7 errors in thinking

I dont know how the education system works in US but unfortunately in my country they dont teach you how to think. Its a shame really, we are the only country on the earth who reject our glorious past despite the fact that many countries are proud with their history altho it cant be even compared to ours.

However i dont agree with many of the so called errors stated in the article. The whole article makes me think its written to fortify the evolution concept. :p They are like showing the left fist and hitting with right if you know what i mean.
 
Hakan said:
I dont know how the education system works in US but unfortunately in my country they dont teach you how to think. Its a shame really, we are the only country on the earth who reject our glorious past despite the fact that many countries are proud with their history altho it cant be even compared to ours.

However i dont agree with many of the so called errors stated in the article. The whole article makes me think its written to fortify the evolution concept. :p They are like showing the left fist and hitting with right if you know what i mean.
Click to expand...

Actually I think the article was written with people like you in mind. Nothing to do with evolution, just higher level critical thinking.
 
Higher level critical thinking? How so? Atleast 3 of those 7 points are related with patterns with some very stupid examples. If thats what critical thinking is thanks I dont buy it.

If you are talking about unbiassed thinking process you guys better apply it to yourself and start with evolution. It is not even a theory yet but its taught in schools like its a law.
 
Hakan said:
Higher level critical thinking? How so? Atleast 3 of those 7 points are related with patterns with some very stupid examples. If thats what critical thinking is thanks I dont buy it.

If you are talking about unbiassed thinking process you guys better apply it to yourself and start with evolution. It is not even a theory yet but its taught in schools like its a law.
Click to expand...

Yep, that's about how I expected you to respond. The article have nothing to do with evolution, but it is funny how defensive you are getting.

Patterning is one of the human brain's most powerful tools, but it also leads to a lot of biased thinking as well. Please specify which 3 you think are all related to patterns.
 
Defensive? How so? Best defense is always offense.:p I made a patternal :p guess with my biassed thinking. :D

Biass is not about patterns, bias is to try to see the things u want to see and ignore the rest. Patterns and observation is the tools of brain to function. Since evolution denies the pattern in universe (by this denial actualy it should deny any pattern but cant do that coz even Darwin wouldnt dare that) by denying the will. knowledge and power behind the existance, its only safe to assume to claim what i guessed either by intention or subconcious.

Now lets see which points are related with patterns.

1- Confirmation biass, the example given here is a pattern with a trick example. 2-4-6 ? Since human minds looks for a logical pattern (which is simply an other evidence of creation) ofcourse the answers saught a corelation. Claiming this saught of corelation is a stupid mistake is a try to invalidate the usual work of mind and to force it to accept a rather stupid approach of not seeking a pattern and/or cause behind things.Obviously mankind is able to do things for no reason but even that is not rule but an exception.

3- In this point the writer gives a hint about his agenda. The whole point is about evolution.

and for the rest its mixed semi-true , semi-false statements and some very extreme examples, like the recency bias. In that point ppl are said to take the recent data into account becoz of memory. But what if they think like that becoz they were seeking a behavioral pattern and thus taking the recent data more serious since it would be more likely to effect the present decision making? I am not gona even comment on the anchor one. If you take morons or stupid blondes like that chick they would answer that way.

At the end of the day, this article doesnt cary much scientific or even basic logical value.

P.S after replying I read some of the remarks on the official article . Altho noone claimed what i did (not too many geniouses out there:p Over-confidence bias harhar), many ppl objected to the article in general with similar arguments.
 
Last edited:
Hakan said:
Defensive? How so? Best defense is always offense.:p I made a patternal :p guess with my biassed thinking. :D

Biass is not about patterns, bias is to try to see the things u want to see and ignore the rest. Patterns and observation is the tools of brain to function. Since evolution denies the pattern in universe (by this denial actualy it should deny any pattern but cant do that coz even Darwin wouldnt dare that) by denying the will. knowledge and power behind the existance, its only safe to assume to claim what i guessed either by intention or subconcious.

