4 ms·

I have a problem with both how absolutist and now moralistic this statement is. Granted, it doesn't say that writing is sufficient for "thinking well" it does s

by zcw100 5y ago

I have a problem with both how absolutist and now moralistic this statement is. Granted, it doesn't say that writing is sufficient for "thinking well" it does seem to imply it. Why does it need to be one thing? Why can't "thinking well" be supported by a variety of methods with people choosing a different recipies depending on who their audience is and what they themselves are like? Would you accuse Stephen Hawking of not "thinking well" because he doesn't write? The moralistic part is why I'm quoting "thinking well". So what exactly is "thinking well"? I would suspect that most of the greatest minds in history would have, at some point, been accused of not "thinking well".

solarmist 5y ago
I had this same reaction, but I also felt it wasn't wrong entirely. Some of the other comments helped me work out what I believe is the key to this claim. > More like, being able to serialize your thought process well fosters interoperability with fellow human beings. Written word lasts longer and goes further. > It's more than that. Reifying your mental symbols affords better and more complex symbol manipulation. It's the same principle behind writing down equations instead of doing them in your head. > And writing/editing helps to serialize your thought process. So if you're trying to have people act based on your thoughts or even trying to clarify your own ideas, then I buy the claim. The act of serializing your thoughts forces you to follow through on threads and scrutinize connections that may seem obvious but unable to articulate. It also gives you the opportunity to poke and prod at pieces instead of needing to manipulate whole, like fixing a solution to a math problem instead of rewriting it after a mistake.
- BizarroLand 5y ago
  I'm split on my feelings about it. One the one hand, trying to put a lot of thoughts on a topic together without writing them down is like trying to ladle water with a colander, but implying that you become unable to think without a systematic process of writing down your words is patently untrue. For instance, the Greeks relied more on the bardic tradition and oral communication than the written word, and few people would claim they were unable to think. Any process that can be used is useful, both oral tradition and written tradition's uses are a matter of training and application. It wouldn't surprise me if we found someone who effectively thought in emojis after all. Our brains are pattern recognition engines, anywhere we can establish a recognizable pattern to offload memory is usable.

by zcw100 5y ago

solarmist 5y ago

I had this same reaction, but I also felt it wasn't wrong entirely. Some of the other comments helped me work out what I believe is the key to this claim. > More like, being able to serialize your thought process well fosters interoperability with fellow human beings. Written word lasts longer and goes further. > It's more than that. Reifying your mental symbols affords better and more complex symbol manipulation. It's the same principle behind writing down equations instead of doing them in your head. > And writing/editing helps to serialize your thought process. So if you're trying to have people act based on your thoughts or even trying to clarify your own ideas, then I buy the claim. The act of serializing your thoughts forces you to follow through on threads and scrutinize connections that may seem obvious but unable to articulate. It also gives you the opportunity to poke and prod at pieces instead of needing to manipulate whole, like fixing a solution to a math problem instead of rewriting it after a mistake.

BizarroLand 5y ago
I'm split on my feelings about it. One the one hand, trying to put a lot of thoughts on a topic together without writing them down is like trying to ladle water with a colander, but implying that you become unable to think without a systematic process of writing down your words is patently untrue. For instance, the Greeks relied more on the bardic tradition and oral communication than the written word, and few people would claim they were unable to think. Any process that can be used is useful, both oral tradition and written tradition's uses are a matter of training and application. It wouldn't surprise me if we found someone who effectively thought in emojis after all. Our brains are pattern recognition engines, anywhere we can establish a recognizable pattern to offload memory is usable.