A Difference of Cognition?

Feb 21, 2005 10:02

Have you ever, in the middle of a conversation, had the thought that your brain must work in a very different way than that of the person(s) you are conversing with ( Read more... )

Leave a comment

Comments 12

windswept February 21 2005, 15:08:20 UTC
YES. And not only that, but it took me years to figure out that the person I am closest to who fits that description is my husband.

Reply

In what... drooling_ferret February 21 2005, 15:20:46 UTC
In what ways is your thinking so different?

Reply

Re: In what... windswept February 21 2005, 15:34:16 UTC
Here's an example: I think out decisions via a mental (or sometimes written) decision tree, with cost-benefit analysis and attention given to all possible forseeable outcomes (not that I'm perfect, but as far as my brain can manage, I mean). I also am perfectly comfortable with the 80-20 rule, and don't expect anything ever to go perfectly right or as I wish. Good enough is often good for me.

He, however, makes decisions entirely based on how he thinks the world/he should be - virtue-based decisions. (He's an academic by profession.) Or, in stark contrast, he makes decisions based entirely on impulse. But nothing in between, and nothing that takes consequences into consideration in either case. In other words, I guess, he's not outcome-based.

Whereas my decision-making process is almost entirely utilitarian.

Hope that makes sense...

Reply

Re: In what... drooling_ferret February 21 2005, 16:51:19 UTC
In other words, I guess, he's not outcome-based.

Whereas my decision-making process is almost entirely utilitarian.

Hope that makes sense...

Actually, plenty of, and your husband seems to work the way I have been for so long, and you seem to work the way I'm trying to, more and more. Because the other way hasn't been very... useful, to me.

Nothing wrong with a bit of impulsiveness, or idealism for that matter, but I've felt an increasing need to be more practical/realistic/functional/pragmatic in my thinking. I think, in part, that's driven by my perception of a growing divide between the world I seem to subconciously assume I live in, and the world I see around me.

Reply


mspish February 21 2005, 15:11:05 UTC
ALL THE TIME.

Rob and I have actually talked through it and realzied that we just think in a fundamentally different way.

Reply

Like... drooling_ferret February 21 2005, 15:21:25 UTC
Like, how so? I'm trying to pin down my thinking on the phenomenon. What sets your types of thinking apart from the other?

Reply

Re: Like... mspish February 24 2005, 01:40:33 UTC
rob sort of just lets his brain do its thing. like he thinks something and then forgets about it until his brain comes to some kind of conclusion or decision or has an idea.

me ... i have to actually be involved in the act of thinking or none of my thinking gets done. if i just file shit in my head and forget about them, these things i've filed are lost forever.

Reply


libram February 21 2005, 17:29:08 UTC
All the time. Because I'm smarter than you. And you. And you. And the rest of them. I will rise to power and make them all my personal monkey slave army of people who shall do my every bidding and bring me MnMs and milk (but only the 1%, cuz I like that one). We shall watch Invader Zim and Star Trek and do geekish things and they will enjoy it, for I shall be their god.

Or not.

Yes.

Reply


ginmar March 18 2005, 15:12:34 UTC
Yeah, every time I ask somebody for a cite that proves that feminsts create a 'culture of victimization' I feel that way. I ask people for sources, and it's clear that sourcing doesn't exist in their world. Stuff like that. I used to think ignorance was curable if you just provided information.

Reply


collie13 March 23 2005, 01:17:15 UTC
Yes, and I'm not sure I can quantify it well. It's like... we both have the same set of facts, but our conclusions are so radically, wildly different that I have to doubt whether we actually do have the same set of facts.

An example: I like reason and logic, and thinking for myself. I'm always stunned when I find someone who deliberately, consciously chooses to let someone else do their thinking for them. I don't understand why they'd want to do that, and even though I've had it explained to me, the concepts they put forth are utterly lacking in any real meaning to me. I mean, I can hear someone say, "Regarding opinions, it's safer to be part of the crowd," but the logic of it escapes me. Do they not understand a crowd is no guarantee of correctness or safety or rightness ( ... )

Reply


Leave a comment

Up