Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
The common intuition is to "feel" the facts, to associate with previous experiences.

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 rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Tue Jul 24th, 2007 at 12:13:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Others have rated this comment as follows:


Occasional Series