NationStates Jolt Archive

Certian topics of late have me thinking again about the differant ways in which people think, and why.

I am as most of you may know by now I'm dyslexic, which although can be quite painfull for the rest of you, is now fine by me.

The thing with that though is I have had to find mechanisms by which to get and maintain knowledge, and I have found my way of thinking about things, or the way that my brain handles certian things, differant from the non dyslexic brain.

For example it took me years to find a methoed of performing mental arithmatics, and even now my way of performing the sum 123+48+123= is differant than my peers.

So I would ask are we trapped into certian modes of thought and thinking, or can we understand and try to emulate other 'mindsets'?

we do whatever is easiest because we are lazy and don't tend to dick about

for instance if you find that laying out sums in a certain way is easier you will do that and thus get good at it and ra ra ra

So I would ask are we trapped into certian modes of thought and thinking, or can we understand and try to emulate other 'mindsets'?
A bit of both.

We can, quite easily, fall into patterns of thinking, but we can also go through experiences, some self-initiated, that dramatically change our ways of viewing the world around us. Often, these have to do with how we view our self and its relation to the world.

Indeed, (almost) every human does this around the ages 10-12 when they fully realise their individuality as separate from their family, guardians, community, etc.; that's why those teenage/young adult years are so trying, and why so many cultures have, I believe, 'rites of passage' or markings of 'adulthood'. Note, however, that this 'realisation of individuality' isn't (necessarily) a realisation of separateness, far from it.

Yes and no.
I think a lot about learning is learning different thought processes. Learning maths teaches you to think differently, learning a language teaches you to think differently, learning about histoty teaches you to think differently, and just interacting with new people regularly teaches you to think differently.

I think of it as providing mental shortcuts... when you learn math, you learn shortcuts to counting, for example. Once you can do that, you can perform certain thought processes faster, and with less energy.

Live and learn, I guess. ;)

For example it took me years to find a methoed of performing mental arithmatics, and even now my way of performing the sum 123+48+123= is differant than my peers.


My way of doing that is to add 2 to each of the numbers so I have 125 + 50 +125 = 300 then subtract the extra 6 I added on. What is your method?

we do whatever is easiest because we are lazy and don't tend to dick about

for instance if you find that laying out sums in a certain way is easier you will do that and thus get good at it and ra ra ra

This is nice example of what I mean actualy. Do we all tend to do whichever is easist? Or is that your brain taring all of us with the brush that you as an individual use(so to speak)?

My way of doing that is to add 2 to each of the numbers so I have 125 + 50 +125 = 300 then subtract the extra 6 I added on. What is your method?

I would add the two 123's together to make 246, then add the 40 to make 286, then replace the 6 with the the 8 from the 48 to make 288, split the 6 into 2 and 4 add the 2to make 290, and finaly add the 4 to make 294.

I would add the two 123's together to make 246, then add the 40 to make 286, then replace the 6 with the the 8 from the 48 to make 288, split the 6 into 2 and 4 add the 2to make 290, and finaly add the 4 to make 294.

That is....very different!

That is....very different!

Heh yeah I know, of course if I was writing it down on paper I would do if differantly. As I say I find that my brain more easily gets around the problem if I think of it in that way.

For example it took me years to find a methoed of performing mental arithmatics, and even now my way of performing the sum 123+48+123= is differant than my peers.

My technique is to reach over and grab the calculator... But in all seriousness, my mental process is roughly thus: 100+100 = 200, 20+20 = 40, 3+3 = 6 thus you get 246, forget the 200 for a second to deal with the 48, 40+40 = 80, 6+8 = 14, thus you get 94, thus the final answer is 294.

As a kid, I always hated the 'shortcuts' that maths teachers would suggest, probably because they went against my established process. There was this one for the 9 (or was it 7?) times table that was, I thought, particularly dumb, it took more thinking to use the 'shortcut' than to just work it out the long way! I know other kids always found these really useful, though, which only added to my confusion.

But your question is an incredibly interesting one, which I've often pondered. I distinctly remember the time that I discovered that I was colour-blind. I was sorting out the little 'pins' of a mastermind set into separate colours, when someone told me I was sorting them wrong, I was mixing the greens with the browns. I looked at the little pile of greenish-brown pins, and they all looked the same to me. I could only tell the difference by looking really closely, but apparently, to everyone else, the contrast was as bright as blue and red. After that I always wondered what the world looked through other people's eyes. I suppose the difference is that people are born colour-blind, but people learn how to think. Perhaps, if you suddenly became a telepath and could hear people think, it would be the thought equivalent of listening to a foreign language?

