Good Thinking Habits vs Large Amounts of Knowledge

Salem Beats

Salem Beats

Ki from Salem-Beats.com
Schools have traditionally been concerned with filling students with large amounts of knowledge and facts.

With technology putting an exponentially-growing world of information a few clicks away, what is the purpose of teaching kids facts?

Perhaps schools should re-align their focus to primarily teaching useful thinking habits. Kids are able to discover facts about their areas of interest without help. What kids need to learn is the ability to do something useful with the facts at hand.

"Thinking" should become the only subject in public schools.
 
I am very happy with my God-given predilection for critical thinking, and the opportunities I used to reinforce with a liberal arts-oriented undergraduate college.

Intelligence and Wisdom > facts
 
MadTiger3000 said:
I am very happy with my God-given predilection for critical thinking, and the opportunities I used to reinforce with a liberal arts-oriented undergraduate college.

Intelligence and Wisdom > facts
Click to expand...

How do you personally define "critical" thinking?

Critical as in cautious, fact-checking, etc.?

Critical as in "good"?

Critical as in "deep"?

Critical thinking is vague in both connotation and denotation.
 
Last edited:
I think creativity is more important than empirical knowledge. Knowledge is useless if you don't know what to do with it.
 
F00T said:
I think creativity is more important than empirical knowledge. Knowledge is useless if you don't know what to do with it.
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree.

But, can creativity be encouraged or taught by schools? If so, should it be emphasized over teaching facts and specific procedures?
 
Salem Beats said:
Yes, I agree.

But, can creativity be encouraged or taught by schools? If so, should it be emphasized over teaching facts and specific procedures?
Click to expand...

Well, I was a professional in education for 12 years (private tutor). I say definitely. But you have to teach facts, as well. You simply need to always encourage students to realize facts aren't the end of the journey.
 
duplicate

---------- Post added at 06:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:18 PM ----------
Salem Beats said:
How do you personally define "critical" thinking?

Critical as in cautious, fact-checking, etc.?

Critical as in "good"?

Critical as in "deep"?

Critical thinking is vague in both connotation and denotation.
Click to expand...

Critical as defined by ME. Getting to the truth of whatever you are doing, studying, building; whatever.
 
Last edited:
^ awesome quote.


But scholars back in the day wrote in books that the Negro was biologically inferior to caucasians and passed it off as fact. Would that still stand if people hadn't started thinking critically?
 
I'd imagine being a scholar is as much about knowledge as it is about being critical about what you learn and who you learn it from. You gain your knowledge from one source, you will never really know the truth. Some people are just ****ing idiots though.

Not that I'm a scholar, far from it. I'm a man of the world not a man of the books.
 
MadTiger3000 said:
Critical as defined by ME. Getting to the truth of whatever you are doing, studying, building; whatever.
Click to expand...

Getting to the truth? I suppose that would develop a great work ethic -- it's like the mathematical concept of "approaching infinity" in that you'll never, ever reach it.

Isk2009 said:
scholars back in the day wrote in books that the Negro was biologically inferior to caucasians and passed it off as fact. Would that still stand if people hadn't started thinking critically?
Click to expand...

Through a self-fulfilling prophecy, the Negro was biologically inferior:

His DNA caused his skin to be black --> Black people were (at the time) considered to be inferior --> Inferior people were given less opportunities --> With fewer opportunities, the black person can't do much --> A black person who can't do much perpetuates the stereotype that he is inferior

This, of course, loops back to "Black People were considered to be inferior", except with "evidence" that the black man is inferior, and the cycle perpetuates itself more strongly.

Attitudes (the "black people are considered to be inferior") and vicious cycles ("fewer opportunities lead to inferiority") needed to be broken in order for the situation to be changed.

Somebody needed only to adopt the viewpoint that black people were inferior in order to create some truth in it. Likewise, somebody needed only to adopt the viewpoint that blacks are equal or superior to create some truth in that viewpoint. Neither side needed to provide any evidence to begin with in order to shape reality to fit an attitude.
 
Last edited:
noblewordz said:
I'd imagine being a scholar is as much about knowledge as it is about being critical about what you learn and who you learn it from. You gain your knowledge from one source, you will never really know the truth. Some people are just ****ing idiots though.

Not that I'm a scholar, far from it. I'm a man of the world not a man of the books.
Click to expand...

