Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below
Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.
Similar documents
Study of associative, functional, psychoanalytic and genetic theories of thinking. Mental operations: generalization, abstraction, synthesis, comparison, concretization. Logical forms of thinking. Individual characteristics and qualities of thinking.
presentation, added 03/06/2015
Characteristics of thinking - a phenomenon that provides a generic feature of a person. Concepts, judgments, conclusions as logical forms of thinking. The main types of thinking: visual-effective, verbal-logical thinking, abstract-logical.
test, added 11/04/2011
Ideas about the rudiments of animal thinking and the levels of its complexity. Study of the elementary thinking of animals, their consciousness and intelligence. Peculiarities of animal thinking using the example of the corvid family. Animals' ability to generalize and abstract.
abstract, added 01/13/2014
Features of the development of thinking in older preschoolers: essence, types, forms, age characteristics. The problem of thinking as a subject of psychology in foreign and domestic schools. Development of methods for diagnosing the level of development of thinking in preschool children.
course work, added 12/03/2010
The psychological essence of thinking and its levels. Features of types of thinking. Individual psychological characteristics of thinking. The relationship between thinking and speech. Methods for diagnosing thinking. Methods for diagnosing thinking in preschool children.
course work, added 07/24/2014
Definition of thinking as the highest form of reflection of reality. Theories of the development of human cognition in typhlopsychology. The role of thinking in compensating for visual impairments in children. Visibility in mastering concepts, correct judgments and conclusions.
test, added 07/21/2011
Speech and thinking as psychological concepts. Speech and its functions. Basic forms of thinking. Behaviorist model of speech utterance generation. The relationship between speech and thinking. Practical recommendations for the prevention of thought and speech disorders.
course work, added 06/09/2014
Cause-and-effect thinking provides the logical foundation on which informed decisions are made. It helps you choose the right course of action and analyze all possible choices. As a result, we can understand and weigh the possible results, that is, the consequences of our actions.
When teaching children cause-and-effect thinking, the main goal that parents should set is for children to understand the connection between their own behavior and the resulting consequences. Children learn to manage their behavior as they become aware that good behavior leads to positive outcomes and bad behavior leads to negative outcomes. To become responsible people in the future, they must master cause-and-effect thinking skills and improve them until they become automatic.
Children enter life not yet able to consciously determine their behavior. As they grow older, their ability to make decisions also increases; Parents play an extremely important role in its development. Of course, most parents have the goal of raising their children to be able to make common sense decisions and regulate their own behavior. Therefore, the main role in the period between infancy and adulthood is given to education, and one of its most important aspects is to help children make increasingly complex decisions regarding their behavior.
How to develop cause-and-effect thinking in a child?
This kind of thinking of a child underlies the making of conscious decisions about choosing a line of behavior, allowing him to understand and confidently predict the results of his actions. If I make such and such a decision, then the consequences will most likely be such and such. Once children are introduced to the concept of cause-and-effect thinking, they should grasp it firmly and practice the pattern until it becomes familiar to them. When this ability reaches automaticity, children can be considered prepared to make conscious decisions regarding their behavior.
Although children can learn to predict the possible outcomes of their actions through trial and error, they will learn this skill better and faster if their parents, teachers, and other people involved in raising them encourage the formation and development of their cause-and-effect thinking skills. Constant repetition of this pattern is necessary for children to understand that every action will have consequences - good or bad - and some consequences can be very serious.
Cause-and-effect thinking in adults
Adults constantly use cause-and-effect thinking, so they hardly think about how this process is carried out. In fact, it happens very quickly and almost unconsciously. For example, if we are late for an appointment, then the force of pressure on the gas pedal in the car depends on many cause-and-effect processes that occur at the subconscious level and almost do not affect consciousness. If the road is slippery, the car may skid, resulting in an accident. If the traffic is very intense, then in order to drive quickly you will have to often change lanes from one lane to another. If other drivers are not attentive enough to my maneuvers, a collision may occur. If a cyclist suddenly appears in front of me, I will have little time to brake or avoid him. If there is a patrol on the road, then this threatens me with a fine. If the road is dry, traffic is light, there are no cyclists, and there is no patrol, then the likelihood of negative consequences decreases and you can increase the speed.
We run through an endless list of possibilities and their consequences in our heads at lightning speed. Driving a car is a common activity, but while behind the wheel we are constantly making quite complex decisions, most of which use cause-and-effect thinking in the context of our experience, allowing us to consider many potential consequences. Driving a car is just one example that demonstrates that even adults have to regulate their behavior every day. We are constantly juggling - albeit mostly unconsciously and automatically - complex inferences, exploring possibilities and their potential consequences.
Newborns do not have the skills to perform this complex mental gymnastics, but they begin to make decisions at a very early age. Thus, the task of parents is to promptly develop cause-and-effect thinking skills in children and facilitate their process of making informed decisions.
The most appropriate time for such training is the early stage of development of children's thinking potential, that is, between the ages of approximately two and a half and three years. At this time, children are already able to learn to regulate their behavior if they can confidently predict its consequences.
Cause and effect thinking
Let's move on to consider the first cognitive style: analytical, positive, deductive thinking. Let's call it cause-and-effect. Its carriers are socionic types IL (ILE), LF (LSI), FR (SEE), RI (EII).
As statics, they are stable and clear in their mental activity, as evolutionists, they think procedurally, without missing details and intermediate links, and as positivists, they strictly move towards one, the only correct decision.
Cause-and-effect intelligence is known synonymously as formal-logical or deterministic thinking. In both cases, his tough character is emphasized. Speech with this kind of thinking is formed using connectives (conjunctions of reason) “since”, “because”, “therefore”. The mental process itself consists of constructing chains of cause and effect. They reduce explanation to pointing to producing causes. If we use the example of Aristotle, who first pointed out four ways of explaining phenomena, then the reason for the existence of a sculpture is the sculptor who directly sculpted it.
In the scientific sphere, IL (ILE) thinks this way, in the technical and managerial sphere - the methodical LF (LSI), in the social sphere he calculates the chains of material interests FR (SEE), in the humanitarian sphere he is subordinated to the categorical imperative RI (EII).
Aristotle is considered the discoverer of this thinking technique. The basic laws of formal thinking were outlined by him in the theory of syllogism. However, the first who consistently put it into practice was Euclid, who constructed the famous geometry. In modern times, its principles were substantiated by the rationalist Descartes in his Discourse on Method (1637). Then it finally took shape in mathematical logic. Cause-and-effect thinking reached its apogee in logical positivism, then its importance began to decline more and more towards the end of the 20th century. However, as a mass stereotype of evidence, it still prevails today.
