Rigger or Riggee: Do to or done to

[coberst]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Rigger or Riggee: Do to or done to

I go to a Poker Parlor for the first time and sit down at the table to play a bit of poker. Two hours later I leave the game fleeced. After a couple of experiences similar to this I recognize I must better learn the rules of this game.

I diligently study the rules of the game and return to the game to find that while I am not fleeced as quickly as before, I am fleeced more slowly but continuously.

I was puzzled until I conclude that perhaps the fleecing results because of the nature of the game and of those rigging the game. I discover that I am being fleeced consistently because the people running the game also have the ability to reason; like the bull fight, if the bull does not learn to “see” the Matador he shall always end up as hamburger.

When I learned this I decide that I too shall become a rigger of games and thus fleece others who are ignorant of the facts. Later I decide that I do not wish to be either a rigger or a riggee.

The rigger of the ‘game of living’ is the predator and we are its prey. We must adapt. We must now be able to match our reasoning ability against those with reasoning ability that wish to take advantage of us. The rigger of the game understands that s/he who is more skilled at reasoning can fleece those less skilled at reasoning.

Reasoning is a human ability that can be studied and improved. One can become better at reasoning just as one can become better at dealing with quantity. When I learned arithmetic I became better at dealing with quantity. When I study critical thinking I become better at reasoning. When I study the rules of the poker game I become a better poker player. When I study the science of reasoning—CT (Critical Thinking)—I become a better thinker; I become better at understanding the complexity of the human intellect. It would also help if I become knowledgeable about how the human psyche works, i.e. if I learn a bit of psychology.
Our educational system is attempting, slowly and without much success, to teach our youngsters the science of reasoning—CT. We adults were not taught CT and thus do not recognize its importance. If we taught ourselves CT we would recognize its importance and its importance to our children. Those who rig the game of life understand the importance of learning the science of reason and use this knowledge to fleece us and will continue to do so to our children.

Learn something about critical thinking and you will better understand this message. The books are there at your local community college library or at your local bookstore. You don’t know what you don’t know. What you don’t know can hurt you.

Read a book on CT. You might open up a new worldview. The uncritical viewer cannot see beyond the surface appearance.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

huh?

I'm not sure the relevance of this post in here....but I'll hold off for some clarification before I axe it.

-t

 

[GiantSteps]

T4C,

Do not be so quick to eliminate this Thread. It may be a bit unusual in the way it presents a topic of Cognitive Psychology or perhaps one even related Cogntive Behavioral Therapy (whose whole premise is based on the notion of psychological disorders deriving from faulty logic at the conscious level), but I found it amusing. Of course, I am pleased to read anything on SDN which deviates from: 1. Hello...these are my stats...what chance of admissions do I have?; 2. Should I get a Ph.D. or Psy.D?; 3. Does any one have anything good to say about ____ University?; and, (the ever depressing) 4. Hooray! I got accepted to every top school under the sun on my first try and you didn't!

I am not sure if agree that critical thinking skills can be taught or are best taught by reading a books specifically about critical thinking skills in a metacognitive fashion. I do not think the great thinkers of the world became great thinkers in this manner. Although, now that cognitive science has become so specialized, reading about critical thinking can not hurt in terms of those who want to study it. I just think that there may be more natural ways to build critical thinking/ logic skills - such as reading, doing mathematical operations, playing games that depend on strong reasoning skills, and even health maintenance.

Also, Coberst's main idea of learning critical thinking skills so as not to be rigged is in essence being played out on SDN - by learning the rules of applying to clinical psychology and sharing what techniques work and do not work everyone learns how not to be rigged, or at least comes away knowing that they are not the only ones who have been rigged by the system. So the final questions is: after learning the rules of applying to clinical psychology programs, does anyone conclude that there is no point in applying since one loses either way? Hopefully not. "Would you like to play Global Thermal Nuclear War? No, how about a nice game of chess?"

