Skip to main content

How we think

The way humans think is different from how computers think. Our cognitive abilities are designed with certain flaws. One clear example of this is called “source monitoring” i.e. we can’t always remember the source of our information. A more important way in which our thinking is different from that of a computer is that our thinking process is often colored with emotion. To demonstrate this let me explain the two types of thinking humans are capable of:
1. Narrative thought
2. Propositional thought

Narrative thought is based on episodic memory, it has a story like aspect to it. For example when we think about going to a party we imagine ourselves there and ask “am I going to have fun?”, “who is going to be there?”. Such thinking unfortunately has the power of running over the facts of the situation. For example if you ask an average person whether traveling in a plane makes him more anxious than traveling in a car most people who know that the statistical chances of death in a car are higher than in a plane would still tell you that traveling in a plane makes them more anxious simply because the narrative of a plane accident is more scary.

Propositional thought is problem set kind of thinking, mathematical for example. For me writing code to make a “notepad application” would involve propositional thought not narrative thought. For example if you write down a problem on a piece of paper and “think it through” by taking out the “emotional” aspect of things and think in “realistic” terms the chances that you will arrive at a sound conclusion are higher. This then is “factual thinking”.

Examples of narrative thought vs. propositional thought

1. Politics: In the US presidential election one candidate could use the “employment statistic” to show how well the government’s policies were while the other candidate could use the example of one individual who was “wronged” by the system (as a fault more of his own more than that of the system) and leverage narrative thought for the buy-in of the voters.

2. Car vs. plane example: Riskier to travel in a car but more scared of traveling in a plane!

3. Lottery example: The probability of winning is next to impossible however the stakes are so high you still play. This is against propositional logic but one is lured by narrative thinking.

4. Marketing surveys: One should not use ‘loaded terms’ because you start to bias the reader because of his ability of narrative thought.

5. Socializing
A) One could leverage people’s “narrative thinking” abilities! Machiavelli would say: lure them by giving them half-truths, which is probably what Hitler did! He was the witch-doctor for the Nazis and gave them an integrated view that had flaws that people did not question!
B) Hazrat Ali would say: leverage from the power of eloquence based on truth! If one becomes articulate enough, if truth becomes clear to a person then he can do this.

Source: MIT Open Courseware, Introduction to psychology lecture on “How do we think”.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Explanation of the movie 'Revolver'

I saw the movie for the umpteenth time last night and I finally got it.

This is what the movie says:

1) In every game and con there is always a victim and there is always an opponent. It's good to know when you are the former so you can become the latter.

2) But the question is how do you prepare yourself for this game?

3) You only get smater by playing a smarter opponent.

4) The smarter the game the smarter the opponent

5) Checkers is an example of such a game. Chess is a better game. Debate is an even better opportunity to learn and so on.

6) But the question is where does the game stop? or one can ask what is the smartest game one can play?

7) The answer according to the movie is: "The game of con you play with yourself".

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The text below has been added on 3 Dec 2008 and is based on a comment posted on October 30, 2008, at time 4:12 PM. I have only recently understood what this person meant and it is …

The beauty of self-negation

Self-negation is the act of exercising your will power to do what you don’t want to do such that you benefit from this act [of self negation]. The more one practices self-negation the better you get at controlling your will and making it do what you want it to, when you want it to.

For obvious reasons this can have tremendous benefits. Just imagine a situation where your superior wants you to sit late or gives you a task that is very difficult and you have enough control over yourself to not get flustered! In fact imagine turning your world into the world you always imagined as a child… by taking the difficult steps, through self-negation…one can only marvel at the beauty of creating the world you want!

We get the chance to practice self-negation many times in the day, each chance another ‘opportunity’ to get better at controlling ourselves.

Every time we sit down to eat for example we can eat good food in the quantity that the body requires and after that leave some space in our stoma…

Why feedback is important

We learn about the world as we get feedback from things within it such as from family, friends, mentors and even books.

Feedback can tell you where you went wrong and affirm what you do right. It can thus help you predict the future.

Interestingly there are people I have met who question the importance of feedback. They say: “I can figure out everything I need to on my own. I don’t need feedback like others do.” This is not true. In fact there is a big danger lurking in this notion.

If the world you are creating is your own you might get stuck in it or some part of it and not know what to do next.

If however, this world of yours and all parts of it are based on some feedback you will always know who to ask if you get stuck.

Somebody once said that "fundamentally we are here not to be seen, but to see" i.e. to see things outside of ourself. You will notice that all growth you have had has owed itself to some consistent feedback.

Suppose you wrote an essay. You wouldn't rea…