Let me touch on its advantages. Firstly, it is perceived in society as the most authoritative, convincing, and the only correct one. In mathematics it is formalized as a deductive-axiomatic method. Mastering it requires great intellectual endurance. Secondly, this style of thinking is characterized by greater clarity and concentration. The LF type is particularly concentrated. However, the irrational FR (SEE) also reasons quite sensibly, deducing one consequence from another, which involves focusing on a chain of steps. If at least one link drops out for some reason, then determinists lose the sense of reasonable explanation and find it difficult to take actions, since they see no reason for them.
But at the same time, cause-and-effect thinking also has its drawbacks. Firstly, it is the most artificial, far from the laws of functioning of living things. Its effectiveness extends to the “logical” design of existing results, the design of working mechanisms, but not to fundamentally new discoveries. The first dead end into which formalization risks leading is scholasticism, that is, pointless, albeit logically impeccable reasoning. Secondly, consistent determinists, deducing the whole from its parts, fall into another intellectual dead end - the trap of reductionism. This shortcoming was noticed by ancient skeptics, and in modern times by Hume, who doubted that any event is dictated by a strict cause.
Indeed, when constructing long chains of cause and effect, it is difficult to avoid the danger of cycling, the risk of falling into circulus vitiosus - a vicious circle in proof. In the theorem on the incompleteness of formal systems, K. Gödel states that any sufficiently complex system of rules is either contradictory or contains conclusions that can neither be proven nor disproved by the means of this system. This sets the limits of applicability of formal logic. Using the formal deductive method, medieval scholastics, in particular, tried to strictly prove the existence of God. As a result of closing cause and effect in a circle, they came to the definition of God as a thought that thinks itself.
Cause-and-effect thinking gives rise to a psyche that is poorly protected from training or, in extreme cases, even zombification. By skillfully combining words and memorable actions, you can achieve control over the behavior of specific people. Intellectual determinists, in particular, are characterized by a strong dependence on childhood events, which, as S. Freud once discovered, are poorly understood in full. The habits of pronounced determinists are comparable in their rigidity to conditioned reflexes.
Standard military interrogation techniques are designed taking into account guaranteed cause-and-effect effects on the psyche. It includes such measures as sleep deprivation, changes in temperature and/or humidity in the chamber, deprivation of food with its subsequent distribution as a reward, etc. Isolating the arrested person and gradually imposing his instructions on him sooner or later bears fruit, since over time an unstable-thinking person develops dependence on the investigator conducting the interrogation.
It is significant that in extreme, extremely compressed situations, people who think in a cause-and-effect way experience a “slow motion” effect. Thinking becomes especially clear, but stretched out over time. Seconds subjectively lengthen to minutes. For the same reason, sudden mental shocks and sudden stress greatly inhibit their brain activity until deep sleep.
This model of the psyche is used by the psychological school of behaviorism. Its supporters believe that learning any behavior is carried out through training - encouraging adherence to the rule and punishment for violating it. B.F. Skinner formulated the principle of operant conditioning, according to which the behavior of living organisms is completely determined by the consequences to which it leads. He proposed a method of successive approximations, in which the learner receives positive reinforcement when his behavior becomes similar to the desired one.
The concept of programmed learning, developed by behaviorists, also bases its actions on a strictly step-by-step method of moving towards a goal.
Formal logical thinking at one time gave rise to a cause-and-effect picture of the world. This is a picture of the world of classical physics, the cornerstone of which is Newtonian mechanics. As a paradigm, it dominated until the beginning of the 20th century. Rigid systems—mechanisms, organisms—function according to these rules. However, where multifactorial processes occur (psyche, society), reductionism, explaining complex phenomena through their simple components, loses its explanatory power. In addition, the classical paradigm is too susceptible to the influence of the positive idea of progress, while in history there are many examples of negative-regressive tendencies, rollbacks, repetitions of what has already been done, etc.
A full-scale model of cause-and-effect thinking is a representation of information in the form of a drawing or realistic drawing. They are produced using direct perspective. Closely located objects in this technique are depicted larger, and distant ones, respectively, on a smaller scale, in proportion to their distance from the observer. According to such a drawing, following strict instructions, any product can be easily manufactured.
__________________________________________________________________________
Dialectical-algorithmic thinking
Of particular interest is the second cognitive form: synthetic, negative, deductive thinking. The working name of this thinking is dialectical-algorithmic. Representatives of this thinking are the socionic types ET (EIE), TP (OR), PS (LSE), SE (SEI).
As dynamics, these types are good at synthesizing holistic images, as deductive thinkers, they increasingly complicate them, and as negativists, they work well with contradictions and paradoxes.
An essential distinctive feature of the dialectical style is the reflection of the world as a unity and struggle of opposites. In speech, it uses the syntactic construction “if-then-else”, which predicts options for the development of the process. At its limit, dialectics strives to find an intermediate point of dynamic equilibrium between extremes. Dialectical intelligence is born from the collision of the flow and countercurrent of thought, consciousness and the unconscious. Thinkers of this style are distinguished by a pronounced desire to synthesize opposites, to remove the contradictions that they perceive so acutely.
Its advantages are obvious: it is the most flexible and sophisticated thinking. It can easily switch to the opposite direction and is predictive. It is accompanied by an effective type of associative memory. Algorithmic thinking is also good at solving classification problems because it has the gift of recognizing complex patterns. Behind the conditions of the problem, it sees a typical algorithm for solving it.
According to Aristotle, dialectical-prognostic thinking explains the world on the basis of target causes. For example, the reason for the appearance of a sculpture is the idea of it in the sculptor’s head. The main role here is played by the program, the creator’s intention. Thus, it can be considered teleological, and therefore the most religious in its essence, thinking. Many scientists of this type sooner or later come to faith (not necessarily church-confessional).
Historically, the first representative of the dialectical understanding of the world in history should be called Heraclitus. Absolutizing the dynamic pole, he was of the opinion that “you cannot enter the same river twice,” because different waters flow to those who enter the second time. In modern times, his theory was expanded into an extensive rational system by Hegel. Since dialectical intellect, compared to other forms of thinking, is most creationist-oriented, it inevitably leads to the idea of a creator, the absolute, cosmic mind, etc.
Its two representatives - ET (EIE) and TP (OR) are usually perceived in society as the most intellectual types. They form the backbone of various intellectual elites, clubs of experts, esoteric groups, etc. They are also the best computer programmers, since they are better than other types at working with moving structures - algorithms. The algorithm diagram consists of blocks and arrows showing the order of transitions, branches and cycles. Moreover, the main thing in the program is its dynamic part - arrows, not blocks. The formula “if - then - otherwise” is, in fact, the core of any algorithm.
