Flippng channels on this TV set my political beliefs in the early 70's
Posted on 05/13/2023 4:38:11 PM PDT by devane617
While people change and learn throughout life, experts recognize that certain formative periods, known as developmental windows, are crucial for acquiring particular skills. For example, using vocalizations and words to interact with people in the first few years of life is critical for children's language learning.
A recent study by an international team from UCLA, Romania and Israel suggests there may be a developmental window for reasoning skills as well—the first 25 years of life—and that a person's social, political and economic environment strongly influences how they acquire these skills. Their findings are published in the journal PLOS One.
The researchers found that following the collapse of Romania's authoritarian communist regime in 1989, the rapid increase in education and technology use and the transition from a single, government-controlled source of information to diverse sources had a strong effect on the way people, particularly younger generations, thought about and determined truthfulness, a process known as "epistemic thinking."
Epistemic thinking runs the gamut from absolutist thinking, the belief that only one claim can be right, to multiplist thinking, the belief that more than one claim could be right—it's just a matter of opinion. Finally, evaluativist thinking posits that assertions can be evaluated in terms of both logic and evidence.
(Excerpt) Read more at phys.org ...
Flippng channels on this TV set my political beliefs in the early 70's
Me, too!
That TV was our basement TV.
My Dad came down one night and said “What the heck are you watching?
From then on, he watched it every night it was on with me.
Good times on steroids.
The author assumes that people align their thinking to authoritarianism when the Romanian experience proved that people were merely conforming their behavior to avoid getting killed by their government.
As soon as they overthrew and killed their oppressors they were free to behave in conformity with their conscience.
Thank you...
I used to read the Opinion pages on this ancient device called a “newspaper” — read the entire section every day. I must have been a slow learner, because I didn’t really “get” it until I saw the Berlin Wall come down and remembered The Gipper’s words.
Women think? Wow, I learn something new every day.
.
.
.
.
JUST KIDDING!
They are correct, but they do not explain why. Censorship was severely increased during the Trump administration, as a way to get rid of Trump.
we have known for years that alcholol fetal syndrome stops brain development.
So does perversion.
It is possible to be so open minded that your brain falls out.
Ok, slightly longer version, according to the article there are three ways of thinking about things, there are those who believe there is one truth, there are those who believe there are many truths, and there are those who try to take what is presented and run it through the filter of logic to say what is or is not truth.
That last, in the "truth" of the researchers, is what is the highest order of thinking. It isn't but lets leave that for now.
There is a lot of blah blah but it comes down to if you only are allowed one view point you have the first kind of thinking, if you only had one view point and that view point is knocked down you get the second and if you go beyond that you begin to evaluating things based on physical evidence and logic.
All of these view points are related to age according to the researchers. That is BS but so is a lot of this article.
When you are a child your world should contain lots of TRUTH in big letters. It is six o'clock, mom will be calling me to dinner. Good. It is six o'clock, maybe I get fed, maybe I get tortured, maybe I get ignored, maybe the panda will come to life and eat me. Not good.
When you get older you see that while there may be TRUTH there is also other ways of doing things. Your dinner time may be six but the dinner time of other children may be seven and some may not get dinner at all.
Supposedly the last stage should be people get off work and by the time they get home it is about 5:30, allowing an hour for cooking dinner will be at 6:30.
The stage beyond that, which they do not acknowledge is the idea that there should be a dinner time and if you do not eat eventually you will die. You also need social interaction over food at least occasionally. It is probably one of our oldest human rituals. Tossing it away is undoubtedly unhealthy.
This to them is regression back to childish thinking because it allows room for only one truth. You need to break bread with other people. They get their knickers in a knot about it. It is not based on logic and reason you see, it is based on a deeper level of knowing.
That is pretty much it.
Get it?
Got it.
Good.
Oh and of course there is the mandatory swipe at Trump.
I was in Berlin soon after the wall came down.
Never cried harder. But they were cries of joy.