Now lets see which points are related with patterns.

1- Confirmation biass, the example given here is a pattern with a trick example. 2-4-6 ? Since human minds looks for a logical pattern (which is simply an other evidence of creation) ofcourse the answers saught a corelation. Claiming this saught of corelation is a stupid mistake is a try to invalidate the usual work of mind and to force it to accept a rather stupid approach of not seeking a pattern and/or cause behind things.Obviously mankind is able to do things for no reason but even that is not rule but an exception.

3- In this point the writer gives a hint about his agenda. The whole point is about evolution.

and for the rest its mixed semi-true , semi-false statements and some very extreme examples, like the recency bias. In that point ppl are said to take the recent data into account becoz of memory. But what if they think like that becoz they were seeking a behavioral pattern and thus taking the recent data more serious since it would be more likely to effect the present decision making? I am not gona even comment on the anchor one. If you take morons or stupid blondes like that chick they would answer that way.

At the end of the day, this article doesnt cary much scientific or even basic logical value.

P.S after replying I read some of the remarks on the official article . Altho noone claimed what i did (not too many geniouses out there:p Over-confidence bias harhar), many ppl objected to the article in general with similar arguments.
Click to expand...

Given the inferences you made, you fell into the biases listed in the article by seeing a pattern and conformations in his examples that you wanted to see (evolution). Key is, everyone makes these biases, the ones who deny it more are often the ones making them more often. :)

I said you were being defensive because you immediately jumped on the evolution trend, then you generalized folks to boot. Nice little biases you were showing.
 
I said so becoz its the only logical conclusion other than calling them idiots for deeming a too natural seek of corelation a stupid mistake.

Bias is not something to be afraid of unless it occurs in the process of thinking and it should not be mixed with being objective. If one has to stay unbiassed through his entire life, its pointless even to think since you will never come to any conclusion. So i found the whole article something to make unclear minds dizy, if you know what i mean and thus reached to that conclusion.
 
I put 2, 4 ,6 in a paper and showed to Mooby. And asked that same question. I always thought he thinks different than common folk. :p (I mean some of you and me) No, I'm not bragging that he is intelligent. Buts, I was curious... Anyway, so I ask him about the rule of the triplets and he said, and I quote, "They go from small to high in value".

:eek: <---- My reaction

Then he asks, what answer do you want mathematical or logical? Or I can come up with something with no sense at all. Then he laughed.

He's been joking a lot lately... but that's besides the point. :p
 
Hakan, I agree with part of what I think you are saying - how the given test data aren't necessarily a good example.

Take number 7 for instance. Who would ever speak for a person who they are truly against? Most of the time you would be right in your assumption of the person's position. That means that most of the time this is hardly even an "error". But maybe it really is - if they could give a better example study.

As far as evolution, I don't know what you are talking about. I didn't see anything about that in this thread or in the article until you brought it up.
 
Darein said:
Hakan, I agree with part of what I think you are saying - how the given test data aren't necessarily a good example.

Take number 7 for instance. Who would ever speak for a person who they are truly against? Most of the time you would be right in your assumption of the person's position. That means that most of the time this is hardly even an "error". But maybe it really is - if they could give a better example study.

As far as evolution, I don't know what you are talking about. I didn't see anything about that in this thread or in the article until you brought it up.
Click to expand...

The biggest problem with evolution is to fail to give a logical explanation to the existing patterns in the universe. To accept a pattern means there is something intelligent, willful and powerful behind the patterns or you would have to assume that intelligence, will and power exists in every particule but then you cant explain how they dont clash plus in order not to accept one god u would accept contless gods not even mentioning the first existance problem still remains.
 
Artica said:
I put 2, 4 ,6 in a paper and showed to Mooby. And asked that same question. I always thought he thinks different than common folk. :p (I mean some of you and me) No, I'm not bragging that he is intelligent. Buts, I was curious... Anyway, so I ask him about the rule of the triplets and he said, and I quote, "They go from small to high in value".