The disadvantages of dialectical-algorithmic thinking include instability and vagueness. Algorithmists suffer from the difficulty of making a choice, of making an unambiguous decision. This thinking can be compared to a symphony, a stream of intertwining images, rather than a well-oiled mechanism. Another problem is increased criticality, which can be so high that it causes self-destruction, puts one in danger of complete separation from reality, and in the presence of a hereditary predisposition, with a certain probability, leads to mental disorders.
In dialectically thinking types, the psyche is most susceptible to transformation. From a psychological point of view, an unstable, transformable psyche represents the most fertile ground for suggestibility. The fact is that dialecticians sometimes do not have time to control parallel flows of thought in their heads! You just need to synchronously adapt to their internal fluctuations between freedom of choice and fatalism and strengthen the latter pole. Doctors know that a small, but precisely timed shock can plunge the heart into a state of fibrillation. In the same way, a well-directed signal leads the dialectical psyche into a chaotic state.
The socionic type ET (EIE) has a very suitable psyche for suggestive influences. It is characterized by so-called moments of imprint vulnerability. At these moments, a quick suggestion is triggered - an imprint, the necessary prerequisite for which is fear, confusion, surprise. A “no exit” sign, suddenly seen by a person with an algorithmic psyche at a moment of severe mental turmoil, can serve as a trigger for a decision to commit suicide. Exploiting the paradoxical thinking of dialectical types, shock therapy is capable of completely reprogramming their perception of the world, including the main value judgments.
A sure, although rare, sign of dialectical thinking is an accident that leads to states like deep fainting or coma, and then to insight or the discovery of special abilities.
The second option is slow suggestion, which is mainly based on rote learning through pronunciation and/or listening. It comes down to repeated repetition of the same phrase with variations. The variations are especially significant. They work the same way as a chorus in a song. A trance state is gradually generated - external relaxation with internal concentration. The more monotony, the sooner a deep trance is achieved. So, some people calm down and quickly fall asleep to the monotonous drone of the TV.
Dialectical thinking corresponds to a quantum-probabilistic picture of the world, developed by non-classical physics. According to this paradigm, there are no hard and fast laws, only trends and probabilities. Quantum mechanics is built on the principle of wave-particle dualism, which is unusual for common sense, according to which objects of the microworld behave either as a corpuscle (particle) or as a wave. On this issue, there was a dispute between two great physicists of the 20th century - A. Einstein and N. Bohr. The first defended cause-and-effect determinism as the main principle of nature, the second - probability. In the end, Bohr won. Although this dispute, if we ignore the historical context, makes no sense, because both thoughts are dual to each other. Jung's principle of synchronicity also lies in line with the dialectical paradigm.
Contemporary British mathematician Roger Penrose proposed that human intelligence uses quantum gravity as a tool for intuitive insights. He even wrote several books (“The Emperor’s New Brain,” “Shadows of the Mind”) in which he proves that the brain is a quantum computer and logical Aristotelian thinking is alien to humans. If he is right, then it follows that the integral type of person is dialectical-algorithmic.
The full-scale model of this thinking is dual images that periodically transform into each other. The simplest of them is the projection onto the plane of a truncated pyramid. When examined for a long time, it alternately appears to be either convex, with its top facing the observer, or deep, with the back wall extending into the distance.
Another clear illustration of dialectical perception. What do you see in the picture: a vase on a black background or two profiles on white? It depends on what will be the background for you and what will be the figure. Some see a vase, and the profiles for them turn into a dark background, while others see, on the contrary, two black profiles, and the white vase fades into the background. But as soon as a person sees both images, fluctuations in attention begin. The picture seems to pulsate: you see now a vase, now profiles. There is a dialectical change of background/figure. Negativistic reverse perspective works when distant or darkened objects are presented as more important than those located close to the observer.
__________________________________________________________________
Holographic Thinking
In the theory of intelligence, the third cognitive form is the least studied: analytical, negative, inductive thinking. It is possessed by socionic types FL (SLE), LI (LII), IR (IEE), RF (ESI). The conventional name for this intellectual style is holographic, or fully descriptive thinking. The term comes from the ancient Greek words holos - whole, whole and grapho - I write. The basis for this name was the ability of holographers to pack information very densely using the “like in like” method.
Like statics, holographists achieve good clarity of thought, like negativists periodically turn the subject of thought to the opposite side, and like involutionists abruptly change the perspective - the angle of consideration or the criterion of judgment.
This intelligent technique has much in common with the holographic principle in physics. A hologram (optical) is a statically recorded pattern of interference between two rays of light - reference and reflected, coming from the same source. Holographic technology allows you to obtain a three-dimensional image of an object. The hologram itself is a collection of stripes and spots that bear no resemblance to the captured object. In it, two separate rays of light appear superimposed on each other, and this happens in such a way that each part of the hologram carries information about the entire volume.
Thus, by mentally superimposing several projections of the same object, holographers achieve a three-dimensional effect. To do this, they look through the image and select the desired viewing distance. Holographic thinking is served by the following grammatical connectives: “or - or”, “either or”, “on the one hand, on the other hand”. It actively uses the principle of a menu, a free choice of point of view. Holographic approximation is a sequential approach to or distance from a target, accompanied by a change in angles. In the process of holography, a kind of focusing is carried out.
Holographic thinking has a characteristic skeletal-grasping, penetrating, “X-ray” character. It cuts off details and shades without regret. Gives a general, very condensed idea of the subject. Take for example two orthogonal sections of a cylinder. The horizontal section looks like a circle, and the vertical section looks like a rectangle. Two different manifestations of a single thing, when combined in the mind, provide a transition to a higher logical level of understanding of the subject.
This is how FL (SLE) thinks in battle. Analyzing the situation, he simplifies it to two or three projections (frontal, flank, rear), but quickly reaches a higher level of understanding. LI (LII) concisely grasps the problem from alternative sides, mentally turning the situation around its semantic axes. RF (ESI), then bringing a person closer and then moving away, seems to probe him from different sides, cutting off people who could let him down. IR (IEE) captures a person’s hidden, alternative motivations, as if building his psychological “hologram”.
The main advantages of holographic thinking are as follows. Firstly, multi-perspective. Due to this, as already mentioned, convexity, completeness of description, and holisticity are achieved. Secondly, it values simplicity and clarity. Avoids pretentiousness, "bells and whistles". Holographers are especially effective in crisis situations, when you need to make a decision quickly and there is no time to weigh all the details.
