3 ms·

Logic itself is a relatively new invention, and is symbolic itself. That is to say, logic is a map not the territory. That said, if someone can't fathom the mo

Logic itself is a relatively new invention, and is symbolic itself. That is to say, logic is a map not the territory. That said, if someone can't fathom the most widely used symbolic languages humans use (math, logic, language, etc) they probably do have a cognitive deficit of some sort when compared to those who can.

bbor 2y ago
I mean, 2400y at least… I guess you mean quantitative logical calculus notation? - the local Russell hater
- hinkley 2y ago
  I guess sleeping through history class is also a mental deficit ;)
- stevenAthompson 2y ago
  By "relatively recent" I meant in terms of human evolution. We've had it for around 2400 of the last 300,000 years or so. So less than 1% of our species existence. I used that phrasing to drive home the idea that logic is not some inherent aspect of nature, or even fundamental to the way humans perceive the world.
blueflow 2y ago
Languages were made up by mankind at some point. They are not backed by the rest of physical reality. They can only be learned by induction, and there is no guarantee that people will get the same "version" of it. To speak in your analogy, people walk around with different maps of the same territory and realizing this is the self-awareness mjburgess is talking about.
lotharcable2 2y ago
It is less 'logic is new'... it more about abstract thinking is a skill that is more useful in societies that have complex social arrangements. If you are a primitive farmer abstract thinking isn't really useful to you. Everything you deal with in your life, except religion, can almost entirely be dealt with absolutes with little in the way of abstractions. If it rains at the right time then you can have a good harvest. If the weather is bad then it sucks. If there is animals threatening your crops or herd you need to take steps to deal with them. There is a lot of logic in dealing with these things. You have to know the seasons, know the stars, know the dirt, etc. You have to understand the life cycle and manipulate the behavior and biology of plants and animals at the right stages in their lives. Things have a logical sequence and there are direct consequences that are predictable from events and your actions. Where as in modern society you have been conditioned to think in terms of hypothetical and abstractions through being exposed to testing your entire life. You first need to know how test questions work before you are able to answer them accurately. For a person who isn't exposed to this then the whole affair of asking hypotheticals and assuming imaginary situations with specific rules that don't actually apply to the present reality is very confusing. They don't even understand the question. So, of course, they are going to suck at answering them. And ultimately that is all IQ testing measures.. your ability to take tests.
- stevenAthompson 2y ago
  > They don't even understand the question. So, of course, they are going to suck at answering them. I agree, but would also say that you should be capable of learning to understand those questions. For example, If you can't speak English, you'll be bad at reading books in English. If you were never taught math, you'll be bad at math. Similarly, If you never learned to reason you'll be bad at solving logic puzzles. It's almost tautological. However, if a person is incapable of learning to do one of those things, despite the majority of the world being fully capable of doing it, they probably have a cognitive deficit. > And ultimately that is all IQ testing measures.. your ability to take tests. I disagree. I think it measures how well you've learned to reason, though I do agree that reasoning is a learned skill for most people.

bbor 2y ago

I mean, 2400y at least… I guess you mean quantitative logical calculus notation? - the local Russell hater

hinkley 2y ago
I guess sleeping through history class is also a mental deficit ;)
stevenAthompson 2y ago
By "relatively recent" I meant in terms of human evolution. We've had it for around 2400 of the last 300,000 years or so. So less than 1% of our species existence. I used that phrasing to drive home the idea that logic is not some inherent aspect of nature, or even fundamental to the way humans perceive the world.

blueflow 2y ago

Languages were made up by mankind at some point. They are not backed by the rest of physical reality. They can only be learned by induction, and there is no guarantee that people will get the same "version" of it. To speak in your analogy, people walk around with different maps of the same territory and realizing this is the self-awareness mjburgess is talking about.

lotharcable2 2y ago

It is less 'logic is new'... it more about abstract thinking is a skill that is more useful in societies that have complex social arrangements. If you are a primitive farmer abstract thinking isn't really useful to you. Everything you deal with in your life, except religion, can almost entirely be dealt with absolutes with little in the way of abstractions. If it rains at the right time then you can have a good harvest. If the weather is bad then it sucks. If there is animals threatening your crops or herd you need to take steps to deal with them. There is a lot of logic in dealing with these things. You have to know the seasons, know the stars, know the dirt, etc. You have to understand the life cycle and manipulate the behavior and biology of plants and animals at the right stages in their lives. Things have a logical sequence and there are direct consequences that are predictable from events and your actions. Where as in modern society you have been conditioned to think in terms of hypothetical and abstractions through being exposed to testing your entire life. You first need to know how test questions work before you are able to answer them accurately. For a person who isn't exposed to this then the whole affair of asking hypotheticals and assuming imaginary situations with specific rules that don't actually apply to the present reality is very confusing. They don't even understand the question. So, of course, they are going to suck at answering them. And ultimately that is all IQ testing measures.. your ability to take tests.

stevenAthompson 2y ago
> They don't even understand the question. So, of course, they are going to suck at answering them. I agree, but would also say that you should be capable of learning to understand those questions. For example, If you can't speak English, you'll be bad at reading books in English. If you were never taught math, you'll be bad at math. Similarly, If you never learned to reason you'll be bad at solving logic puzzles. It's almost tautological. However, if a person is incapable of learning to do one of those things, despite the majority of the world being fully capable of doing it, they probably have a cognitive deficit. > And ultimately that is all IQ testing measures.. your ability to take tests. I disagree. I think it measures how well you've learned to reason, though I do agree that reasoning is a learned skill for most people.