“This study applied a dual-processing model of [the mind] to show that analytic reasoning overrides flawed intuition and diminishes religious belief” -Gervais [ link ].
I’m no mystic but I believe there’s a flaw in this logic. Claiming that analytic reasoning supercedes intuitive thinking is a false comparison. Analytic reasoning is not native; it is an acquired skill. It doesn’t have it’s own ‘processing system’ in the brain. The mind is a hybrid and analytic reasoning is just one of many ways of knowing. Discovery and invention come about just as often by integration and ‘insight’. Navigating unfamiliar territory is faster by seeing the relationship between vague and loosely-connected information than by using step-by-step analysis [ link ].
Analytic reasoning takes practice and devotion to it means neglecting other skills. When I consider all the technical writing I’ve done that required logical analysis; it’s a wonder I can suspend critical thinking long enough to accept things as they are. This may be dangerous. Invention takes a creative leap - a vision outside the confines of analytic thought. I do feel that technical writing has been stifling. For instance, after working on predicate-based software for so long (the kind that runs on legacy systems); it took me a while to grasp the more intuitive-based ‘object-software’ - which are the ‘apps’ that power devices running on the Internet today. After all, this was a sea-change brought about by the invention of Mitch Kapor and the vision of Steve Jobs. Neither of them knew for sure what the pay-off would be. It required a leap of faith.
4 comments:
Interesting point about analytic reasoning being an acquired skill. I've always considered myself to be the most logical person in my circle of friends yet I can't ignore my heart.
Also the study's majority participants would have been brought up in an environment that tends to take things literally and when you take religious myth literally it becomes hard to justify them as rational to an honest analytical process.
Lastly I'd argue that analytic reasoning, when observing nature, should lead you to conclude that the world is naturally cyclical and resurrection is commonplace. It would then be practical to project that behavior onto our life form as well.
Yeah, I've been treat my feelings same as ideas. Discovered how big a role they play in my decision-making, from clothes to grocery shopping, which floored me ..logistician that I am.
I agree, naturalistic observation is valid and, by extension, applies to us as well.
"I agree, naturalistic observation is valid"
Really? Can you prove that, or is that just your intuition?
complete intuition and conjecture on my part ..
Post a Comment