The obvious disadvantage of this style of thinking is that it is too crude, not paying enough attention to the details that become significant when the process runs smoothly. Its information products are difficult to unpack. To outsiders, they seem to lack the intermediate links that should provide coherence.
According to Aristotle, holographic thinking corresponds to explanation using structural or formative causes. Aristotle called structure form. If we return to his example with the sculptor, then the cause of the sculpture turns out to be a form hidden in it, which the sculptor simply frees by cutting off excess pieces of marble.
Vague ideas of holographic content were expressed by Leibniz in his Monadology. His monad, which reflects the entire world order in miniature, is very reminiscent of a hologram. Biologists systematically turned to him, trying to understand the reason for stability in nature. Due to the interrelations of living and inanimate nature that arise in a certain territory, biogeocenoses, or ecosystems, are formed. Ecosystems are primarily characterized by self-identity in time and equilibrium. In them there is a long coexistence of opposites without fusion (synthesis). In such communities, statics therefore prevail over dynamics. This is the basic law of the ecosystem, called homeostasis.
On the basis of these ideas, the general theory of systems was later formed. Its founder is considered to be the Austrian biologist L. von Bertalanffy, who introduced the concept of an open system - one that exchanges matter, energy and information with the environment and, due to this, resists disorganization.
If determinists explain the behavior of a system through its component parts and connections between them, then holographists find new qualities in it, which are described by additional combinatorial features that do not in any way follow from its internal structure. Therefore, the holographic paradigm can be generally called a systemic-ecological picture of the world.
The modern ideology of the “greens” is an absolutization of this thinking. This in no way means that the ideologists of this movement are holographic types. The technique of thinking and the system of declared views do not necessarily have to coincide! An absolutely typical case is the manifestation of one style of thinking through another. A good example is the books of the “quantum” psychologist A. Wilson, in which the dialectical-algorithmic form is filled with multi-view, holographic content.
Holographic thinking corresponds to a stable, non-zombie psyche. Compare, for example, the programmability of the psyche of a person with disabilities and his involutionary-mirror SLE. As practice shows, the degree of resistance to psychological invasion from the outside is much higher. What explains this? - A strong mental framework on which it is based. The comprehensiveness that a periodic change of point of view on an object gives. Good balance between the immune and nervous systems, as well as the main senses.
Neuro-linguistic programming uses this principle in a technique called reframing. Reframing is a change in the framework within which a particular event is perceived. If you mentally place a familiar object in an unusual environment, the meaning of the whole situation will change. Imagine, for example, a tiger, first in the jungle, then in a zoo cage, then on the threshold of your apartment. The socionic type is typically described as immersed in its “club.” What if you move it to a quadra? What if he finds himself among types with the opposite style of thinking? This series can be continued indefinitely.
With the help of reframing, you can look at something familiar with a fresh look. The type of psyche of a person who resorts to this technique is, of course, constant; only the attitude towards the subject of attention changes. The benefit from this technique is, first of all, that the new vision emphasizes those aspects of the situation that were previously underestimated, allows you to find new resources for growth, and expands the choices you have.
A physical, full-scale model of multi-perspective intelligence is a hologram - the overlay of several images in such a way that each of them is visible only when viewed from a certain angle. The change of pictures occurs spasmodically. In this case, it is not the system itself that changes, but only its priorities. This is how multi-criteria is implemented, allowing you to work with a complex system as if it were a series of simple ones.
Another full-scale prototype of holographic thinking is fractal objects. They were discovered by the mathematician B. Mandelbrot in the 70s of the last century. Geometrically, fractals are figures with blurry outlines that have a self-similar internal structure. For example, a tree, a snowflake, a coastline, etc. They are characterized by multiple internal investments like a nesting doll. As in a hologram, a small fragment of a fractal contains information about the entire fractal. The part always turns out to be structurally similar to the whole.
Socionic objects are such fractals. Hence my holographic concept of personality as a system of types nested within each other. It conflicts with the dominant flat socionics, which is defended by people guided by reductionist thinking.
____________________________________________________________
Vortex thinking
Fourth cognitive style: synthetic, positive, inductive thinking. The thinking of ES (ESE), SP (SLI), PT (LIE) and TE (IEI) occurs in these forms. The most appropriate name for this thinking is vortex, or synergetic.
Synergetics is the science of how order is born from chaos. The word "synergy" translated from ancient Greek means coordinated actions. Currently, the term synergetics continues to be debated. In Western sources it is called chaos theory or nonlinear dynamics. For our purposes, it is important to know that it deals with so-called dissipative structures - nonequilibrium, nonlinear, unstable.
How synergetics think dynamically, with one thought flowing into another, how positivists go to one point of attraction, how involutionaries often turn back, jump to the previous level, which curtails the flow of their thoughts like a vortex or a cloud changing its shape.
TE (IEI), as if in a kaleidoscope, sees bizarre, iridescent pictures - now moving in, now moving away. PT (LIE) thinks very experimentally: he quickly goes through many options in his head and tests them for practical suitability. ES (ESE) initiates social processes, leaving behind a trail of small emotional turbulence. Thoughts “swarm” in his head, displacing each other. SP (SLI) seems to be “drifting” and waiting for a fair wind. But as soon as the situation becomes favorable, self-organization begins - his thinking quickly starts, scrolling through incoming information, highlighting the most and least successful options for action.
The characteristic “vortex” means self-organizing, moving like a vortex. In fact, it proceeds as a quick search of options, their testing and subsequent elimination of those that do not produce results. It is based on testing - moving towards a goal through trial and error. In a certain sense, it can be compared to an experiment in a laboratory, which is the human brain.
The first advantage of whirlwind thinking is its liveliness and naturalness. It seems to imitate those processes that actually occur in nature. Another advantage is his belief in success and luck. Synergetics are not embarrassed by temporary setbacks and current mistakes. They make attempt after attempt until they finally succeed.
The biggest drawback of this thinking is that intellectual search is blind and therefore wasteful. Another difficulty is its chaotic nature, its spontaneity. Synergetic intelligence is a kind of chain reaction that unwinds itself. In this case, a positive feedback mechanism is triggered: if you do not stop in time, the concentration of effort first leads to an explosion, and then to a slow cooling.
Synergetic intelligence explains phenomena using substantial causes. The substance itself (substance, substrate), due to natural movement, gives rise to the phenomenon. Using Aristotle as an example, the material cause of a sculpture is the block of marble from which it was made.