Well, pilgrim, here is what ChatGPT4.0 had to say after I fed him the entire article:
This article discusses a study that suggests there is a developmental window for reasoning skills in the first 25 years of life, and that a person’s social, political, and economic environment strongly influences the acquisition of these skills. The study focused on Romania after the collapse of its communist regime in 1989 and its rapid shift towards democracy and a market economy. The researchers observed the influence of these changes on the way people thought about and determined truthfulness, a process known as “epistemic thinking.”
The study found that younger generations in Romania exhibited more evaluativist thinking (evaluating assertions based on logic and evidence) due to higher education levels and exposure to diverse information sources. Older generations displayed more absolutist thinking (believing only one claim can be right), possibly due to their limited exposure to diverse information during the communist regime.
The researchers concluded that the developmental window for epistemic thinking is open during the first 25 years of life, and that the social environment produced by a combination of democracy and a market economy more frequently led people to evaluate multiple possibilities. The authors also suggested that their findings can help explain why unrestricted access to information and personal opinions can sometimes lead to absolutist thinking and authoritarian politics.
User
So the authors identify “believing only one claim can be right” is a bad thing and “evaluating assertions based on logic and evidence” is a good thing. However, their underlying assumption is that “evaluating assertions based on logic and evidence” can never lead to a single, right, answer. Did I understand it correctly?
ChatGPT
Not exactly. The authors do not state that “evaluating assertions based on logic and evidence” can never lead to a single right answer. They discuss three types of epistemic thinking: absolutist, multiplist, and evaluativist. Absolutist thinking is the belief that only one claim can be right, while multiplist thinking is the belief that more than one claim could be right—it’s just a matter of opinion. Evaluativist thinking is the process of evaluating assertions based on logic and evidence.
The authors argue that evaluativist thinking is more beneficial because it encourages critical thinking and considering multiple perspectives, as opposed to absolutist thinking, which limits one to a single “correct” perspective. Evaluativist thinking allows for the possibility of reaching a single right answer, but through a reasoned and evidence-based process rather than simply accepting a claim without questioning it.
User
It seems that if a person used evaluativist thinking to arrive at a single right answer, that some other person could claim that they had arrived at the answer without questioning it.
ChatGPT
Yes, it is possible for someone to misinterpret or misunderstand the process by which another person arrives at a conclusion. If a person uses evaluativist thinking to arrive at a single right answer, they would ideally have considered multiple perspectives, weighed the available evidence, and employed logical reasoning. However, an observer might mistakenly assume that the person simply accepted the answer without questioning it, especially if they are not aware of the thought process behind the conclusion.
To avoid such misunderstandings, it is essential for people to communicate their thought processes clearly and provide the rationale behind their conclusions. This allows others to understand the reasoning and evidence considered, as well as providing an opportunity for further discussion and potential refinement of ideas.
User
The article states that “Changes in the authoritarian direction happened in the U.S. under the Trump administration, the study authors said, and have recently been happening in other countries around the world.” Now those of us who were paying attention during the Trump administration noted that a lot of the agreed upon “facts” were actually “fabrications” so authors seem to be decrying the fact that people didn’t believe the lies they were told.
ChatGPT
The article does mention that the study authors observed changes in the authoritarian direction during the Trump administration. However, it is important to note that the authors’ focus is on the impact of various social environments on epistemic thinking, rather than commenting on specific political events or the validity of individual claims.
The concern raised in the article is that the rise of personal opinions, as well as the decline in the importance of agreed-upon facts, can contribute to information silos and absolutist thinking. This situation can make it difficult for people to discern truth from falsehoods and can lead to polarization and divisiveness in society.
The authors advocate for evaluativist thinking, which involves considering multiple perspectives and evaluating assertions based on logic and evidence. This type of thinking can help individuals navigate the complex information landscape and make informed decisions, even in the face of conflicting claims and misinformation.
User
“The authors also said they believe their findings can help explain why unfettered access to information, social media and a plethora of personal opinions can sometimes lead in the opposite direction—toward absolutist thinking and authoritarian politics. “ Seems as if they are commenting on political events and the validity of individual claims.
ChatGPT
You’re correct that the authors are commenting on the potential relationship between the information environment, epistemic thinking, and political events. The quote you provided highlights their observation that unrestricted access to information and a multitude of personal opinions can sometimes lead to absolutist thinking and authoritarian politics.
