Question about quality of thought

Affable

Abstract one this, so bear with me.

Let's assume three people argue an issue(these events in chronological order if that makes it easier to think of)

Person 1 argues one position.

Person 2 argues another which is clearly, objectively a more sophisticated argument which picks up on factors Person 1 had missed. It is higher level thought.

Person 3 is the finest intellect we know of, he produces the most sophisticated argument which proves Person 2 wrong and proves Person 1 right.

In this knowledge, let's compare Person 1 and Person 2. Person 2 would seem to have the most sophisticated mind objectively, but Person 1 has arrived at an objective truth through lesser thought, so which person do we credit with higher quality thought? Can Person 1 be said to have 'instinctive' sense or clarity of perception? Or did he arrive at his conclusion by 'luck' relative to Person 2, hence we can say that Person 2's argument is better quality thought than Person 1's?

Bryan Habana

In terms of quality of thought on that one argument I'd rate person 1's higher. However 'sophisticated' person 2's argument is dressed up to be it is ultimately proofed wrong. Perhaps the quality of thought lies in person 1's ability to explain his argument in simple terms, without sophistication.

Quality of thought is domain specific. For example my quality of thought in the area of mathematics might be higher than your's, but in the area of composing poetry your's might be higher than me. I wouldn't put those 'quality of thought' differences down to luck or instincts. To do so would be condescending on person 1's reasoning.

Sardonicat

One word:Logic

RKDus

A stopped clock shows the right time twice a day. How useful is it to be right, but for the wrong reasons? Person 2 has the higher quality of thought, in my opinion.

Bryan Habana

It's an interesting topic Affable. What do you think yourself?

Bryan Habana

Looking at it again there is no right answer due to the ambiguity. For example (1) quality of thought on a subject and (2) ability to argue about it can be seperated. To illustrate:

1. Case 1: Person 1 is a great thinker on the subject but lacks arguing skills. Person 2 doesn't have much knowledge of the subject but can construct more sophisticated arguments based on what he does know. Result: person 1 is right and has higher quality of thought (not due to luck).
2. Case 2: Person 1 isn't much of a thinker on the subject (but knows a little). Person 2 knows alot on the subject and can argue better. But due to overlooking a small fact person 2 reaches the wrong conclusion even though the reasoning behind it was true for the most part. Result: person 1 is right but still lacks person's 2's quality of thought.

Thanks for the puzzle Affable. I have a great way to tease the lads Monday morning . They won't be getting any tips either...

Affable

Bryan Habana wrote: »

It's an interesting topic Affable. What do you think yourself?

I think two is better as there is such a thing as objectively better thought.
Unless, of course, we are going to imbue number 1 with some kind of mystic, innate or god-given clarity or truth, or conclude that truth is beauty however it's arrived at. Number 1's position raises an interesting issue of what we mean when we describe 'nouse' 'instinct' or 'savvy' though, as opposed to academically rigorous thought, people who seem to have winning or true instincts without posessing a ponderous or deeper mind.

I came up with the idea for this thread when pondering questions in social statistics, causal relationships between many variables. I realised you could come up with an argument one more sophisticated than previous and theoretically this could go on and on in a process of contradicting the previous conclusion with the next level of logic.

Affable

Bryan Habana wrote: »

Thanks for the puzzle Affable. I have a great way to tease the lads Monday morning . They won't be getting any tips either...

Hehe, no problemo, glad you enjoyed.

Affable

Bryan Habana wrote: »

Looking at it again there is no right answer due to the ambiguity. For example (1) quality of thought on a subject and (2) ability to argue about it can be seperated. To illustrate:

1. Case 1: Person 1 is a great thinker on the subject but lacks arguing skills. Person 2 doesn't have much knowledge of the subject but can construct more sophisticated arguments based on what he does know. Result: person 1 is right and has higher quality of thought (not due to luck).
2. Case 2: Person 1 isn't much of a thinker on the subject (but knows a little). Person 2 knows alot on the subject and can argue better. But due to overlooking a small fact person 2 reaches the wrong conclusion even though the reasoning behind it was true for the most part. Result: person 1 is right but still lacks person's 2's quality of thought...

.

Ah. I should have stated my(albeit subconscious) assumption that their argument reflects their inner thought capacity exactly. You were right to raise it though, good point.

Bryan Habana

I think I see what you mean. Using that rationale I'd pick person 2 as having higher quality of thought as well. So for example you can have many people counter arguing each others claims, each subsequent debater upping the level of logic used to knock the previous one. Assuming there exits an objective right answer it's the level of reasoning that would determine the quality of thought of each individual rather than simply arriving at the right answer.

So for example, if person 1 says there is a God because someone else said so, person 2 refutes his claim due to lack of empirical evidence while person 3 says there is a God because higher cognitive functions transend the capacity of the organic matter from which life is made: carbon, oxygen, hydrogen and nitrogen. Assume person 3 is correct. This makes person 2 wrong and person 1 correct. Obviously person 2 has a higher quality of thought than person 1 despite being wrong.

Variables like luck, gut feelings or passive acceptance of ideas would determine person 1's reasoning. So, in sum being objectively right in a given situation wouldn't be enough to determine your level of thought.

Affable

But in a generalised case of your example, could person 1 be deemed to be blessed with 'instinctive' truth or 'nouse'? Can there be someone who posseses less sophistication of thought and rigour, but still arrives at correct conclusions more often than they should, or just as often as someone who has a 'higher' mind? If so, what conclusions do we draw abut the person, if we do not believe in god given truth or talent?
That they are gifted with true 'instincts'? That their subconscious mind is helping them get things right without us or them perceivng it? Could be any number of rather obtuse, fascinating reasons.