Vortex thinking took shape as an independent paradigm and was appreciated by society later than everyone else, although it is the closest to natural phenomena. It is known that under natural conditions all processes occur as cycles. In a free economy, for example, A. Smith’s “invisible hand of the market” operates: cyclical fluctuations in supply and demand occur, which give rise to the natural price of a product.
Studying biological evolution, Charles Darwin discovered that its source is the struggle for the existence and survival of the most adapted organisms. The main engine of such “evolution” is precisely involution, since, firstly, the focus of events shifts to random variability and, secondly, there are no intermediate links between species; they do not arise smoothly, but abruptly.
Indeed, biological self-organization begins with mutations—sudden, unpredictable changes in genetic material. This is involution itself, which generates pulsating chaos, while the consolidation and replication of useful mutations is already an action of evolution.
The so-called concept of punctuated equilibrium tries to strengthen the innovation tendency in Darwinism and emphasize the spasmodic development of nature. Its authors, Gould and Eldridge, proceed from the fact that smooth, step-by-step changes in species are impossible under natural conditions. To survive, you need all organs in working order at the same time. There are no creatures that have half fins, half wings, half fingers, half hooves, etc. According to this theory, the lifetime of a species is divided into two stages of very unequal duration. The first stage is stasis, when nothing significant happens to the species for a long time. And the second period is the moment of turning point, when a species very quickly turns into another species or becomes extinct.
In the 20th century, as I already noted, the vortex principle was rediscovered and adopted by synergetics. The motto of synergetics is order through fluctuations. Fluctuations (local disturbances of the system) are an analogue of biological mutations. Socionics captured order in the chaotic development of complex socio-psychological systems through the law of turnover of quadra. However, we must not forget that in the irreversible changeability of quadras there are many involutional sections - explosions, leaps and turns. Because of this, the real, and not theoretical, evolution curve turns out to be jagged and winding. With its outlines it resembles the dancing flames of a burning fire.
This style of thinking gives the psyche such qualities as endurance and optimism. However, the psyche of synergetics is still less stable than that of holographists. Synergetics are partially programmable types, but capable of resetting unnatural programs. True, to restore normal mental life they need a certain and sometimes long period of trial and error. Life's adversities and stopping the usual forward movement have a bad effect on their thinking. A regularity works: the lower the speed, the worse the self-control, as when flying an airplane. If the pressure of oncoming air on the aerodynamic rudders weakens, the plane obeys them much less well.
The best countermeasure in such situations is positive self-programming. It involves pushing disturbing thoughts into the background and dissolving them into a positive scenario. TE (IEI) before going to bed imagines a pleasant picture and thus relieves the disturbing experiences of the day. PT (LIE) in his imagination draws the desired goal in all details and, like a positivist, eventually reaches the right people and resources. ES simply does not think about the mistakes of the past, and his mood improves on its own. SP (SLI) does not prioritize the positive development of events and tries to catch the moment when it can begin to implement it.
It is often forgotten that the synergistic component of development makes long-term forecasts unpromising. American meteorologist E. Lorenz figuratively called this phenomenon the butterfly effect. A butterfly that flaps its wings in some state of America can, under certain circumstances, cause a hurricane somewhere in Indonesia. Complex nonlinear phenomena are unpredictable because tiny initial influences sometimes lead to huge consequences. In ordinary life, this same phenomenon is called the domino effect. The initial fall of the first domino successfully entails a catastrophic fall of the entire row. The initial actions, which occur according to your will, determine which of the scenarios will start - pessimistic or optimistic.
This type of thinking reflects the synergetic picture of the world that is currently being formed. Within the framework of this paradigm, in the 18th century, the Kant-Laplace hypothesis about the vortex generation of the sun and planets from cosmic dust arose.
The synergetic paradigm is directed against creationism. She explains the emergence of complex systems by spontaneous generation, and not by external creation. Here is a typical example from the history of science. The hypothesis of biochemist A.I. Oparin about the spontaneous generation of life from inanimate matter - the primary “soup” in the early stages of the Earth’s existence was largely confirmed by the famous experiment of Stanley Miller, performed in 1953.
Academician N. Amosov presents his worldview strictly within the framework of the synergetic paradigm. In his opinion, “the evolution of the world is explained by the self-organization of structures... miracles are possible, but they have no practical significance.” He is sincerely convinced that matter can be recreated in computer models.
Synergetics recognizes the decisive role of chance and free will in transitional moments of history. Therefore, synergistically minded scientists consider alternative versions of historical events. In particular, the English historian A. Toynbee modeled this version of the course of ancient history - if Alexander the Great had not died (pessimistic version), how would the world develop then (optimistic version)?
A full-scale model of synergetic thinking is a turbulent flow. Turbulent is a flow of liquid or gas in which there is strong mixing of its moving layers. The behavior of such a flow cannot be predicted. The laminar phase of flow preceding turbulence follows a clear pattern and corresponds to cause-and-effect thinking.
For mathematical modeling of natural growth processes, power functions are usually used. Such functions describe not an arithmetic, but a geometric progression of quantities. The logistic (S-shaped) curve is especially often used for dynamic modeling. It necessarily ends with a saturation section. This means that self-organization is not omnipotent: having reached a certain limit, it exhausts its momentum of movement. Next, you must either give up your place to an external organization, or start a new center of self-organization. Synergetic types, of course, choose the latter.
Synergistically, taking into account involution, L. N. Gumilev explains the process of birth, growth and death of ethnic groups. The ethnic system dictates the rules for selecting certain behavior of people. Passionate personalities (eccentrics, renegades, dissidents...) provide society with various mutations. The social system restrains them until it weakens for some reason (economic crisis, civil wars, satiety with the blessings of life, etc.). After this, the energy of the new sweeps away the decrepit system and begins to vigorously develop in its place. But sooner or later it will grow old itself and will be forced to give way to another alternative system that has matured in its depths, etc.
This thinking is most difficult for people with an algorithmic understanding of reality, since for them teleology, fate, the special role of the programmer, etc. are opposed to free choice and the play of chance. When synergetics talk about hidden order in chaos, if they translate their words into the language of socionics, they state that systemic-holographic thinking, which captures folded ordering structures, is dual to chaotic-vortex thinking.
____________________________________________
Don - Dume: Cause-and-effect thinking - Dialectical-algorithmic thinking.
Max - Hamlet: Cause-and-effect thinking - Dialectical-algorithmic thinking.
Nap - Bal: Cause-and-effect thinking - Dialectical-algorithmic thinking.
Stir - Dost: Dialectical-algorithmic thinking - Cause-and-effect thinking.
Rob - Hugo: Holographic Thinking - Vortex Thinking.
Zhukov - Yes: Holographic thinking - Vortex thinking.
