tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post3570105489181982433..comments2024-02-29T03:34:23.190-05:00Comments on Who Were the Sea Peoples?: Verbal thinkers are biased towards verbal thinkinggcallahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-73264328445703716942015-05-06T22:49:30.361-04:002015-05-06T22:49:30.361-04:00Indeed. It's so obviously false it's hard ...Indeed. It's so obviously false it's hard to take Feser's claim seriously. I feed a stray cat. When anyone approaches it runs, but when I call out it recognizes my voice and stops. Then it returns to the bowl. Is it that my voice is a cat magnet? It is impelled by Ken's Law of Cat Attraction? Or that the cat thinks? <br /><br />Pinker destroys the claim in detail in his Stuff of Thought book. Ken Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08207803092348071005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-11159188231653683072015-05-06T13:34:05.649-04:002015-05-06T13:34:05.649-04:00I agree with this. The whole MBTI model might or m...I agree with this. The whole MBTI model might or might not be the best way to get at what's going on, but I think it's useful.<br /><br />It seems like you almost have this situation where the INTJ personality type has taken over, and analytical type thinking has come to dominate everything -- even where it isn't appropriate -- and people just accept this. It is to the point that they pretty much get to set the terms of any sort of debate or inquiry, and if you fall outside of this, it isn't 'serious' or legit. They'll often even go so far as to attach it to you personally -- if you question their approach, or dare to defend some other approach, it's like you've committed a mortal sin or debased yourself out of your humanity. You're an animal!<br /><br />But as you point out, often it is other approaches which yield the most insight into situtions. At least in science, it seems like people have created this delusion that the way you do it is somehow 'logical' or deductive, when really what you're doing is imagining answers through your minds-eye -- just like in your example about solving the time problem. Yes, you can 'navigate' an abstract system and flesh it out logically *once you've got the system.* But you've got to imagine the system first! <br />Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12915297057336831151noreply@blogger.com