So I would ask are we trapped into certian modes of thought and thinking, or can we understand and try to emulate other 'mindsets'?

As a rule, yes. We all use certain cognitive strategies (let's call them shortcuts) to process information, and generally as we get older these become more complex to allow use to process greater amounts of data in increasing complexities. What these strategies are will vary depending on how we were taught and what our innate cognitive capabilities are.

In theory, there is no reason why people should not be able to master a new cognitive strategy throughout life, and indeed often people do. However, how useful any individuals strategy might be will depend on innate cognitive preferences/processes (ranging from issues such as dyslexia to simply being better/worse at certain forms of processing) and also how effective our pre-existing strategies are. Unfortunately though, often when learning at new, and especially more sophisticated, strategies it is slower at first than the old one, leading many people to discard it, however once you have gotten used to it, it will end up being quicker.

I guess a good analogy to this is using shortcuts with a computer. At first it may be slower as you try and remeber what the short cut is to cut and paste as opposed to using the menus/mouse. But once you've got used to it, it will be much, much quicker.

This is nice example of what I mean actualy. Do we all tend to do whichever is easist? Or is that your brain taring all of us with the brush that you as an individual use(so to speak)?

I can't imagine why you would purposely make a task more difficult without actually going "okay I'm going to play and do it this way"

when working out simple sums I certainly don't sit there and ponder what method I'm going to use

As a rule, yes. We all use certain cognitive strategies (let's call them shortcuts) to process information, and generally as we get older these become more complex to allow use to process greater amounts of data in increasing complexities. What these strategies are will vary depending on how we were taught and what our innate cognitive capabilities are.

In theory, there is no reason why people should not be able to master a new cognitive strategy throughout life, and indeed often people do. However, how useful any individuals strategy might be will depend on innate cognitive preferences/processes (ranging from issues such as dyslexia to simply being better/worse at certain forms of processing) and also how effective our pre-existing strategies are. Unfortunately though, often when learning at new, and especially more sophisticated, strategies it is slower at first than the old one, leading many people to discard it, however once you have gotten used to it, it will end up being quicker.

I guess a good analogy to this is using shortcuts with a computer. At first it may be slower as you try and remeber what the short cut is to cut and paste as opposed to using the menus/mouse. But once you've got used to it, it will be much, much quicker.

This sounds like a good explanation. As I mentioned earlier, as a child I never adopted mathematical 'shortcuts' for the times/division tables because they seemed excessively complicated, but on the other hand, I never did actually manage to memorise the whole times tables.

I can't imagine why you would purposely make a task more difficult without actually going "okay I'm going to play and do it this way"

when working out simple sums I certainly don't sit there and ponder what method I'm going to use

Again a lovly example, thank you. Because you can't imagine it does that mean that people don't do it?

Again a lovly example, thank you. Because you can't imagine it does that mean that people don't do it?

yes, unless I'm some sort of hideous half-man half-sloth sewer freak only emerging to the human world at night to consume hairy virgins

we are naturally lazy and like doing the simplest method because well thats what animals generally do to survive

yes, unless I'm some sort of hideous half-man half-sloth sewer freak only emerging to the human world at night to consume hairy virgins

we are naturally lazy and like doing the simplest method because well thats what animals generally do to survive

Now unless you can show me how that is in fact true for all of us, then I guess you expect me to take you at your word on that?

Let see if I can give you an example that counters your claim.

I'm currently learning how to play the guitar, I have been having some problems switching between chords, namly D and G, I noticed the other day it would be easyer for me to barre the top strings of the D chord instead of wrap two fingers into that position expressly for switching between these two chords.

I choose not to do that, I choose instead to carry on the hard route in a effort to build up the muscle memory.

I can assure you that I am not 'some sort of hideous half-man half-sloth sewer freak'

I am as most of you may know by now I'm dyslexic, which although can be quite painfull for the rest of you, is now fine by me. Oh, it's not painful for us, it can be amusing. My "wily" brain interpreted your thread title about the brain and its "willey" ways quite interestingly.

I would add the two 123's together to make 246, then add the 40 to make 286, then replace the 6 with the the 8 from the 48 to make 288, split the 6 into 2 and 4 add the 2to make 290, and finaly add the 4 to make 294.

pretty much the same as me, 123 + 123 = 246 + 40 = 286 + 8 = 294. What exactly is wrong with this method?

One theory of how the Neo Cortex works is Jeff Hawkin's memory prediction framework model. There's also a brief explanation on it on Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory-prediction_framework

Depends if you're sane. I can emulate ANY midnset.:D *Heavy twitching, demented look*