The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
The III circuit is able to accept facts without confirmation from "intuition", even contrarily to intuition.
I'd like to ponder this more, but for now how about: If reality and your intuitions are in disagreement, you need to change your intuitions. But you still need intuitions.
For a circuit III type accepting an assumption without necessarily agreeing with it because the method produces solid results....I'm not sure about this. It maybe (probably is) a prejudice of mine that you risk having people who will "act on orders" without pondering first--which is maybe a good thing sometimes, or certainly if you want quick forward movement, but I'm not sure that's the best way for students. I know you sometimes have to take things "on faith", but that usually means "without understanding them". I like the idea of students coming across information that doesn't agree with their intuitions, and then the students stopping and examining their intuitions to see why and how they aren't in agreement with this apparently non-intuitive information about/from reality.
I'm nae sure. The kids might get bored. You only have so much time and so many kids with different skill levels etc.
Are there any particular scenarios you're thinking of where someone going against their intuition on the basis of science they don't understand (but which "works") is helped in some way that "by using their intuition" they aren't?
If we're to relate this to politics, a circuit II attack might be: "Your enemies are different to you. The more different, the worse they might be. Strangers are different." And then we can point out some enemies.
But a typical (Cheney?) circuit III attack might be: "Your intuition tells you that starting a war is wrong, but here are some facts that run counter to your intuition--I know you don't understand them completely, but don't worry about that for now."
Ach...those are my first thoughts. Mainly, I'd say that re-adjusting one's intuitions so that they are again in tune with information from reality is an important part of the process of adjusting to new information. I'm thinking that rather than ameliorating to move a bit faster (in more or less the same direction), it would be more efficient to slow down and ponder more at key stages in order to then change paradigms...no...I mean in order to grow "out" of a small(er) way of thinking.
I cannae explain it, I know, but I see what you mean: circuit III is where people can start working with systems that seem "strange" and therefore unnatural. Off the top of my head, I'm not sure what the negative is that's being made positive, as it seems everyone is happy using a mobile phone without really understanding much at all about the tech. behind it...heh...boy can I waffle. More later, maybe. Plenty to think about.
Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.
by Frank Schnittger - May 14 13 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 11 24 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 16
by Oui - May 13 47 comments
by ARGeezer - Apr 29 25 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Apr 29 39 comments
by Oui - Apr 27 1 comment
by Oui - Apr 30 15 comments
by Oui - May 176 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 16
by Frank Schnittger - May 1413 comments
by Oui - May 1347 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 1124 comments
by Oui - May 9100 comments
by Oui - May 8
by ARGeezer - May 68 comments
by Oui - May 375 comments
by Oui - Apr 3015 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Apr 2939 comments
by ARGeezer - Apr 2925 comments
by Oui - Apr 284 comments
by Oui - Apr 2720 comments
by Oui - Apr 271 comment
by Oui - Apr 248 comments
by gmoke - Apr 24
by Oui - Apr 2357 comments