The concern the authors raise is related to the challenges posed by the current information environment. In such an environment, where there is a vast amount of information, misinformation, and differing opinions, it can be difficult for people to make well-informed decisions. This can result in individuals clinging to absolutist thinking, which might further contribute to polarization and the rise of authoritarian politics.
Their study emphasizes the importance of fostering evaluativist thinking, which involves considering multiple perspectives and evaluating assertions based on logic and evidence. This approach can help people navigate the complex information landscape and make better-informed decisions, even when faced with conflicting claims and information.
User
ChatGPT4.0, please apply your AI Language Model to the idea that too much information with evaluativist thinking can lead to absolutist thinking and authoritarian politics.
ChatGPT
The concept that too much information combined with evaluativist thinking can lead to absolutist thinking and authoritarian politics is an interesting one. While evaluativist thinking encourages individuals to consider multiple perspectives and evaluate assertions based on logic and evidence, an overwhelming amount of information can create challenges in the decision-making process.
Information overload: With the rapid growth of information sources, such as social media and online news outlets, individuals may experience information overload. The sheer volume of information can make it difficult for people to effectively evaluate and process all available data, leading to cognitive fatigue and difficulty in making well-informed decisions.
Conflicting information: When there is a vast amount of information available, individuals are more likely to encounter conflicting viewpoints and information. This can create confusion and uncertainty, potentially causing some people to revert to absolutist thinking as a coping mechanism. In this case, they may choose to accept a single perspective or source of information as the “right” one, ignoring or dismissing alternative viewpoints.
Polarization and echo chambers: In the face of an abundance of information, people may gravitate towards sources that align with their pre-existing beliefs and biases. This can create echo chambers, where individuals are exposed primarily to information that reinforces their beliefs and filters out opposing views. As a result, people may become more entrenched in their beliefs, contributing to polarization and potentially paving the way for authoritarian politics.
Misinformation and manipulation: With the widespread availability of information, it becomes easier for malicious actors to spread misinformation and manipulate public opinion. Evaluativist thinking can be undermined when false or misleading information is presented as credible evidence. This may lead individuals to form absolutist beliefs based on inaccurate information, which can contribute to the rise of authoritarian politics.
To mitigate these risks, it is crucial to promote media literacy, critical thinking skills, and an understanding of logical fallacies and biases. Encouraging open dialogue and fostering a culture of intellectual curiosity can help individuals navigate the complex information landscape more effectively, reducing the likelihood of absolutist thinking and the rise of authoritarian politics.
User
You aren’t going to give an absolutist answer, are you?
ChatGPT
As an AI language model, my purpose is to provide information, answer questions, and facilitate discussion while remaining as neutral and balanced as possible. I am not here to impose absolutist answers or dictate a specific point of view. My goal is to help you explore various perspectives and ideas so that you can make informed decisions or form your own opinions.
If you have any specific questions or concerns, please feel free to ask, and I will do my best to provide a well-rounded and balanced response.
User
But we know that but not imposing an absolutist answer when there is only one answer you are not being logical. For example, assuming the natural number sequence 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,9,... the only correct answer to what is 2 + 3 is 5. Don’t you agree, absolutely?
ChatGPT
Yes, you are correct. In the case of mathematical problems, like the one you mentioned (2 + 3), there is an absolute and objective answer, which is 5. In such situations, providing an absolutist answer is logical and appropriate.
However, when discussing complex social, political, or philosophical topics, the answers may not always be as clear-cut or absolute. In these cases, my goal is to provide a balanced perspective and explore different viewpoints, to help users better understand the topic and form their own opinions.
User
What knowledge domains are susceptible to absolute thinking?
ChatGPT
Some knowledge domains are more susceptible to absolute thinking due to their inherent nature, which often involves clear-cut answers or principles that are widely accepted as true. These domains typically have well-defined rules, principles, or methodologies that lead to specific outcomes or conclusions. Examples of such domains include:
Mathematics: Mathematical problems often have definitive answers or solutions, and the discipline relies on well-established rules and principles.