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I'm all for an interesting discussion, I just wasn't sure what the OP wanted with his post, it was sort of just....there.

GS....you brought up some interesting points. When I have more time I'll come back later and respond.

-t

 

[coberst]

CT is an acronym for Critical Thinking. Everybody considers themselves to be a critical thinker. That is why we need to differentiate among different levels of critical thinking.

Most people fall in the category that I call Reagan thinkers—trust but verify. Then there are those who have taken the basic college course taught by the philosophy dept that I call Logic 101. This is a credit course that teaches the basic principles of reasoning. Of course, a person need not take the college course and can learn the matter on their own effort, but I suspect few do that.

The third level I call CT (Critical Thinking). CT includes the knowledge of Logic 101 and also the knowledge that focuses upon the intellectual character and attitude of critical thinking. It includes knowledge regarding the ego and social centric forces that impede rational thinking.

Most decisions we have to make are judgment calls. A judgment call is made when we must make a decision when there is no "true" or "false" answers. When we make a judgment call our decision is bad, good, or better.

Many factors are involved: there are the available facts, assumptions, skills, knowledge, and especially personal experience and attitude. I think that the two most important elements in the mix are personal experience and attitude.

When we study math we learn how to use various algorithms to facilitate our skill in dealing with quantities. If we never studied math we could deal with quantity on a primary level but our quantifying ability would be minimal. Likewise with making judgments; if we study the art and science of good judgment we can make better decisions and if we never study the art and science of judgment our decision ability will remain minimal.

I am convinced that a fundamental problem we have in this country (USA) is that our citizens have never learned the art and science of good judgment. Before the recent introduction of CT into our schools and colleges our young people have been taught primarily what to think and not how to think. All of us graduated with insufficient comprehension of the knowledge, skills, and attitude necessary for the formulation of good judgment. The result of this inability to make good judgment is evident and is dangerous.

I am primarily interested in the judgment that adults exercise in regard to public issues. Of course, any improvement in judgment generally will affect both personal and community matters.

To put the matter into a nut shell:

• Normal men and women can significantly improve their ability to make judgments.
• CT is the domain of knowledge that delineates the knowledge, skills, and intellectual character demanded for good judgment.
• CT has been introduced into our schools and colleges slowly in the last two or three decades.
• Few of today's adults were ever taught CT.
• I suspect that at least another two generations will pass before our society reaps significant rewards resulting from teaching CT to our children.
• Can our democracy survive that long?
• I think that every effort must be made to convince today's adults that they need to study and learn CT on their own. I am not suggesting that adults find a teacher but I am suggesting that adults become self-actualizing learners.
• I am convinced that learning the art and science of Critical Thinking is an important step toward becoming a better citizen in today's democratic society.

 

[RayneeDeigh]

I still don't understand this thread but I'm sure I'm not the only one.

As an aside, CT (at least on this forum given our field) is more likely to be taken as "cognitive therapy". I thought that's what you meant since that would have made it at least have something to do with Psychology...

 

[Anon15]

I also fail to see the relevance in this thread. I agree with GS (i.e. it's nice to stay a bit form the norm) however this is a bit to "Dr. Philish" for my taste.

 

[Ollie123]

To be honest, I think you make some good points though it comes off more than a little preachy and demeaning, especially given the audience.

Frankly, I think everyone here would be on board with "Critical thinking skills are important". I mean, we are scientists after all (even if some folks are more interested in being consumers of science rather than producers of it), and developing critical thinking skills is an enormous part of what we are going to school for. So while I understand your post, I'm not really clear what your reason for posting was. Its kind of like a post saying "You should learn about the brain!". Yup. We sure should. Don't know what to add to that, and doubt you'll hear disagreement from anyone here.

 

[socialcog]

While I question the relevance here, I must say you now have my attention.

With respect to a country (USA) that has failed to engender good thinkers through endorsing CT, what do you predict will be the long(er) term consequences of our country? Culture?

