The most accurate way of thinking?

[Anonymous No.11390009]

Is the inner monologue the most accurate of thinking or there is something more accurate or better in some kind of a way? What I'm worried is that the inner monologue seem really primitive yet it seems to be more concrete and easier to control your thoughts. I'm really divided. Share your thoughts on it and your ways of thinking or findings.

[Anonymous No.11390623]

bump

[Anonymous No.11390867]

I mainly think through inner monologue, but sometimes it is visual. This usually happens when I’m focusing on something abstract and my mind is wandering but with purpose. It is difficult to explain precisely what it feels like but I would look into training your visual thinking

[Anonymous No.11390931]

>>11390009
Language is the only tool we use for high level cognition. Visual/spatial reasoning is ape-tier at best. Even outliers on the bell curve of visual/spatial intelligence are terrible at it. Human language is the OS for characteristically human thought.

[Anonymous No.11390947]

>>11390009
You'll never be an accurate thinker and taking too much pride in the intellect is a fools errand. Anyway, learn arabic. Learn chinese. Learn history. Learn rigorous mathematical proofs. Learn about propaganda, power, and biases. You'll always be thinking in some sort of box and miss the forest for the trees no matter who you are or where you're at.

I can think in very advanced modes, but I've learned to most of the time just stay in zen mode. I don't waste energy, I easily get cognitively exhausted in like two days if I tryhard. On an average day only like 15 seconds of cognitive exertion is actually necessary. Intuitions will come anyway if they are necessary. Better to save hard thinking for the 95-5 pareto.

Even as a kid I would use the little world experience I had to produce 3d visualizations of people and organizations in various graph theory applications. Basically everything fuzzy can have very worthwhile mental models of some lazy intuitive concepts mushed together interdisciplinarily if you just have some foundations down. For example you can start out just imagining little fun colored plastic humans standing in pyramids like a company structure. Then multiple companies and promotions etc. Then keep it and move through time with directed acyclic graphs keeping track of actions and project maps and so on. Apply your own shorthand to the different people in the structure, for their psyche, values, desires, closest personal bonds into the graphs with different colorsed hovering symbols, edges and so on. One small application of intense visualization.

Staring at a river for 30 minutes empty minded turns out not to be a waste of time when it a few years later gives you an instant understanding of vector fields with forces and so on. Collect experience from the world with an empty mind and think intensely when it's necessary and it will come together. And always do the boring fundamentals in anything until you die from boredom

[Anonymous No.11392054]

>>11390931
Yeah, Hegel was against picture thinking himself.

[Anonymous No.11392140]

>>11390009
>not being able to think by mentally rotating 15485863-hypercube in 22801763489-dimensional space.
fucking brainlets.

[Anonymous No.11392149]

out loud

[Anonymous No.11392209]

>>11390009
The consciousness, is a complex tool. I don't know if it's me, but I have notice thoughts from the unconscious have bled through in the form of emotions. It's like looking at an image and not understanding why you get this deja vu feel from it, but you do anyways. It's like a faded memory coming back from the unconscious mind, but you don't know what it is since it's unconscious. It's always a scary feeling to really get when looking at an image. Then an individual is able to conceive information. Then render the information into an image that they imagine. If you're good at imagining, then you're able to think of objects into the three-dimension, which still is very second-dimension based on the fact our minds are only able to render at the second-dimension. To be honest, our minds are extremely primitive in how we handle certain scenarios. I don't think the human race should ascend from this primitive biological state, but most others think so. That we should go beyond our human biological minds and try to go to a form beyond our own understanding, we cannot comprehend what is beyond our own thinking. Emotions and thought will be a thing of the past. This ascended form will break all philosophies, making them obsolete. I'm only scared because this progress will kill our general state of humanity.

[Anonymous No.11392211]

>>11390947
Good post, although not sure why learning languages is so important. Can you expand on that?

Also do I detect Kahnemann/NN Taleb thinking here?

[Anonymous No.11392233]

>>11392211
So most people think primarily with different sorts of symbols, which are heaily embedded in their time and culture. As a kid I was extremely angry but didn't know why, it was because I noticed very many biases in the way people thought around me, I had no virtuous authority to look up to. The reason to learn languages far removed from your own culture is because they arose from humans just like you, but far removed from your lens by thousands of years and thousands of miles. At the fundamental level, learning a new alphabet will make you reconsider the most basic symbols you see in your life. At the more complex level, different sorts of tools for assessing experiences are buried beneath the languages. But if you can, drink from the tap, read the works of their significant figures rather than synthesizing the gist from the people alive today. The way you view your own emotions and thoughts is influenced by how those who have spoken and changed your language have viewed theirs, generations before you. Having multiple frames to draw your experiences on hereafter will allow multifaceted reflections. 1 language, 1 vertex, no edges. 4 languages, 4 vertices, 6 edges. Essentially, by frontloading the effort of expanding your range of symbols, you gain access to the wider and deeper modalities of thinking used by geniuses of the past, completely removed from one anothers environments, they have synthesized completely different things. And so can you.

I read a bit of Thinking Fast and Slow, definitely like it. No exposure to Taleb however. Mostly, I just meditate in various appropriate ways until the suffering of the moment stops, and that's my current "system" of gaining wisdom.

[Anonymous No.11392268]

>>11390931
>T.110 spatial 140 verbal IQ pseud

You're barely a human being if you've below 115 spatial IQ.

[Anonymous No.11392300]

>>11390009
>Is the inner monologue the most accurate of thinking or there is something more accurate or better in some kind of a way
mathematics

[Anonymous No.11392305]

why am I seeing 'inner monologue' all over 4chan all the sudden? is it literally just because of that one r*ddit post? fuck off with this buzzterm already

[Anonymous No.11392395]

>>11392140
>he can't linguistically do this
Lmao, sub 1000 IQ brainlet

[Anonymous No.11392400]

>>11392140
Those are only 15 dimensions, subgod.

[Anonymous No.11392421]

>>11392305
How would you know this?

[Anonymous No.11392465]

>>11392395
>can't linguistically do this
It would take 87234 ages of the universe to express one hyperdimensional thought in linearized speech

[Anonymous No.11392470]

>>11392400
no enough pixels

[Anonymous No.11392522]

>>11390009
Just write shit down and use it as an extension of your brain, man.

[Anonymous No.11393921]

>>11392300
I don't disagree but it seems to be limited as well.

[Anonymous No.11395683]

bump

[Anonymous No.11396971]

>>11390009
I would say that more important than thinking accurately is having the ability to figure out to which extent we are thinking inaccurately and when it matters and when it doesn't. We all think inaccurately all the time because for every time we do system 2 thinking on a particular matter, it is supported by tons of system 1 thinking, that is, heuristics/rules of thumb, which is prone to be inaccurate (but often effective). Additionally, I deeply believe that inaccurate thinking is a major source of creativity. The most accurate and novel solutions to hard problems can come from inaccurate thinking. Cold logic cannot always give us the answer. Sometimes we need to think outside the box. We need the divine spark of God.

[Anonymous No.11398443]

>>11396971
Interesting...

[Anonymous No.11399339]

Hello?

[Anonymous No.11400365]

Come on, this is one of the most crucial topics.

[Anonymous No.11400415]

>>11396971
>Sometimes we need to think outside the box
Personally, the accuracy of my thoughts is in no way determined by whether i'm sitting in a box or not

[Anonymous No.11401645]

>>11400415
Exactly.