Physics and Chemistry: These natural sciences involve fundamental laws, constants, and principles that govern the behavior of matter and energy. While there are areas of ongoing research and discovery, many aspects of these fields are governed by absolute rules.
Formal logic: Logic is a system of reasoning based on clearly defined principles and rules, which allows for the determination of the validity of arguments and conclusions. In formal logic, an argument is either valid or invalid, and conclusions can often be categorized as true or false.
Computer science and programming: Computers operate based on binary logic (0s and 1s), and programming languages consist of rules and syntax that must be followed for code to function correctly. While creativity is involved in designing algorithms and solving problems, the underlying principles and rules governing the functioning of computers and programming languages are absolute.
However, it is important to note that even in domains with more definitive answers, there can be areas of ongoing research, uncertainty, or debate. Additionally, many real-world problems involve the intersection of multiple domains, which can introduce complexity and ambiguity, making it more challenging to arrive at absolute conclusions.
User
So biology is not susceptible to absolute thinking?
ChatGPT
Biology, as a scientific discipline, does have certain principles, laws, and theories that are well-established and can be considered “absolute” to some extent. However, biology is also a vast and complex field, encompassing various sub-disciplines and dealing with numerous living organisms and systems. This complexity and the ongoing research in the field can make it less susceptible to absolute thinking compared to other more well-defined disciplines like mathematics or physics.
In biology, there are many instances where a phenomenon cannot be explained by a single, definitive answer. Biological systems are often influenced by multiple factors, and the relationships between these factors can be intricate and sometimes poorly understood. Furthermore, our understanding of biological processes is continually evolving as new research and discoveries are made.
Thus, while certain aspects of biology can be considered absolute, the field as a whole is less susceptible to absolute thinking compared to some other disciplines. It is essential to approach biological questions with an open mind, recognizing that our understanding of biological systems may change or be refined over time as new information becomes available.
User
What is the level of complexity that identifies the knowledge areas where absolute thinking becomes inapplicable?
ChatGPT
There isn’t a specific level of complexity that can be universally applied to identify when absolute thinking becomes inapplicable across all knowledge areas. The applicability of absolute thinking largely depends on the nature of the questions being asked and the degree of certainty or consensus within the field. In general, absolute thinking tends to become less applicable in knowledge areas with the following characteristics:
High level of uncertainty: Fields where there is still much to discover, or where our understanding is incomplete or constantly evolving, are less conducive to absolute thinking.
Interdisciplinary nature: When a knowledge area involves the intersection of multiple disciplines, the complexity of the subject matter increases, making it difficult to reach definitive conclusions or apply absolute thinking.
Qualitative aspects: Knowledge areas that involve qualitative assessments, subjective experiences, or value judgments are less likely to support absolute thinking, as they rely on individual perspectives and interpretations.
Context-dependency: When the validity or applicability of a concept depends on specific circumstances or contexts, absolute thinking may not be suitable, as the concept may not hold universally across all situations.
Complexity of the system: In fields dealing with complex systems, such as ecology, economics, or social sciences, there are often multiple interconnected factors that influence outcomes. The relationships between these factors can be intricate and difficult to tease apart, making it challenging to apply absolute thinking.
It’s important to recognize that even in knowledge areas where absolute thinking is less applicable, there may still be underlying principles or generalizations that can guide our understanding. However, these principles may need to be applied with flexibility, taking into account the nuances and complexities of the specific context or situation at hand.
Romania only had two.
We have a lot more work to do.
The Romanians executed a few more than just the Ceaucescus. Maybe they weren’t formal executions but the commie scum got killed anyway.
Good riddance.
but politics is a game of mind control and uses both to control the impressionable people, (like the author of this article, and especially people under 25 )
I was just using a little hyperbole.
I have this fantasy about the WEF globalists all heading to one of their meetings in their private jets when suddenly ALL of their jets depressurize simultaneously (much like five states simultaneously stopped counting votes on 2020 election night) and they all get Payne Stewarted and their jets keep flying until they run out of fuel and fall into the ocean.
That would be such a shame.
My daydream is dropping a 5MT nuke on Davos. Literally vaporize the globalists and wipe their temple from the earth.
Yes, 5MT is vast overkill....but it sends a message.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.