Tag Archives: thinking

Sitting in silence

This afternoon I was emptying the dryer and folding my clothes in silence. This would normally not be anything worth noting but it occurred to me that I really don’t sit in silence much anymore. Cutting the grass, doing the dishes, cooking, doing the laundry, I almost always do these and other chores while listening to a book or a podcast. I fill the quiet with voices coming from my phone/headphones.

Folding my laundry today made me realize that I miss the quiet of thinking without a distraction. Just about the only other time I do this is while writing, and maybe that’s why this thought came to me, and why I’m sharing it now.

Who has time to intentionally sit in silence? Who makes that time for themselves? I think I need to find opportunities to do this, to ‘unplug’ from external thoughts and not just sit in, but be in silence. I wonder if the ever-present smartphone has made some people afraid of the silence of being alone?

Sitting Under a Large Tree

Sitting under a large tree, staring up at the branches, I can see that wind is a fickle thing. Some leaves and branches lay motionless, while others sway back and forth, while still others dance. The tree doesn’t resist. A larger gust of wind picks up, more of the tree moves this time, it undulates, absorbing the larger force, then settles down again.

Sitting under a large tree, I can imagine my ancestors doing the same. The kind of tree might have varied, but the experience would have been almost the same for hundreds and even thousands of years.

Sitting under a large tree can provide shade, shelter, even food. But more than anything, sitting under a tree provides time for quiet contemplation.

The wind blows, and leaves and branches dance again.

On bias… continued

I wrote about measuring bias yesterday. This comment by Joe Truss (my uncle) adds a lot to the conversation:

To add to the importance of Dave’s comment: a critical aspect of bias is the effect our local environment and context have on our opinions about what is happening in the world at large. People are very poor natural statisticians. When confronted with two similar events we begin to think ‘this is how it is for everyone’. An even deeper ‘local’ event is when we are upset or depressed, the entire world seems to be in line with our feelings. When we feel bad, the world seems bad. 

See: https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_the_best_stats_you_ve_ever_seen?language=en

https://www.gapminder.org
Take the awareness test on this link. ;-)}

Take the awareness test. I started guessing correctly not because I expected the result I was guessing, but because I was expecting the result to surprise me. We really aren’t good at estimating statistics and we make so much of the very little data we do know… and this shapes our bias… poorly.

Measuring bias

It’s not easy to see your own biases, and it’s really easy to see others. This in itself is a bias we all hold; This prevents us from measuring bias without bias.

And so, when we hold an ideology, it’s very hard for that ideology to be changed from the outside. A simple conversation won’t do it. It often takes a profound experience. The difference in scale needs to be large, or our own biases prevent us from making the leap.

It’s hard to measure how much our own biases change the way we look at the world, but if you think you see the world as it really is… well then it’s time to look deeply at that bias.

Inner voices

Have you ever wondered about that inner voice you hear? Who is speaking? And who is the voice speaking to?

Is the voice lifting you up or pushing you down?

Is the voice helping you make decisions or making your decisions difficult?

Is the voice convincing you to take action or has it convinced you not to?

There are times the voice listens to your body, telling you of hunger, thirst, or need of sleep. There are other times when it listens to your mind, telling you to question, to learn, to problem solve. These are times when the inner voice makes sense, it is a collaborator, an ally. There is congruence.

And then there are times it negotiates with you, telling you reasons you should or should not do something… it is indecisive or in conflict with your instincts. At these moments I wonder who is talking to who? When the scales tips and the decision is made, whose decision was it? Where does the incongruence come from?

Is there a path we can travel where we live in full congruence with ourselves? Can we find a path where our inner voice always acts in our best interest? Where we do not argue with ourselves? Is this a path worth seeking, or are we indecisive by nature and require internal conflict?

What does your inner voice think when it hears this question: Can our internal voice be harmonious?

Is that a realistic goal or an unrealistic expectation?

He who knows not…

I’ve seen this quote attributed as both a Persian and Chines proverb, and honestly don’t know its origins:

He who knows not, 
and knows not that he knows not,
is a fool; shun him.

He who knows not,
and knows that he knows not, 
is a student; Teach him.

He who knows,
and knows not that he knows,
is asleep; Wake him.

He who knows,
and knows that he knows,
is Wise; Follow him.

I wonder how many people are fools but think they are either students or wise? This seems to be a growing number. What’s interesting is how loud this group is:

Those that are asleep, they don’t know they have something valuable to share. Those that are students know that they have so much to learn before they share. Those that are wise know how futile it is to try to change a fool’s mind. That leaves the fools to profess what they ‘know’…

This is a paradox of the fool: the less they know the more they think they need to share what they know. And they have ways to get an audience.

The thing I most love about technology is the idea that we can find a community to connect to beyond our own geography. This is also a mechanism where fools can find other fools that believe the same bullshit they believe in. They find places to reinforce their stupidity and proselytize their ignorance. It has become easy to share bad ideas, to build an audience when the ideas shared are not deserving of that audience. We don’t shun the fools, we give them (digital) podiums, and in many cases their audiences are growing.

