We hate logic

Join a laid-back, close-knit community of mixed interests Get a free account!

  1. TheColorless Discussion #1: The (Critical) Thinking

    #1021602016-05-08 05:43:01 *Lieutenant said:

    Discussion #1: The (Critical) Thinking

    You're bored of the frontpage being flooded with games and unnecessary stuffs? Okay let's do a discussion then.

    Hello, to all the good samaritans of The Colorless,

    In this thread, I would like to initiate a discussion we all can analyze about. In here, I would like your opinions on the title I've put up there. Critical thinking. It's the state of able to think clearly to analyze a situation, yes? But what do you think this really means?

    Are you a good thinker? Is thinking fast necessary? What about thinking slow but rationally? What is the pros and cons of this? Is it really necessary to what extent? What effects will it bring to the subject you're striving for? What about the situation itself? How long will it let you think?

    Okay I should stop myself, that's a lot of questions, really, it can be endless. The human brain is something extraordinary, don't you think? What more can the mind achieve, you wonder..?

    There is no right or wrong answer, every opinion is greatly appreciated. You may take your time writing, putting facts or historical examples in general. Even though the general discussion is about Thinking for now, you may explore more to it accordingly to your liking.


    I look forward to your discussions and opinions.

  2. #1021672016-05-08 07:07:47lordhappyface said:

    I couldn't think of an answer to all of the questions but these are the ones I did decide to answer:

    Are you a good thinker?

    I feel this really depends on what I am thinking. If I am thinking or doing something I truly enjoy I will be more motivated to do it well so I guess that would cause me to think about it more accurately rather then doing something that bores me to death.

    Is thinking fast necessary?

    I also think this depends on the situation. A downhill mountain biker would need fast critical thinking to make the right decision when obstacles appear out of nowhere. However, if you are not it a fast paced setting it is not necessary and can sometimes be a burden.

    What about thinking slow but rationally?

    I think thinking slowly but rationally is a good think. Much better than thinking quickly and irrationally. Even though it takes longer, it is a much more thorough type of thinking and allows people to really think about what they want.

    What is the pros and cons of this?

    The pro's of fast thinking is you can assess and respond to situations that require a quick action and allows you to process different things more quickly. The con's are it tends to be less thorough and could have mistakes. The pro's of slower thinking are that it tends to be more thorough and well thought out. The con's are that if something abrupt comes up you may not respond in time.

    I may have interpreted this whole discussion wrong but this is what I think

  3. #1021682016-05-08 07:39:23Kirn said:

    Ooooh, discussion! Well, this is an interesting topic, so let's see....

    Are you a good thinker?

    Quite so. Extremely so. But maybe not in the way one would define as "good thinking". I don't think about stuffs better than most, I just do it more... controlled, maybe? I can decide what I am thinking about at any given time, which isn't as easy at it sounds, because at times it's really hard not to think about pink elephant. Also, my thinking, even about stuffs that directly concerns me, can be pretty detached. Like I am just random observer to the situation. It has its benefits.

    Is thinking fast necessary?

    Yes. Though, I guess, that would depend on how fast are we talking about here. For me thinking fast is like split-second decision, like which way to run when you are running away from a horse of zombies. Decisions like that are extremely important, but you don't really have time to think about those. However, with experience, thinking like that becomes instinctive - for example, you would pick escape routes based by some tell-tale signs. And will escape zombies much more efficiently.
    And fuck zombies, this is as simple as catching a ball. The act of catching a ball actually involves some high level geometry and reaction - you have to see the trajectory and decide on the best move to catch the ball while compensating for its force. It's a lot of thinking, even for modern computer. We do it instinctively, but that doesn't mean we don't think about it - it means we are trained to think fast about stuff like that.

    What about thinking slow but rationally?

    That would be more classical definition of thinking. Just sit, like Auguste Rodin's Thinker, and ponder stuffs. This is very important, because that's how you really think stuffs through. You have time, so you take in account all the possibilities, all the outcomes... Well, in the perfect case, anyways. In truth, it's not enough to just have time and think hard. You have to think smart, too. If you are thinking about some difficult situation, or some extremely complicated math problem, you just may not be smart enough or have enough knowledge to think up something good. Sad, but true.
    Another trap here - and this is very common - is when you think of solution to something. And you come up with something... and you think that it's a good solution... And that's it, you are now stuck. You should think of other solutions maybe, maybe some would be better, but you are now stuck into the way of thinking that looked optimal for you, and it's hard to break free from that. I think, this is viable when imagining some designs, or writing a story. You may think that plot twist you made is good, and it's hard to think about changing it. So yeah, thinking hard and long can lead you into a dead-end if you aren't flexible.

    What is the pros and cons of this?

    Hard to answer, really. As you can see from me descriptions, for me those are really two very different things. Thinking fast is more split-second instinctive deciding, and thinking rationally is serious pondering. Those two don't mix.
    I'd say, pros of both situations are obvious, but cons...
    For thinking fast con is that you don't have any real certainty that you made right decision until you see the result.
    And for thinking slow you may just overthink things much more than it's needed, which is also bad.

    So yeah, I guess, it all depends on how much time you have, and how serious the situation is. Ideally, you want to have just right amount of time to think, because having more may make you start to overthink, and it all goes to hell from there. At least that's my opinion - thinking too much can be bad.

    Especially if you take too much time thinking where to run from zombies. They will fucking get you.

  4. #1021802016-05-08 13:27:56Ha_Ru_Ka said:

    Are you a good thinker?

    I can say that I am quite an analytic person and somehow a fast thinker. Although sometimes certain factors, such as environment and motivation, affect my thinking skills.

    Is thinking fast necessary?

    Of course. Although it's not as precise as slow-but-accurate thinking, it enables us to create an initial thought on the situation or problem. Quick thinking is often associated with bias and/or stock knowledge.

    Fast thinking is good because it gives quick responses to problems using past knowledge and sometimes bias. However, thinking fast often leads to mental shortcuts, which is bad.

    What about thinking slow but rationally?

    Yes. It gives more accurate and logical answers. Furthermore, unlike fast thinking, slow but rational thinking go deeper. This kind of thinking is helpful in strategy.

    (I'm sorry for redundancies.)

  5. #1022332016-05-10 04:27:27 *Kuroba_Loki said:

    Are you a good thinker

    Well, I don't think myself to be the best, but I have my good points. I tend to see all points in a subject, whether good or bad, whether i like it or not...

    Is thinking fast necessary

    This is a question I've been thinking about for quite a while. But it actually depends. Most of the times, if you're given time to think, it's not to rush things by thinking quickly. This is because by thinking quickly, you tend to miss some points which might be fatal in defending your standpoint or the subject matter. But yes, think too slow and your idea will be invalidated by the other ideas that others came up with.

    What about thinking slow but rationally?

    As I said before, thinking slow and letting it seep into you gives you a wider viewpoint. It gives you more factors to base your opinion in. But again, too slow will result in your idea being invalid since it is buried under the other ideas that were thought up while you were thinking.