Dry - Jack: Holographic thinking - Vortex thinking.
Huxley - Gabin: Holographic thinking - Vortex thinking.
1. Generalization and specification
Unity of generalization and specification in teaching
In the process of cognition, individual specific phenomena, processes and facts are studied. At the same time, their common properties, qualities, connections and patterns are established and studied, which leads to the definition of rules, laws, and general patterns. Thus, in the process of cognition, generalization processes occur.
In schools, simple visualization in the form of showing individual things, reporting specific facts, demonstrating individual processes and the like without indicating particular and general relationships between them, without stimulating mental activity in the form of generalization processes in order to establish and assimilate common properties, general connections and relationships, laws or generalized conclusions and provisions is poor teaching. Correct training is when students from the study of individual concrete phenomena constantly systematically rise to the study of the general, abstract, when their simple interest, say, in machines, is formed into an interest in the study of the laws of mechanics and geometry. Or when their immediate interest, for example, in observing the growth of plants in an experimental school corner of nature develops into an interest in studying the general laws of life and plant growth. To structure teaching this way means to constantly transfer students from studying the concrete to studying the abstract.
Knowledge of general concepts and laws, rules and regulations ensures the assimilation of more and more individual things, facts and processes related to them in their qualitative features and patterns. If general laws, rules or regulations are not revealed in their concrete diversity, are not comprehended in the form of processes of concretization, knowledge takes on a meaningless scholastic character.
The processes of generalization and concretization represent the movement of thought from the general through the particular to the specific and back. This unity of the processes of generalization and specification ensures the successful promotion and assimilation of both specific knowledge and general rules, laws and regulations. Knowledge of general laws, rules and conclusions leads, through mental processes of concretization, to a meaningful study of new individual facts, things and processes. This further study of individual phenomena in their characteristics reveals some new properties or processes common to them and thus, in further processes of generalization, leads to a richer and deeper knowledge of general concepts and rules, laws and regulations in their general properties or patterns. And a richer and deeper knowledge of general concepts and rules, laws or regulations facilitates and at the same time raises to a higher level the study of the further diversity of specific phenomena.
In cognition, the processes of generalizing thinking occur and develop in unity with the processes of concretization. In the study of individual things and phenomena, something common to all of them is always discovered. For the sake of obtaining and assimilating generalized knowledge, specific knowledge is always studied. The process of concretization is cognition of the individual and at the same time comprehensive cognition of the general.
2. Formation of concepts
Processes of generalization in the form of reduction to one species and genus and generalization of connections and relationships, together with the process of concretization, lead to the content of concepts or to the formation of concepts.
A concept is knowledge of essential and general moments and phenomena. The essential qualities and patterns of things or phenomena and their concepts are those that distinguish these things or phenomena of one kind or type from things or phenomena of another kind or type. The actual content of a concept is those essential and general moments or features of it that serve to understand the phenomenon as a whole and at the same time understand something else in our experience or further teaching. Thus, concepts become an effective force of cognition.
The concept reflects only some part of the qualities and patterns of phenomena. Each time we know something about a given phenomenon, but something remains unknown. But humanity, in its practical and scientific activities, is becoming more and more aware of reality. Thus, there is an expansion, deepening and change in the content of concepts. The concepts of “metal”, “atom”, etc. a hundred years ago had the same content. But over the past hundred years, in connection with the development of science and technology in connection with the development of the doctrine of metals and the atom, these concepts in their content have expanded, deepened and changed. Consequently, concepts develop and change.
At the same time, the disclosure of the content of individual concepts or the process of formation of concepts in the process of cognition occurs in conjunction with the formation of many other concepts. “...Human concepts,” noted V.I. Lenin, “are mobile, forever moving, transforming into each other, flowing into one another, without this they do not reflect living life.” Analysis of concepts, study of them, the art of operating with them always requires studying the movement of concepts, their connections, their mutual transitions. Each concept is in a certain relationship in a certain connection with all the others.
Concepts are a unique process of reflecting things and processes of material reality in our thinking. Concepts are what live in the things and processes themselves. “...The concept is the essence of the subject,” wrote V.I. Lenin.
There are concepts of objects, qualities of feelings and relationships (connections).
It was indicated above that the process of concept formation proceeds through the unity of the processes of concretization and generalization in the form of reduction to one type or genus and generalization of relations. In this regard, concepts in their content contain not only non-visual general and essential aspects of phenomena, but to some extent each time representations of individual things and processes. Thus, the concept of Archimedes’ law is not visual in its content, since we cannot clearly have in our minds in the form of ideas all the cases of the action of this law when bodies are immersed in water anywhere and everywhere in time and space, although this law is known to us.
In general, the process of concept formation in the course of cognition is a multifaceted and multi-act path of an increasingly broader and deeper disclosure of the content of concepts and the assimilation of this content. Being the result of the processes of generalization and concretization in unity, it is at the same time accomplished through such operations of thinking as abstractions, analysis, comparison, analogies, synthesis, induction and deduction. Through abstraction, certain signs and features are abstracted from specific individual phenomena, which are then subjected to analytical study. Comparison ensures the finding of similar and common or different features of individuals. Some similar features or characteristics are synthesized into new common features of many individuals. A guess by analogy or an inference by induction provides the process of generalization and determination of the general and essential aspects of a phenomenon. Then, inference by deduction allows, in the process of concretization, to attribute new units to a certain general concept.
3. Finding cause-and-effect relationships and concepts
Everything essential is in some kind of relationship to each other. All the diversity of phenomena exists only because there are relationships between them.
One and very significant form of connections, relationships and conditionality of the phenomena of the world among themselves is causality, the causal form of connections and relationships.
Cause-and-effect thinking combines the processes of generalization and specification, as well as the processes of concept formation.
However, cause-and-effect thinking in its functions is not limited to this. At the same time, it has an independent character in the processes of thinking, since it also serves a different and special mental activity. This mental activity represents the disclosure of causal connections and relationships not only between individual concepts of the same kind, but also between concepts of different types, as well as between different sections of knowledge.
Multilateral cause-and-effect thinking is characterized by the fact that a given cause can cause a number of consequences, or a given consequence is determined by a number of causes.
Logical cause-and-effect thinking is either single-valued or polysemous in its nature and scope. Unambiguous logical cause-and-effect thinking explains a given single phenomenon or proves (sums up) a certain general law or rule.
In contrast, multivalued logical cause-and-effect thinking explains a given phenomenon not with one, but with a number of general laws, rules or regulations, and the thought process of a cause-and-effect nature is carried out through a whole chain of mental operations in the form of induction, deduction, classification, analogy, etc. d.
