A High IQ May Be A Sign Of Flawed Thinking

[zenrealized]

Originally Posted by Plays With Life

I see what you're saying here. But, I don't think you got the message that Brutha meant to communicate. -



When I read this, I don't get the message that a particular study proves that someone who doesn't know more than one language would be unable to distinguish A and B.

When I read it, I get the message that evidence exists that suggests that someone who does know more than one language would be less likely to think of A and B as indistinguishable concepts. Which carries out to also suggesting that someone who doesn't know more than one language would be less likely to distinguish A and B as separate concepts.



Yeah, I don't see what assumption he made. In Brutha's post, I see a communication of some evidence he's aware of. About the coming out shooting, I meant that about him outright saying that your post is a failure of abstract thinking. And then calling your assumption stupid. He wasn't pulling any punches.

Just because some study makes a correlation that learning additional languages supposedly makes them better abstract thinkers does not make it accurate nor does it make the result meaningful because the only thing that matters is whether or not being able to think abstractly in the context they are speaking about is even valuable.



It actually seemed to me like he was a expressing a summary of evidence he's aware of, rather than thinking of a particular study. I wonder if he's seen multiple studies that suggest the same thing.



I'm not sure that valuation can be "irrational". By irrational, do you mean valuing things that would not lead to the person having what they want?

I mean if you try to value things accurately that your resulting thought process on dealing with those conclusions resulting from that accuracy will result in better decision making. That is why I advocate so strongly finding and using words and definitions that are as close to accurate as possible.

For example the process you use aims to get the same result that I am trying to get to. We have chatted about this concept before. The distinction is that process is time intensive and might result in your ability to pick accurate valuations when they are needed to be had. Reading comprehension is a reductive skill and it's important in situations where you are not able to engage the subject in questions.

My process is game theory intensive because I make the focus totally about understanding the information I am reading I am also able to analyze and make better and better assumptions outside of just the words that I am reading. The way I test my assumptions about my definitions and values is to play in informationally intense competitive games to fine tune and revalue abstract valuations and to test various assumptions to refine that strategy. I don't know if I use this process because that's how I was born or I learned it. The major thing is solving problems in this world requires having highly accurate assumptions and valuations of language and thinking.

To answer your questions I think you can judge whether or not you have irrational valuation by finding ways to test it. It's a process. My opinion is that it's better to define things accurately because the things themselves are not subjective enough in almost all situations to do anything else. By doing this you might occasionally misinterpret people but the power you gain from accurately seeing the NEGATIVE actions and perspectives of other people gives you a good defensive perspective in situations where you will need it.

[Plays With Life]

Originally Posted by zenrealized

I mean if you try to value things accurately that your resulting thought process on dealing with those conclusions resulting from that accuracy will result in better decision making. That is why I advocate so strongly finding and using words and definitions that are as close to accurate as possible.

Thank you! I really appreciate you taking the time to explain this. I skimmed the rest of your post and I enjoyed it. I'm going to read through it more thoroughly when I have a minute.

[Plays With Life]

Thanks again, zenrealized. I really enjoyed this post from you.

Originally Posted by zenrealized

I mean if you try to value things accurately that your resulting thought process on dealing with those conclusions resulting from that accuracy will result in better decision making.

Does "better decision making" mean - "making decisions that will result in you having what you want" ?

Originally Posted by zenrealized

That is why I advocate so strongly finding and using words and definitions that are as close to accurate as possible.

I actually haven't seen you advocate this. It sounds similar to something I value - I value accuracy in communication. When I communicate, I aim to use words that will be interpreted as close as possible to the interpretation I intend. And, I aim to interpret received communication as close as possible to the intended interpretation.

Originally Posted by zenrealized

For example the process you use aims to get the same result that I am trying to get to. We have chatted about this concept before. The distinction is that process is time intensive and might result in your ability to pick accurate valuations when they are needed to be had. Reading comprehension is a reductive skill and it's important in situations where you are not able to engage the subject in questions.

I think by "the process I use", you're referring to my asking for clarification in interactions. About the time aspect - you and I had an interaction that extended over a significant amount of time. Usually when I ask for clarification, it only takes a second. It doesn't take a lot of time. It goes something like this -

"Oh, you know that gizbo over there?"
"Wait, what do you mean by gizbo?"
"Oh, it's the red-and-white striped animal. It's standing by the tree."
"OK, I see what you mean. Yeah, I see it."
.. [more conversation] ..

Originally Posted by zenrealized

My process is game theory intensive because I make the focus totally about understanding the information I am reading I am also able to analyze and make better and better assumptions outside of just the words that I am reading. The way I test my assumptions about my definitions and values is to play in informationally intense competitive games to fine tune and revalue abstract valuations and to test various assumptions to refine that strategy. I don't know if I use this process because that's how I was born or I learned it. The major thing is solving problems in this world requires having highly accurate assumptions and valuations of language and thinking.

This sounds like a fun process.

About problems - I don't tend to have problems that I need to solve in my life. I focus more on creating, than on solving problems.

Originally Posted by zenrealized

To answer your questions I think you can judge whether or not you have irrational valuation by finding ways to test it. It's a process.

I wonder what sorts of ways you could use to test it.

Originally Posted by zenrealized

My opinion is that it's better to define things accurately because the things themselves are not subjective enough in almost all situations to do anything else.

I don't think you can define things. I think you can define words as referring to things. How would you define something that already exists? Definition seems of like an act of creation, to me. You create a definition. The definition didn't exist until you created it.

I mean, if I were to look at the globe on my desk .. how would I define the globe? "This globe means the world is yellow." "This globe means the world is round." That seems kind of silly. The fact that the globe exists doesn't mean anything. The globe itself doesn't have a definition. What I can do is assign meaning to a symbol (the word "globe") as a signpost that points to the conceptual experience of the globe.

Originally Posted by zenrealized

By doing this you might occasionally misinterpret people but the power you gain from accurately seeing the NEGATIVE actions and perspectives of other people gives you a good defensive perspective in situations where you will need it.

I don't see what you mean by negative, here. Do you mean - "actions and perspectives of other people that prevent you from having what you want" ?