The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
how do I learn about modes/methods of thought?
Chaotic Descent
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
modes/methods of thought are sort of like games you play. they have different rules, and it's pretty arbitrary which one you play. and unless the game you started out with was one that discourages you from playing other games, you're free to try different ones out as you like and switch between them.
That's my theory, anyway.
I don't really know much about them, like what the category of "modes/methods of thought" are actually called, or what specific names of ones in that category are called.
I'm actually pretty rigid in my thinking, and have little awareness of most of the operation, but I don't think that's uncommon. Most people just say "I did that" and that's the end of the story. Their advice to others consists of "do what I did" with the preface "just", as if all non-mentally-retarded people were immediately compatible with their thoughts and actions.
That's my theory, anyway.
I don't really know much about them, like what the category of "modes/methods of thought" are actually called, or what specific names of ones in that category are called.
I'm actually pretty rigid in my thinking, and have little awareness of most of the operation, but I don't think that's uncommon. Most people just say "I did that" and that's the end of the story. Their advice to others consists of "do what I did" with the preface "just", as if all non-mentally-retarded people were immediately compatible with their thoughts and actions.
Chaotic Descent on
0
This discussion has been closed.
Posts
Maybe read up on a few books about logic.
but they're listening to every word I say
I'd like to at least know what the category name is (nothing on wikipedia), and possibly a nice comprehensive list if I can't find one from a proper category name. Ideally some info, like whether some of them are ... outdated? (can they be outdated the way theories are if they're just games? well ways of thinking are often linked to beliefs in theories...?)
*wikipedia* It looks like that's a sub-category, but still not the entire thing nor a single form of it.
I recently re-stumbled upon "logical fallacies". That's a way of thinking. Not usually a desirable one, but one none the less. (It might still be useful to experience it personally rather than just learning about it. Boy, that would be something. Making yourself think a certain way despite not believing it's something you should do. I imagine you'd have to get over odd hang-ups to do that.)
Oh sweet Jesus. It's this guy again.
Get out of the house. Go to a library. Read some Bertrand Russell. Just stop making the same thread every month.
Why would you want to think about the wrong thing?
Doesn't that kind of thing happen already and then you test its logic? I know I have some dumbass ideas right off the bat when I think about most things, everyone has thoughts that don't hold up under scrutiny. It isn't like a person automatically thinks the correct thing.
If you are simply curious about scientific theories that are outdated by further evidence check this out
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theory
but they're listening to every word I say
Well, there's also things which are neither true or false. or things that are only relatively true or false. Not everything is like math.
I find the replies of you people as repetitive and tiring as you find my questions. All I hear from you people are general things of no value. The only rationale I can come up with it is this:
If someone has sufficient interest in something, they will pursue it. If they do not have sufficient interest, they will not pursue it. Method of pursuit is irrelevant, as efficiency will inherently spring forth from motivation. So what's the point in giving them advice? They'll either do it or they won't, regardless of what anyone tells them.
I'll add it to the list.
I still haven't gotten through this one Carl Jung book I wanted to read. and of course I mentioned it and someone else was like "Oh, don't bother with Jung and Freud. They aren't relevant these days.". I could read enough to form my own opinion, but do I REALLY need to (waste my time to) read all the Twilight books to confirm what everyone says about them being trash? It's nice to have guides. Human lives are very short. then again, you can waste away a life worrying and analyzing as well. *shrug* It would be nice if it were easier to filter out the crap more quickly.
You might take that as a cue to stop posting here. For good.