Logical cause-and-effect thinking reveals such connections and relationships between the phenomena of reality that are, firstly, permanent in nature, that is, when the corresponding causes always and everywhere cause the same consequences, or when certain consequences are found always and everywhere due to the action of certain causes .
Secondly, logical cause-and-effect thinking is of a generalized nature, since when explaining a single phenomenon, a certain general law or rule is meant, or as a result of observing a number of individual phenomena, a certain general law or rule is discovered. Third, logical cause-and-effect thinking is reversible. So, “if one of the terms is increased by a certain number, then the sum will increase by the same number.” And vice versa - “the amount increased by a certain number due to the fact that one of the terms increased by the same number.”
The farmer prepares and improves the field, sows on time and patiently waits for shoots and harvest. He will protect the field from animals so that they do not trample the seedlings. Every farmer knows causes and effects. But this is not the case in human relationships: people do not want to know either causes or consequences. They do not care about seedlings and want everything to be done according to their will. People, despite all the examples, will doubt the Cosmic Law. They are very willing to sow causes, but will not think that weeds will be the only harvest.
Discussions about cause and effect should be introduced in schools. Let the leader know the reason, and the students come up with the consequences. During such conversations, the qualities of the students will also be revealed. One can imagine many effects from one cause. Only an expanded consciousness will sense what consequences will correspond to all the surrounding circumstances. One should not be consoled by the fact that even a simple farmer can take into account the harvest. The phenomenon of cosmic currents and mental battles is much more complex. Let young people from childhood get used to complex consequences and to dependence on spatial thoughts. It should not be assumed that children should be protected from thinking.
The development of causal thinking occurs in the course of solving various kinds of problems, in the process of mastering knowledge in mathematics, physics, chemistry, natural science and other sciences.
Typically, finding causal connections and relationships in the course of solving a problem begins with an analytical consideration of a given problem situation or task in order to isolate and define its components or elements.
Then, as a result of comparison, through comparison and analogy of the components of the problem, as well as the connections and relationships between them with the corresponding general principles, rules or laws for solving this kind of problem, hypotheses for solving this problem or task are outlined.
In this case, hypotheses can arise: a) by association by analogy with past experience in solving similar problems or problems, or b) by transferring what was previously known to the solution of a given problem, or, finally, c) they can be built again as a result of mental activity to solve a given problem. problems or tasks. The hypotheses put forward are evaluated. After a causal justification of the value and suitability of the hypotheses put forward to solve a given problem or task. The most diverse and rich variation in solutions to a problem or task makes the accepted hypothesis the most probable. And systematic exercises in solving many other problems or tasks of the same kind provide further development and discipline of students’ causal thinking.
The development of causal thinking also occurs in solving behavioral problems. After all, in order to correctly solve any behavioral problem, a person must, through a causal consideration of the situation, evaluate the motives for and against a given action. Next, he must take into account the possible consequences after committing this act. And only after such a cause-and-effect consideration of the situation does a person make one or another cause-based decision.
In the course of multilateral mental activity, critical thinking is formed. Critical thinking is realized in the critical examination of individual explanations and evidence of phenomena within the scope of study and assimilation. But any critical consideration is a cause-and-effect consideration, there is a special moment of causal thinking. And the development of the latter is, to a certain extent, a consequence of the development of critical thinking in students when considering and studying individual elements of school knowledge.
However, critical examination becomes possible only if there is a sufficient supply of knowledge and experience in the relevant field of knowledge and a high level of development of the processes and operations of mental activity and students.
At the same time, critical thinking is an evaluative thinking of facts, rules, laws, etc. in their causal relationships and justification, since their critical consideration is always built from some angle, from the point of view of some positions. The ability, from a certain angle of view, in the light of some theory, to critically examine given facts and phenomena, their cause-and-effect evidence and explanations, is the highest stage in students’ assimilation of knowledge, as well as in the development of their causal thinking and thinking in general.
Human beings are consummate masters of cause-and-effect reasoning. We can predict what will happen if we strike a match on a rough surface, or if we go out in the rain without an umbrella, or if we say something offensive to a sensitive colleague. All this is managed by causal (cause-and-effect) logic. In each case, we model a certain situation, and then the action of some mechanism that changes this situation. In the first case, we imagine a match and a rough surface, and then the process of rubbing one against the other. We have sufficient knowledge about the mechanism of this action and understand that sparks must appear that will act on the flammable substances of the match and it will light up. In the second case, we imagine ourselves inside a dry room, and outside it is raining. Next, we imagine many drops of water falling on us. We know very well that some of them will be absorbed into our clothes and hair, while the rest will flow down the skin or remain on it. That is, we will get wet. It would seem that making such predictions based on knowledge about the operation of these mechanisms is not a difficult task, but it requires familiarity with the operation of many other mechanisms: namely, what happens when a person strikes a match on a rough surface, becomes covered in drops of water, or covers a freezing body with a thick blanket , yelling at a small child, pressing the power button on an electronic device, hitting a baseball through a window, watering plants, pressing the accelerator pedal in a car - the list goes on and on. We know a huge number of mechanisms and the results of their action.
And we are not just familiar with them, we even understand how they work. We know that a spark will not occur if the friction surface is wet or if the match is pressed too lightly or too hard.
We know that we will not get wet in the rain if we are wearing a raincoat or if the rain is light, so that the water, touching us, will immediately evaporate. We know all these connections, we imagine how they work, sufficiently to be able to predict for sure the result of this influence (the child will cry if he understands that they shouted angrily and not jokingly) and the factors that can prevent this mechanism from causing expected effect (the child will not cry if you scream from afar and he simply does not hear you).
There are other types of logical constructs that most people find equally understandable and natural. Not everyone can take the cube root of 8.743; not everyone understands quantum mechanics; and it's very difficult to predict who will win the next game in Reno, Nevada. It’s not easy to even figure out whether this Reno is east or west of Los Angeles (try looking on a map - the result will surprise you!). Not everyone is equally successful in everything. But this is where we are all great experts - in reasoning about the structure of the world. We are endowed with the ability to analyze cause-and-effect relationships (and rats, to some extent, too). What would be most useful to you if you were an animal that evolved to adapt your actions to changes in the world around you?
In the previous chapter, we established that the purpose of the thought process is to choose the most effective actions in a particular situation. To do this, you need to be able to isolate certain deep properties that remain unchanged when the situation changes. It is precisely this ability to grasp the deep invariant properties of situations that distinguishes people. A person's mind allows him to identify these key properties and understand that the victim has a concussion, or an infectious disease, or that it is time to pump up the car tires.