True, a lot of 'facts' are really just strongs opinions so its better to go around to see how many others share that same opinion and why they believe it to be true. Even then, though, you could still be wrong, lol.

---------- Post added at 07:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:23 PM ----------
Salem Beats said:
Through a self-fulfilling prophecy, the Negro was biologically inferior:

His DNA caused his skin to be black --> Black people were (at the time) considered to be inferior --> Inferior people were given less opportunities --> With fewer opportunities, the black person can't do much --> A black person who can't do much perpetuates the stereotype that he is inferior

This, of course, loops back to "Black People were considered to be inferior", except with "evidence" that the black man is inferior, and the cycle perpetuates itself more strongly.

Attitudes (the "black people are considered to be inferior") and vicious cycles ("fewer opportunities lead to inferiority") needed to be broken in order for the situation to be changed.

Somebody needed only to adopt the viewpoint that black people were inferior in order to create some truth in it. Likewise, somebody needed only to adopt the viewpoint that blacks are equal or superior to create some truth in that viewpoint. Neither side needed to provide any evidence to begin with in order to shape reality to fit an attitude.
Click to expand...

I see the point you're trying to make

But with all that being said, that doesn't provide any evidence that from birth, the black male/female is biologically inferior to the white male/female. All of the things you mentioned would only provide pseudo "evidence" that the black male was socially inferior.
 
Isk2009 said:
But with all that being said, that doesn't provide any evidence that from birth, the black male/female is biologically inferior to the white male/female. All of the things you mentioned would only provide pseudo "evidence" that the black male was socially inferior.
Click to expand...

Yes, you're right.

In a "blank slate world", nobody has an attitude towards anything, nobody is more likely to be rich just because their parents had money, nobody is likely to be poor just because their impoverished parents only knew what to do to be poor.

Unfortunately, none of us are born into this blank slate world.

What I'm saying is that a belief is often developed originally on faith as a hypothesis. Confirmation bias causes us to confirm our own suspicions about the hypothesis. After we've convinced ourselves that we're right, we model our reality after the hypothesis. Once reality is modeled after the hypothesis, we've generated evidence that the hypothesis is true. We notice this undeniable evidence that we've created, which enforces reality even more.

Things had to get ridiculous enough for enough people to act on faith in the inverse. A large amount of people had to believe, without evidence, that the original hypothesis was untrue. In fact, they had to believe against the "evidence" that had been created as a result from the original hypothesis.

It's just interesting to analyze these types of scenarios.

Most of the "positive thinking" books that have you say affirmations to yourself like "I am great at doing XYZ" are based on the idea that you'll be creating a positive self-fulfilling prophecy. The problem with these books is that there's a difference between saying something and believing it. These books usually start very useful changes in people who find it easy to believe something without evidence of its truth.

If you can learn the importance of a leap of faith, it's easier to make one.
 
Last edited:
^ I totally agree with you.

That positive thinking thing is the "science" behind those balance bracelet things. The bracelets themselves are totally useless, but people say they feel its effects. Their restored balance and all that other crap the bracelets advertise only come from the conviction within the user's mind that the bracelet is working. All the effects they feel with the bracelet on can easily be felt without it.
 
Last edited:
Isk2009 said:
^ I totally agree with you.

That positive thinking thing is the "science" behind those balance bracelet things. The bracelets themselves are totally useless, but people say they feel its effects. Their restored balance and all that other crap the bracelets advertise only come from the conviction within the user's mind that the bracelet is working. All the effects they feel with the bracelet on can easily be felt without it.
Click to expand...

And yet, we cannot ignore that these placebos are creating positive changes in peoples' lives. The only situation where such a bracelet isn't a win/win situation is if you're skeptical that it will work, yet you buy it anyway.

A prayer is a placebo, just like those bracelets are.

We shouldn't get rid of our placebos. In fact, we might be better off if we didn't recognize them as placebos, because in doing so, we have stripped them of their power to help us.

Then again, this puts us in a double-bind, catch-22 situation: The same faith that fixes some hopeless scenarios creates some other hopeless scenarios. Perhaps faith is simply faith and nothing much else can be said about it, negative or positive.
 
Last edited:
evrything should be balanced from living as THE TRUTH is much a fulfilling life .

keeping it real wit self no matter what .

copen skills helps but only few understand .wisdom comes within experience and experience is knoledge an knoledge is power ..the rest will fall into place

life balances itself out with an even keil..


i dont lie to myself thats why i named my self THE TRUTH ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top