Thinking

File: 1477312125823.jpg (118KB, 360x500px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 360x500px

>psychology

I suppose he is in that 3-5%?

>>8671318
perhaps his ideal of "thinking" means thinking outside of ideology? I mean that's what he's obsessed with. I have watched some of his lectures but without context it's hard to tell.

>>8671361
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmpUQEDRIKA

it's in this lecture toward the end

>>8671318
>Pearson
u wot m8?

I don't think that is what he is meaning. Active thinking or to really think is not the same as the everyday chatter in the mind, its kind of like what you do when you try to really articulate something either in speech or writing, (or speech in your head etc.) Not many people do that actually. Most people are kind of like a mess of unarticulated thoughts, ideas, fragments and emotions and random noise. Because thinking is often uncomfortable and hard.

Of course having greater intelligence helps and can lead to greater thinking, but even people with high IQ don't think very much.

I think this book is supposed to be great on how to really read: How to Read a Book: The Classic Guide to Intelligent Reading

But when you really learn to read the experience of reading and getting lost in the story might be altered as you are engaging the content on different levels.

>muh IQ
>intelligence is a single measure quantified into an innate power level
>once you level up to 130 you unlock new intelligence feats

Come the fuck on.

File: 1477685250918.jpg (106KB, 1024x647px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 1024x647px

I would pin it down more on curiosity than anything else, very few people are aggressively curious in the way that 'really thinking' requires. Sure you've got lots of people curious enough to be watching videos or reading summaries on subjects, but very few of them actually apply critical thought or extrapolate from the knowlege they get from these. They're quite happy to just repeat someone else's thinking, and will have no ideas of their own on it. I guess it would be those whose thirst exceeds the answers given to them, 3-5% would seem like a reasonable number for that. A logical mind or good comprehension would definitely help, but many areas where deep thought can be produced aren't actually very demanding. I think almost anyone is capable of really pondering many things, it's just that there's no incentive for them to do so.

>>8671402
>reads "IQ"
>gets triggered and stops reading the rest of the post

Ok then.

>>8671372
>Most people are kind of like a mess of unarticulated thoughts

Good point. There is a lot of white noise in thought, and our ability to resolve is articulation. Some people are better at resolving than others and this is probably aided by IQ and you see studying techniques are often just methods of articulation.

This is the point I was getting at in my OP. It's not that you unlock the ability to "really think" once you hit a 130 IQ. It's that you have a greater potential to do such things. This wasn't meant to be exclusively about IQ, I was wanted to include it as a reference point for Peterson's claim of 3-5% being capable of such thinking.

>>8671423
>They're quite happy to just repeat someone else's thinking, and will have no ideas of their own on it

I think it's easy to get swept up by ideas when you haven't been exposed to much. The more you're exposed to the more you have an ability to really compare ideas and the more likely you'll start making your own conclusions.

So like I said, it's not just IQ that was just a reference point to get things started. There is also the factor of data accumulation