All the examples we have discussed so far have been fairly simple. We are not suggesting that people can correctly predict the outcome of a war, the results of a new health care program, or even the quality of a toilet. We may be more successful in analyzing cause-and-effect relationships than in any other area, but the sheer illusory depth of our explanations of situations shows that even in this respect our individual achievements are not that great.
With the help of logical thinking, we try to use our ideas about cause-and-effect mechanisms to understand the changes that occur. It helps us predict what will happen in the future by tracking the mechanisms of transformation of causes into effects. Here are some examples of common logical reasoning. Consider the following situation.
A lobbyist once told a senator, “If you support my bill, you won’t have to think about where to get the money for a whole year.” And over the next few months of debate, the senator vigorously defended the bill. How much time do you think our senator spent making money this year?
The question is not difficult: it is unlikely that the senator was running wild in search of money; most likely, he simply sat, sipping luxurious whiskey and interspersing it from time to time with an expensive cigar. Why is this question so simple? Because we draw logical conclusions automatically. We ourselves draw conclusions regarding everything that has not been explicitly said and which we ourselves cannot directly observe. The lobbyist example is a simple case of a logic circuit called modus ponens(33), or separation rule. In its most abstract form it looks like this:
If A, then B.
If A, then so is B.
Who could argue with that! If A follows from B, then as soon as A appears, B must also appear. It sounds as if we are repeating the same thing twice. But in fact it is not at all obvious that this is the case. After all, it could be that the senator supported the bill, but refused the lobbyist’s money. And the lobbyist could simply be lying. And the expected results were not predetermined. Logic circuit modus ponens in its most abstract form it looks natural, but as it becomes filled with content it looks less and less natural, because causal considerations come into play.
Many logic circuits don't look that simple at all, and some seemingly logical arguments actually aren't. For example: if my underwear is blue, then my socks are necessarily green.
My socks are really green. Therefore, I am wearing blue underwear.
Is this conclusion justified? Most people believe yes, but from a textbook logic perspective (called propositional logic) the answer is no. This logical error is called a consequential statement (proving the truth of a reason by reversing the consequence).
Now consider a statement that not only declares the reliability of certain facts, but also examines causes and consequences:
If I fall into a sewer, I will inevitably have to take a shower.
I had a shower.
Consequently, I fell into the sewer.
In this case, people for the most part are not mistaken. The fact that a person has taken a shower does not mean that he has fallen into a sewer, because there are many other reasons for taking a shower. In this example, the first statement refers to a cause: falling into a dirty pit is the reason why I took a shower. If we reason in terms of cause and effect, we take into account many more circumstances, which allows us to draw correct conclusions. This requires a lot of mental investment. We must realize that falling into a dirty pit can be the reason for taking a shower; any other outcome is almost impossible. But it should be clear that there are other reasons for taking a shower. We must evaluate the plausibility of these reasons, and also translate these considerations into the form of an answer to the question. We do all this in a matter of seconds. Logical reasoning is commonplace for us.
But people are not logical machines in the sense that computers are. We constantly make conclusions, but they are based not on provisions from logic textbooks, but on the logic of cause-and-effect relationships.
Just as people do not only think associatively (as Pavlov believed), they also rarely use logical deduction. When reasoning, we use cause and effect analysis. People make inferences by thinking about how the world works. We talk about how causes lead to given effects, what factors cancel or prevent those effects, and what factors must be in effect for a particular cause to actually initiate a particular effect. Instead of reasoning in terms of propositional logic, which tells us whether a statement is true or false, people think in terms of cause-and-effect logic, which takes into account information about what events happen in reality and then draws conclusions.
The ability to reason logically allows us to solve many real-life problems. Building a bridge to cross an abyss or body of water is the result of cause-and-effect thinking. To build a safe bridge, designers must calculate the load-bearing capacity of structures that can support heavy loads such as railroad cars or trucks. Attaching wheels to a car to allow it to roll also requires many different cause-and-effect considerations. To build real bridges and mount real wheels, which eventually allowed humanity to expand habitable territories, avoid predatory animals and ultimately emerge victorious in the evolutionary competition for limited resources, it was necessary to acquire the ability to construct a bridge or a wheel mount.
Our ability to make plans for the distant future is also a type of cause-and-effect thinking. It includes ideas about the mechanisms that influence the state of the world in the long term. This kind of long-term planning is necessary to motivate us to spend many years of our lives studying. Learning is the mechanism by which we develop skills whose meaning may only become apparent over time. Learning the fine art of building Eskimo boats (kayak) takes several years. But no one in the community that uses such boats would take the time to do this unless they realized that this art will be used for years and years after the current generation of kayak builders has passed from the scene, as the community will continue to will continue to fish and move through the water in the usual way. Spending a long time on learning any practical skills or art makes sense only if you, using cause-and-effect relationships, draw yourself a long-term perspective, taking into account possible social changes, including death.
We have made advances in cause-and-effect analysis not only in relation to physical objects and social changes, but also in the psychological sphere. Imagine that someone, say your spouse, refuses to talk to you. This problem needs to be solved somehow. You must use cause-and-effect reasoning to determine what the problem is and decide what to do about it.
To frame the problem correctly, you need to think logically about human reactions and emotions. What would cause a person to have a negative reaction towards you? Maybe you offended this person? Perhaps you reminded him or her of some past misstep? Or offended his/her moral feelings? As with physical objects, complex cause-and-effect analysis will be required. This requires an understanding of human thought and motivation, as well as knowledge of the mechanisms by which they are transformed into action. To understand what offends a person so much, you need to imagine his/her views, or attitudes. For example, what does this person know about your past? What are his or her own moral values? You should also have some idea of the person's desires and intentions and his/her pain points. What does he or she want to achieve by remaining silent? In other words, your job is to understand the intentions behind that person's actions and the consequences he or she expects from those actions. This is the kind of cause-and-effect analysis we perform (34) in every social interaction, and most people do it well.
Finding a way to solve a problem also requires cause-and-effect reasoning: you need to determine the consequences of different courses of action. You may want to comfort the person so he or she can feel better, but this may be perceived as an admission of guilt, which will give that person an advantage. If you intend to start a fight, you may not give your partner an advantage, but you may ruin the relationship, at least for a while. Sometimes it can be difficult to unambiguously predict other people's reactions to our actions, but we still do this all the time and mostly successfully. It is enough to ask something nicely and affably - and this usually leads to happy agreement, and a successful joke evokes (as our experience shows) an approving half-smile. Humans are very good at logical reasoning, not only about physical objects, but also about human behavior.
- 48.