Bryan Habana

One thing that always surprises me is the level of variability between people when solving a cognitive task. 10 people could be presented with a cognitive task but yet each one could reach an answer through using a different neural tract. I'm not sure if one tract could be determined as more sophisticated as such but it certainly touches on what your saying. I guess another example would be high functioning autism. Often they reach unbelievable highs in specialist knowledge at least some what instinctively. Perhaps seeing things that a professor would need many degrees to see, but without the same level of academic training.

On a philosophical level, perhaps Freudian theory is right...that our instincts drive our actions and perhaps shape our thoughts. I personally don't value subconscious theories too much but that's just me.

Anyways, if I come across any good high functioning autism reads I'll pass them on. Well worth a look

nyarlothothep

person 2s argument could be ideologically motivated, so he/she uses more sophisticated arguments and turns of phrase to prove something they know to be wrong objectively but which they cannot accept personally.

eunified61

Affable wrote: »

Abstract one this, so bear with me.

Let's assume three people argue an issue(these events in chronological order if that makes it easier to think of)

Person 1 argues one position.

Person 2 argues another which is clearly, objectively a more sophisticated argument which picks up on factors Person 1 had missed. It is higher level thought.

Person 3 is the finest intellect we know of, he produces the most sophisticated argument which proves Person 2 wrong and proves Person 1 right.

In this knowledge, let's compare Person 1 and Person 2. Person 2 would seem to have the most sophisticated mind objectively, but Person 1 has arrived at an objective truth through lesser thought, so which person do we credit with higher quality thought? Can Person 1 be said to have 'instinctive' sense or clarity of perception? Or did he arrive at his conclusion by 'luck' relative to Person 2, hence we can say that Person 2's argument is better quality thought than Person 1's?

it is possible that they are all wrong and only God has the answer

sinnerboy

The "quality of the argument" can certainly be employed to do the wrong thing

"lets invade Iraq" or "commit genocide on the Jews" have been backed up with what may be considered qualitative arguments - or have employed "good quality" thought .

Out of the mouths of babes great truth can emerge .

An inferior intellect may "lose" an argument to a superior one , but still remain correct or "right"

.

Sardonicat

Oh please! Clever arguments do not indicate "quality of thought", whatever that means

It's pure sophistry thats all

A simple but logical argument is right if it's right, it does not indicate that the quality of thought is any less then the bull **** peddler's.

Bull**** is always bull**** however you dress it up.

Not being able to see through that would indicate poor quality thought

Miacc

Have to say I'm with Sardinocat here. Is this not a question of substance v style? ... consider for a second, who you'd rather have running the show where it comes to important matters - a person who could arrive at the truth (p1) or someone who couldn't but could give you a convincing argument despite it (p2).

Miacc

Maybe I'm getting at the same Q here Affable but would like peoples' opinions on this related Q...

Do people generally find it hard to believe that someone who couldn't argue their point well (or as well as the next) could be right???

How much does this influence you're opinions of people in life/ work / among friends etc.? ... if anyone has specific stories or instances supporting the importance of substance over style or vice versa, please share...

Affable

Miacc wrote: »

Maybe I'm getting at the same Q here Affable but would like peoples' opinions on this related Q...

Do people generally find it hard to believe that someone who couldn't argue their point well (or as well as the next) could be right???
..

Style is important. Some people have great certainty and plausibility which makes their words seem more meaningful than others.

experiMental

Affable wrote: »

Style is important. Some people have great certainty and plausibility which makes their words seem more meaningful than others.

Very true, style and bold expression can often sway opinion and divert the course of an argument.

I would say that a quality of thought depends on how quickly a person has arrived with a certain solution to an objective problem, rather than a subjective argument. If you narrow down a lot of subjective debates and arguments, their nature becomes more objective. The only reason why they are subjective is that people are sometimes extremely confused and can't get to the root of the problem, and they are trying to use their meagre existing knowledge to make sense of the whole situation. I mean, they are shooting all the right arrows at a target yet they are missing it.

For example, authors and fans of conceptual art are often very confused, prone to brainwashing and invent excuses and theories from their lack of knowledge to persuade that they are right. I'm thinking of people like Damien Hirst. They are wrong, because the majority of audience don't like that sort of art and can't connect to it at all.

So amount of knowledge + speed of thought + ability to find a problem and solve it = quality of thought.

nyarlothothep

experiMental wrote: »

Very true, style and bold expression can often sway opinion and divert the course of an argument.

I would say that a quality of thought depends on how quickly a person has arrived with a certain solution to an objective problem, rather than a subjective argument. If you narrow down a lot of subjective debates and arguments, their nature becomes more objective. The only reason why they are subjective is that people are sometimes extremely confused and can't get to the root of the problem, and they are trying to use their meagre existing knowledge to make sense of the whole situation. I mean, they are shooting all the right arrows at a target yet they are missing it.

For example, authors and fans of conceptual art are often very confused, prone to brainwashing and invent excuses and theories from their lack of knowledge to persuade that they are right. I'm thinking of people like Damien Hirst. They are wrong, because the majority of audience don't like that sort of art and can't connect to it at all.

So amount of knowledge + speed of thought + ability to find a problem and solve it = quality of thought.

When it comes to art forms I don't think there is any meaningful objectivity. Someone can like Damien Hirst for any number of reasons and they are quite right to do so if they are honest in their opinion. Just because the majority disagrees doesn't make them right. This would also apply to ethics and society. A majority might favour genocide which doesn't generate any objective criterion for performing the act.