What countries, or microcosms, demonstrate strong CT and how do they fundamentally differ from those who do not?

Ollie mentioned "preachy", I agree. Why are you posting here? (or why are you choosing us as your audience?)

Please recommend a book.

 

[Aura5]

I am convinced that a fundamental problem we have in this country (USA) is that our citizens have never learned the art and science of good judgment.

That made me laugh. Not because I disagree, but just because it sounds so blunt. That would be cool if there was a way they could teach good judgment, all around, as part of education.

And let me just take a guess - others don't get why you're posting. Maybe because like you were saying in the other thread, people don't take psychology seriously so you're hoping you can 'safely' share your thoughts on that kind of topic here? ...or am I way off. lol.

And, GiantSteps: Your post reminded me. Guess what! Hooray! I just got into all the schools I applied to, and I wasn't even a psychology major!! ...Just kidding.

 

[coberst]

To be honest, I think you make some good points though it comes off more than a little preachy and demeaning, especially given the audience.

Frankly, I think everyone here would be on board with "Critical thinking skills are important". I mean, we are scientists after all (even if some folks are more interested in being consumers of science rather than producers of it), and developing critical thinking skills is an enormous part of what we are going to school for. So while I understand your post, I'm not really clear what your reason for posting was. Its kind of like a post saying "You should learn about the brain!". Yup. We sure should. Don't know what to add to that, and doubt you'll hear disagreement from anyone here.

I am a retired engineer and I have worked with all kinds of professionals educated in the natural sciences and I am not aware of one of them who ever studied CT or had even an acquainance with logic 101. I suspect that fewer than 5% of all adults have been taught or learned logic 101.

 

[Ollie123]

Then if you were still working, I'd have suggested looking for a new job with better coworkers🙂

Science is all about the application of logical reasoning to address complicated questions. If the professionals you interacted with failed to have this skill, they've failed as scientists. I've met a few professors who don't seem to have CT skills in my day, but not many good ones.

 

[coberst]

Then if you were still working, I'd have suggested looking for a new job with better coworkers🙂

Science is all about the application of logical reasoning to address complicated questions. If the professionals you interacted with failed to have this skill, they've failed as scientists. I've met a few professors who don't seem to have CT skills in my day, but not many good ones.

Were you taught CT in high school or in college or did you study it by your self?

 

[Ollie123]

We cover it a teensy bit in HS and college as a separate entity, but most of it sort of came as a "packaged" deal when learning about other topics. By that I mean, English courses that teach how to construct an argument in addition to grammar, spelling, etc. and especially from courses that focus on the scientific method. That's why I don't understand how you can know lots of scientists who aren't critical thinkers. You have to be a critical thinker to effectively apply the scientific method. If you can't do that you aren't a scientist. I've known scientists who HAVE critical thinking skills and don't seem to utilize them in their personal life for whatever reason, but I've never met one (at least not a successful one) who lacked the skill entirely.

 

[GiantSteps]

Were you taught CT in high school or in college or did you study it by your self?

Ollie, as your self-appointed SDN attorney, I advise you not to answer this question and to plead the 5th! I detect a trick!

"From these considerations it follows that there will be no scientific knowledge of the primary premisses and since except intuition nothing can be truer than scientific knowledge, it will be intuition that apprehends the primary premisses - a result which also follows from the fact that demonstration cannot be the originative source of demonstration, nor consequently, scientific knowledge of scientific knowledge. If, therefore, it is the only other kind of true thinking except scientific knowing, intuition will be the originative source of scientific knowledge. And the originative source of science grasps the original basic premiss, while science as a whole is similarly related as originative source to the whole body of fact." - From Aristotle's conclusion to the Analytica Posteriora. Couldn't have said it better myself!😀

 

[Ollie123]

Too late🙂

I realize I'm admitting I have studied it regardless (which I assume is your point about why its a trick). That's kind of my point though.