Capacity for Abstract Thought?

from JoeUser Forums
OK, so here's the scenario.

I'm at a discussion group of local activists. Not all of us are avowed Libertarians in the group, but there's a strong libertarian sentiment nonetheless. I am speaking as the group begins to dissolve in some petty little squabble or another, and I make the statement "we need to win the war; THEN divide the spoils".

At this point, some older gentleman who's been mostly listening, pipes up "War? What war?" and beging on his own little rant (I fully expected a "Now THAT was a war" story to follow, but I digress).

I had clearly phrased my statement in such a way as to be metaphorical. However, in envoding, the lstener perceived it differently. Sadly, I have this sort of communication problem more often than I care to admit; which leads me to ask: whatever happened to ABSTRACT THOUGHT? Are we really becoming so linear in our thinking as to degenerate into basic processing and become immune to a well phrased simile or metaphor?

I am certainly hoping not; otherwise, I'm gonna be DAMN careful who I tell "I'd KILL for a hamburger right about now"...

signing off,

Gideon MacLeish
misc
15,528 views 27 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
People who are not listening actively will tend to miss the speaker's metaphors.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top

"I'd KILL for a hamburger right about now"...


you might avoid 'i havent had a bite (to eat) all day' as well.  

Multiplicity - Control multiple PCs using one keyboard and mouse
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
It would be interesting to find out whether the Clancy's and Grishams of this world are in some small measure responsible for this slide. I remember a time (not my own unfortunately) where whole books would be allegorical and require a high level of abstract thinking to make heads or tails of it, to make it correlate to the real world we inhabit and find the key that made the narrative useful to our understanding of our current situation rather than a whimsical flight of fancy for the authors own amusement.

Literature and science are the two endevours that are most likely to facilitate and encourage abstract thought, but we find one in a war with the very langauge it is meant to use, a situation where we forvever try to narrow the definitions (and hence the flexibility) of language. Paradoxically we can thank science and technology for this one. And science itself has become so abstract, so detatched from the reality that our senses can make any sense of, that without a long education in its methodology and language there is no hope in hell of the laymen getting interested, let alone immersed.

I think my argument is weak and pot holed, but the length would start grating on my nerves, if not yours, if i was to carry it any further.

I better just say that i agree.

Marco
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
People who are not listening actively will tend to miss the speaker's metaphors.


This is true as well. But many of these are cases when they ARE actively listening, they just don't get it.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top

Gideon, you should hand that guy Sun Tzu's The Art of War and then say the same phrase to him and see if he gets it...


And science itself has become so abstract, so detatched from the reality that our senses can make any sense of, that without a long education in its methodology and language there is no hope in hell of the laymen getting interested, let alone immersed.
It's a sad state of affairs but I agree Marco, I read this interview in Scientific American on chair of the physics department at Case Western Reserve University, Lawrence M. Krauss and he brought up similar points.  Here is the link on their website Link Ironically some believe that language actually shapes thoughts.

Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
It would be interesting to find out whether the Clancy's and Grishams of this world are in some small measure responsible for this slide. I remember a time (not my own unfortunately) where whole books would be allegorical and require a high level of abstract thinking to make heads or tails of it, to make it correlate to the real world we inhabit and find the key that made the narrative useful to our understanding of our current situation rather than a whimsical flight of fancy for the authors own amusement.


Good point. I would also blame our politicians (if we can't blame the president, who CAN we blame? lol
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
Or you could blame the school censors that won't let kids read stories that take place near the ocean because since the kids have probably never really seen the ocean, they couldn't understand it.

And no, I'm not making that up.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Gideon, some people are just stupid. I know that is an obvious statement to make but it's one that we often have to remind ourselves of in order to understand where some people are coming from. The reason that we forget this and are continually puzzled by some people is because of our own self absorbtion.

whole books would be allegorical and require a high level of abstract thinking to make heads or tails of it


True, but during that time people who could afford books were better educated and had more time to devote to reading such material.

And science itself has become so abstract, so detatched from the reality that our senses can make any sense of, that without a long education in its methodology and language there is no hope in hell of the laymen getting interested, let alone immersed.


I completely disagree. There are more science books written for the layman now than ever before.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
Or you could blame the school censors that won't let kids read stories that take place near the ocean because since the kids have probably never really seen the ocean, they couldn't understand it. And no, I'm not making that up.


scary. Glad they didn't do that to me when I was a kid...
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
I completely disagree. There are more science books written for the layman now than ever before.


This is one of the greatest things Sagan brought into our culture. By making astronomy a "pop" science, he taught a lot of scientists the way to bring science down to the level of understanding of the man on the street.

As a result, I have a limited understanding of the theory of relativity, even though I'm not scientifically inclined. Some of the concepts related to Einstein's theory make great pseudointellectual rebuttals when caught up in conversation with certain individuals.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top

for at least the last 40 years, there's been a continuing, concerted effort to make sure everything served up in the marketplace sticks to at least part of the target.  its called dumbing down and with very few exceptions, its difficult to buck and stay in business.

Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
You know my first thought when I read the title of this entry was about Oh Brother, where art thou?

Pete : Wait a minute. Who elected you leader of this outfit?
Ulysses Everett McGill : Well Pete, I figured it should be the one with the capacity for abstract thought. But if that ain't the consensus view, then hell, let's put it to a vote.

A reference from a movie that is based on an epic greek poem, making everything in it a bit abstract in and of itself. Interesting...
M
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
You know my first thought when I read the title of this entry was about Oh Brother, where art thou?Pete : Wait a minute. Who elected you leader of this outfit? Ulysses Everett McGill : Well Pete, I figured it should be the one with the capacity for abstract thought. But if that ain't the consensus view, then hell, let's put it to a vote.A reference from a movie that is based on an epic greek poem, making everything in it a bit abstract in and of itself. Interesting...


history:

Good catch. One of my favorite movies, and, yes, the inspiration for this post
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
I completely disagree. There are more science books written for the layman now than ever before.


No argument there. But have you read them. Simplified is too mild a word for it and i'm not so sure that their benefit justify their harm to true understanding. Many laymen end up understanding the metaphors used rather than the science, and this in an all too literal manner. This can obscure rather than enlighten their understanding. I know that it could be argued that some knowledge is better than none but i see science writing for the layman presenting a whole new problem - people taking one step foward and then stopping, thinking they have it all figured out. Of course, this is all coming from a voracious reader of popular science titles

Marco
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
I know that it could be argued that some knowledge is better than none but i see science writing for the layman presenting a whole new problem - people taking one step foward and then stopping, thinking they have it all figured out.


excellent response. I don't know that such pseudointellectualism is always a bad thing, though, as it piquex someone's interest and may give them a starting point they might not otherwise have had. I assure you, responsible college professors always know who read the "layman's" books rather than their coursework.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
I remember a time (not my own unfortunately) where whole books would be allegorical and require a high level of abstract thinking to make heads or tails of it


When I was in junior high (within the last two decades), we had to read Animal Farm by George Orwell. My best friend swore for years (maybe even now) that it was just a cute story about some animals. I worked editing textbooks a year ago and enjoyed the literature sections. Unfortunately, they do not ask the kinds of questions we were asked in school just 10 to 15 years ago.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
No argument there. But have you read them.


Yes, I have been reading them since I was a teen and I love them. I know I am a better person for having read them and I think that this is also true for most people.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top

Unfortunately, they do not ask the kinds of questions we were asked in school just 10 to 15 years ago

based on older textbooks ive seen, it's very likely the questions you were asked were not as demanding as those posed 20 years previous to that.  i dont seem to be acquainted with as many teachers as i once was but those ive spoken with over the past couple years are terribly frustrated because they feel they've very little time in which to teach their students much more than how to score well on those annual standarized end-of-grade tests most states now require.  

if that is truly the case (and i have no reason to doubt what theyve told me), it wont be too much longer before no child left behind becomes no child gets ahead.

Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think a lot of people DO get it, but they deliberately act obtuse in order to divert and hijack your original argument in order to draw attention to theirs. I see this tactic used on JU a lot, where intelligent and thought provoking topics are prone to disintigrate into semantics and nitpicking.


I'm not sure, LW, but it's an interesting point. I'll have to watch closer.

Just for the record, my favorite allegorical book was Jonathan Livingston Seagull, by Richard Bach.


An excellent choice, indeed!
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
I don't know that such pseudointellectualism is always a bad thing, though, as it piquex someone's interest and may give them a starting point they might not otherwise have had.


Gideon. You were speaking of excellent responses. Ditto for yours.

Marco
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
Well, I must admit the term war is overused as an effective metaphor--war on drugs, war on terrorism, war protestors, war on poverty,etc.
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
I love allegories, but the general population doesn't get them. they want it stated exactly.
For some reason this discussion reminded me of the instructions in Survival manuals.
How about the instructions on how to skin a rabbit.
Step 1: Catch rabbit.
Even Elmer Fudd knew that.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
Gideon. You were speaking of excellent responses. Ditto for yours.


Thanks.

Well, I must admit the term war is overused as an effective metaphor--war on drugs, war on terrorism, war protestors, war on poverty,etc.



Yes, it's nuts. I'm surprised Listerine hasn't declared "war on halitosis".

Oh, shit, I gave them an idea.
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
Demand royalties.


Yes, I definitely need to demand royalties on this one...plus maybe a lifetime supply of listerine...lol
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
Listerine. Well, I tend to be a dense person in general. I am the person who needs to be reminded that facial cleanser is not to be used internally or that the tiny plastic mystery package found inside purses should not be eaten. I do enjoy being stretched intellectually and having to make inferences . . . I'm just slower than most with it! Enjoyed your post, Gideon.