Today it seems that bad ideas spread easier than good ones. It’s easier for misinformation to go viral, and the boring truth does not spread. Worse yet, some of the bad ideas are not spread by fools, but by the hunt for clicks and advertising dollars. Clicks trump content, and stupidity prevails.

He who knows not, and knows not that he know not shares the most. And he who knows not, and knows not that he know not is more likely to believe the others who know not and know not they they know not… And we all get a bit more exposed to the stupidity. I think one of the most important skills of the future will be BS detection, because in the coming years, I think there will be a lot more of it dig through.

Pack your shovels.

Problemize the learning

Yesterday I heard Warren Woytuck from The Critical Thinking Consortium present at the ACE Conference. Here is one of his slides about problematizing a question:

Note how by adding value descriptors, by specifying the intention of the question, the question changes to one where students need to compare and contrast, to qualify, make judgements, and/or explain their answers. And more than that, students need to ask more questions to come to an answer.

To me, that’s the key to a problemizing a question… How can you change a question so that it provokes more questions? If you ask a question and either:

A) Google can answer it; or

B) You already know the answer students will come up with; or

C) All students come to the same conclusion…

Then you didn’t really pose a good problem. You didn’t promote critical thinking.

When your questions are problematized, students need to interact with the question in a more meaningful and engaged way.

The answer doesn’t seem right

Back in December I shared that we really don’t understand exponential growth. Well I’m about to share a question with an answer that will boggle your mind. All I ask is that you make a guess at the answer before looking at it.

Imagine we get every single human being on earth to play a ‘winner play on’ game of rock-paper-scissor. First, let’s round up the population to 8 billion. And let’s assume every one of them can play.

A game of Rock-Paper-Scissors with 8,000,000,000 people.

So the first round will be 4 billion pairs of people, with 4 billion losing, and 4 billion winning and moving on to the next round. The question is:

How many rounds of rock-paper-scissors will the winning person have to win consecutively in order to be the world champion?

Guess.

I’ll give you a hint: it’s less than 100.

What do you think?

Here is the answer.

Well, what if we added another 1/2 billion people? That would be 500 million more players, or 8.5 billion total. The answer would still be the same!

Hard to believe. It’s so difficult to wrap your mind around needing this many games to whittle 8 billion people down to one winner. It just doesn’t seem right… but it is.

What’s between our ears is the last frontier

That’s a quote my dad often shares,

“What’s between our ears is the last frontier.” ~ Abraham Truss

Isn’t it amazing how much we know about the complexities of life, the universe and everything, but we don’t know where consciousness comes from? We still debate whether or not we have free will.

There is so much we still don’t know about the last frontier.

Beliefs, facts, and free will

I’m not sure that I’m going to do this topic justice in a short daily-ink, so I’m just going to mind dump and see where this takes me.

I’ve written about the Bell Curve of Free Will, where I stated,

If we have free will then I believe that how much choice we have will be influenced considerably by our circumstance and by how virtuous we are.

I won’t try to explain this too much further here, visit them post if this idea interests you. The image I added tried to do too much with a single chart, but my main points were that 1. You have more choice when you have more wealth (better circumstances); and, 2. You have less free will when you are more virtuous. Example: A very virtuous person can’t choose to take advantage of someone for profit the way a less virtuous person can, but the less virtuous person can make the choice to do so, or to not do so, or to maybe be 1/2 ‘generous’ and take advantage for less profit than possible, because they consider themselves as being nice.

But where do beliefs fit in? And what does this have to do with facts?

I think we might have less free will than I originally thought because our belief system alters our view of what truth is. When you believe that your religion is the only path to your salvation, then the information that led you to this belief are going to seem like facts… and these facts limit your choices and free will. If you follow Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, or Judaism, you have beliefs about the world we live in that are different from the other faiths. Based on your interpretation, there are things you can and can’t do, such as dietary restrictions. In many cases, your choice of partner are limited, by faith, or even by gender.

But I’m just using religion as an example. We have many beliefs that affect our perception of facts, and that affect the choices we make. Conspiracy theories work like a religion. They paint the picture of a world that limits our choices and our ability to see alternative views. If you wholeheartedly believe the world is flat, you need to build a whole world model around how international flights arrive on time, and you have to construct entire belief systems around space flight and images of round stars and planets, and how gravity works. And when you do this, you literally create ‘facts’.

Other constructs of our beliefs alter the way we look at at facts, and how much free will we have to make choices. Because if we construct a world where we also construct the facts we choose to pay attention to, these created facts then limit the choices we can make.

If we don’t share the same beliefs then we don’t share the same truths. We alter facts to fit our beliefs.

How does someone on the political left vs the political right define the following:

  • Communism
  • Socialism
  • Fascism
  • Democracy
  • Social welfare
  • Liberty
  • Freedom
  • Religion’s place in politics

The definitions of these terms are very different on the political spectrum. Beliefs alter facts. Interpretations of these so-called facts limit our choices, our free will.

We don’t perceive the world as it is. Our beliefs define our world, define the things we are willing to accept as facts, and determine the choices we believe we have to make. Beliefs alter what we perceive as facts and limit our ability to make free choices.