong.
Logic, scientific method and all that
What is bad logic, scientific method and knowledge? Nothing. But there is, as stated in the joke, one nuance. Let's see how the train of thought goes - no matter if a person is developing a new project on the Internet or communicating in society. Naturally, we will simplify the process in order not to climb into the wilds of psychology.
Knowledge provides a basis for conclusions. Logic determines how to prevent mistakes in judgments, and the scientific method eliminates nonsense that could penetrate the barrier of logic — for example, Russell's teapots . Emotions make adjustments according to spiritual aspirations, for example, they add the concept of God, although the scientific method tries to weed it out on a par with the teapot.
At the exit of this process, we get the finished output. The system looks like this: knowledge-> logic-> scientific method-> emotions-> conclusions.
Something is missing, isn't it?
The point is that the connections between points are not simple vectors. They are not always one-sided, and the proportion of different components may differ. In addition, the additional term — let's call it inspiration or creativity, determines which elements we use in the reasoning and which are not. Inspiration unconsciously, we can not control it and the fact that it will slip us - depends solely on our subconscious. We cannot operate with the fact that it did not throw us in the quality of knowledge, logic, criteria of truth or emotions.
It is this template - communication + criterion of inspiration and can be called a system of thinking.
Dominant and all-all
“Well, well,” you say. “I can think. Then what? ”The problem is not in the ability - even the gopnik with the seeds can somehow think. The problem is not even a qualitative difference in the systems of thought. The point is that the result of thought depends on the criterion of compliance with a certain general standard of the system of thinking.
Everyone who was first in some area thought outside the box. What are they different from others? Lucky star? Maybe. But there is another explanation. Moreover, the stars at all obviously would not be enough.
Let's see how the system of thinking of any person is formed.
The man was born. To begin with, he perceives language - the first of the systems of thought. Words form mental images, the structure of language is the connection between them. Heat is hot. It is raining.
The most important role in this process is played by parents - first as teachers of the language, afterwards - as objects for imitation. Copying the structure of speech, perceiving stories about the world, children are still only beginning to build the beginnings of their own system of thinking based on the interpretation of the data based on their own, while its small, experience and emotional warehouse.
Then there are children's institutions and, most importantly, the school. The school inculcates standardized knowledge to everyone passing through it. Subsequently, these functions take on universities. Individual thinking systems arise through combinations of emotional depots and thinking systems learned from different sources.
In terms of duration and power, educational institutions play a leading role in shaping our thinking systems. Educational institutions perform the main task - with the minimum permissible deviations convey to children and young people the generally accepted style of thought. In the future, and so similar operating systems operate by inertia. The media and the internal mechanisms of social groups help this.
That is why we think in a standard way. Rather, we do not think, since we are programmed for certain reactions. Remember the heat is hot and the rain is falling? A terrorist is a villain, lying is not good, it is bad to hang over, but if the pipes are burning ...
There is an answer to everything. Ready and not thought out. Templates procured. That is why in an extreme situation, many fall into a stupor.
However, it is known to most. We will finish with this homegrown psychology and move on to why all this was written.
The dominant system of thinking in society - the dominant - is always a stabilizing factor. By definition, it is conservative. Even if it is aimed at moving at this particular historical moment, it is a clearly directed, very conservative movement on straight rails at a given speed.
As part of the dominant, it is impossible to invent anything new, since its task is to have ready-made answers to all questions. Even the scientific process within the framework of the dominant is difficult - remember how at the end of the 19th century it was believed that physics “ended” as a science and everything was open? Several people who managed to look at this science from a different angle and notice inconsistencies changed the world and are known to all.
Even in everyday life, the dominant is trying to fix the state of society. In Russian society, with its behavioral-thinking model for stability, it is safer in school to tell children that Natasha Rostova is a positive character. Although, let's say, within the framework of the Muslim or Mediterranean dominant, it is clear what feelings this character would cause and what consequences this model of behavior would lead to in real life.
One should not, however, think that the general model of thinking is bad, that this is the “System” with which it is necessary to fight, waving ports over his head and glorifying anarchy.
The dominant is a given. Not bad and not good, contributing to the preservation of society. However, thinking is not suitable for creative activity. Moreover, as we found out, this is the absence of all thinking at all. Personally, I do not like this state.
And what shall we do?
It is impossible to just take and decide to think differently. It turns out funny and within the framework of the same model. In the end, the unconscious plays a huge role here.
But you can try to start thinking. In turn, the process of thinking will cause changes in the system of thinking - and we will get a chance to move away from the standard for just a little.
So, we pass from an automatic mode on the realized.
Awareness is a favorite topic of many "occult" writers. There are a lot of broken copies of it, but in fact, everything is not simple. Still easier. Armed with a few simple principles to combat stereotyped thoughts.
Around the lessons
Many religious and philosophical currents called to the outside world as a set of lessons. Perhaps they were not so wrong if, of course, we discard the occult myrylulundium.
The point is the following - every event in which you participate or you hear about, each element of your own or someone else's experience should be analyzed. Consider the standard chain of reactions. Hearing the news about, say, the visit of the Zimbabwean president to Russia, a person, depending on the social group, emotional qualities and personal circumstances, thinks either "Fuck it," or "Good," or "Devil's Negroes! Gone far. ” This reaction mainly depends on the dominant, on which part of the person it belongs to. This reaction is in principle programmed at the level of probabilities, since it can vary due to the specific state of the person - the presence of personal interest, mood, and so on.
However, it is not much more complicated than the “Heat - Hot” associative chain.
Analysis will allow to look at the problem from a different angle.
The algorithm is as follows:
1) What do I think about this?
2) Does not emotion speak with my mouth?
3) What do the knowledge and logic tell me?
4) How about truth criteria?
5) And emotions and morals, what do they say now?
6) How is my current opinion different from the original?
However, this alone may not be enough to completely get rid of the template and develop your own opinion. It makes sense to drive an event in a similar way through several alternative systems of thought. Where do you get them from? It makes sense to learn foreign languages ​​and learn other cultures. Sometimes a thought formulated in another language gives surprises. But you cannot learn all languages. This is where fiction comes to our rescue. Naturally, I am talking about literature, and not about stamped handicrafts without thoughts and emotions.
Reading, we get the opportunity to get acquainted with the inner world of many authors - with their way of thinking, logic, emotions. Trying them on ourselves, discarding the unnecessary and completing new parts based on our perception, we get an excellent “building material” for our thinking structure. In psychology, the sum is more than individual terms, since very much depends on interpretation.
Another reason for the usefulness of literature, and not only its, but also other media products - our life experience is not very extensive. But from external sources you can get a large amount of material for analysis. The more analyzed, the more refined and individual the personal system of thinking becomes.
Analyze constantly - it's worth it.
Conclusion
I do not promise that by trying to live consciously, you will become Einstein. But what I know for sure - firstly, it will not be worse, and secondly - it really improves observation and ingenuity. And, as a result, it will become easier and with a creative approach. At least, I had just such an effect.
In addition, I do not call and watch his speech, although it is also harmless. Analyze the conversations described above - and you will notice that in a huge number of situations the answer is either easily calculated ("-How are you? -Ok!"), Or it does not mean anything ("-How is the film? -Full, but amusing! -Come, I'm going. .. ")
I did not say much about freedom, and it is not clear what it is. Continuing to live thinking is also harmful, the autopilot is sometimes necessary, and then you’ll go crazy with it - numerous occultists, who are starting in the process of “realizing” this example.
And I didn’t say anything at all about the number 42. But it certainly has something to do with all this, right?
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/71269/
All Articles