:eek: <---- My reaction

Then he asks, what answer do you want mathematical or logical? Or I can come up with something with no sense at all. Then he laughed.

He's been joking a lot lately... but that's besides the point. :p
Click to expand...

My first thought was they were even #, ascending order numbers. But I am used to taking a lot of tests where they always ask you that exact same question. But the way they worded the rest of it was a bit odd, and it took me a minute to grasp it. My next set would have been like 8 10 12 or something - which was close, but more accurate than they were looking for.

Look for "laser point" accuracy is one of the things we're taught in school. Teachers will often ask questions with a general idea that one or two of the answers (if multi choice of course) would work out - but only one of them is the exact respond required.
 
Hakan said:
Higher level critical thinking? How so? Atleast 3 of those 7 points are related with patterns with some very stupid examples. If thats what critical thinking is thanks I dont buy it.

If you are talking about unbiassed thinking process you guys better apply it to yourself and start with evolution. It is not even a theory yet but its taught in schools like its a law.
Click to expand...

Thanks, Hakan, for providing us a good example of example of the effects of #1, #2, #3, #5, and #6 combined. I think any of them can apply. Perhaps all do. :p:lol:
 
Hakan said:
The biggest problem with evolution is to fail to give a logical explanation to the existing patterns in the universe. To accept a pattern means there is something intelligent, willful and powerful behind the patterns or you would have to assume that intelligence, will and power exists in every particule but then you cant explain how they dont clash plus in order not to accept one god u would accept contless gods not even mentioning the first existance problem still remains.
Click to expand...

Hakan, that's #3, the Clustering Illusion.
 
Darein said:
Hakan, I agree with part of what I think you are saying - how the given test data aren't necessarily a good example.

Take number 7 for instance. Who would ever speak for a person who they are truly against? Most of the time you would be right in your assumption of the person's position. That means that most of the time this is hardly even an "error". But maybe it really is - if they could give a better example study.

As far as evolution, I don't know what you are talking about. I didn't see anything about that in this thread or in the article until you brought it up.
Click to expand...

People on high-school and college debating teams have to speak for the position they are assigned, whether they personally agree with it or not. I believe it's a matter of course for a team to prepare for both positions in the debate, then be assigned the position randomly at the start of the contest.

One of the ways of coaching politicians for debates is to "red-team" them. This involves an ally, i.e., one who fundamentally agrees with the position, to take the opposite position and argue it as best as possible. In order to do something like that, it is necessary to see the strengths of the opponents position and the weaknesses of one's own.

This all leads up to the following principle: if you cannot separate the semantics of an opponent's position from your emotional reaction against it, you very likely cannot rationally analyze either your own position or your opponents, and you very likely are blind to the weaknesses in your own position.
 
Poldano said:
Thanks, Hakan, for providing us a good example of example of the effects of #1, #2, #3, #5, and #6 combined. I think any of them can apply. Perhaps all do. :p:lol:
Click to expand...

I figured the point was lost on him as soon as he brought up evolution into the discussion.
 
Poldano said:
People on high-school and college debating teams have to speak for the position they are assigned, whether they personally agree with it or not. I believe it's a matter of course for a team to prepare for both positions in the debate, then be assigned the position randomly at the start of the contest.

One of the ways of coaching politicians for debates is to "red-team" them. This involves an ally, i.e., one who fundamentally agrees with the position, to take the opposite position and argue it as best as possible. In order to do something like that, it is necessary to see the strengths of the opponents position and the weaknesses of one's own.

This all leads up to the following principle: if you cannot separate the semantics of an opponent's position from your emotional reaction against it, you very likely cannot rationally analyze either your own position or your opponents, and you very likely are blind to the weaknesses in your own position.
Click to expand...

...
Still think it is a lame test.

Also, I think debates are pointless and dumb. :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top