We make researches to optimise systems, create better materials etc, but how do we go about researches that will create better human thought processes and behavioral changes to the human-being; that will produce nation states at peace (morally, economically and all spheres) and having fair dealings with all. As at now, such a situation is yet to be attained.
Since English is the common language of this era, it will you to be understood if you master its diction (rules of expression) better.
It is doubtful that we can improve "thought processes" at all in the near term. These are probably structural to the electro-chemestry of humans and only change as the human genome evolves.
What we can do is improve understanding of how humans think. More important, we can encourage systematic, logical ("scientific") thinking. The best way to do that is to set a good example - you teach more by the example you set than by what you advocate. If your "gut instinct" drives you to want a certain conclusion to be true, you can bet that is chemically driven (even if it happens to be correct). Resist believing what you want to believe. Instead, study logic and the scientific method. Subject every matter to rational analysis and consider every conclusion to be semi-tentative, at least capable of being modified if and when there is more evidence.
Behaviors are a rather different subject. Even a trained, scientific thinker makes at least 5/6 of their decisions "chemically" - instantly, automatically, according to what they "feel like." But the difference between 100% "chemical thinking" and even a small percentage of rational thinking - if one requires the latter for important personal, family and political matters - is vast. The difference between the stone age and the modern one. In the 20th century, travel became perhaps too easy. In the 21st century, information flow became perhaps too easy. Social systems did not evolve in the context of either. We need to learn NOT to take that "better job" in a different place without evaluating how it will affect our family and our community and possibly our nation or the whole world. Yet the norm is to never think about any of these. We need to identify, and somehow mitigate, traditions that is wrong to "snitch" - to report illegal, dangerous and immoral behaviors - or to face them directly. [Any problem faced tends to diminish, any problem ignored tends to get worse]. We need to learn how to resist the temptation to use automation, artificial intelligence, and machine based efficiencies when these reduce the amount of direct human management of problems. [Walking police - or perhaps community service - patrols are superior to driving in a vehicle. Walking the community produces a more intimate grasp of what is happening, and the nature of the neighborhood - ask a person with direct experience of both. Armed police tend to generate thinking in terms of how to solve a problem with a gun. Unarmed police - study in particular USMC military police training for walking patrols which are either unarmed, or otherwise which use unloaded firearms - focused instead on the concept "your voice is your first, fifth and fifteenth line of defense." Note that implies you understand the local languages - never patrol with people unable to communicate in all the important local languages - again party of US Navy/USMC training. Computer logic is useful in analysis of problems and identifying potential problems. But it cannot be trusted to make decisions. USAF's "man in the decision loop" must become a universal axiom if we are to avoid an increasingly frustrating relationship with our institutions. Or if we are to facilitate proper treatment for people with behavioral problems.]
A final general principle is to grasp - and then sell - the idea that it takes effort and costs money to improve our social systems (local or international). Discharging people from mental institutions (and closing those institutions) has simply turned most of those patients into street people. Failure to fund treatment facilities (and the costs of treatment) has compounded the greatly reduced cost of making and delivering "recreational" drugs to vastly increase the rates of addiction based behaviors (including the vast majority of prostitution and property crimes). It is in the interests of even the most conservative to pay for professional solutions to these problems. Civil society may not survive if we fail to change general practice in this regard.
Human dilemma in the 21st century is ebbing as a result of declining universal value system. It is an evidence of systems dysfunction at various levels - family, community, society, religion, government, including global system that relegated the promotion of value system in human development.
This is critical considering the words of Gemstone; ''without a Value System, people become very selfish, looking out for themselves alone, since there is no sense of Community Value Systems that naturally guides the people. Values give common thoughts, aspirations, words and actions. Values are the fabric of any society. They influence the beliefs and morals of the people.''
According to Pope John Paul II; '' ... a community needs a soul if it is to become a true home for human beings. You people must give it this soul.''
Therefore, there is an urgent need to propagate universal values at every level as outlined above to promote our common universal humanness. Though, we can not have a perfect system but it would enhance peaceful co-existence, security, cohesion, social, political and economic cooperation and understanding among other challenges confronting humanity.
Since English is the common language of this era, it will you to be understood if you master its diction (rules of expression) better.
It is doubtful that we can improve "thought processes" at all in the near term. These are probably structural to the electro-chemestry of humans and only change as the human genome evolves.
What we can do is improve understanding of how humans think. More important, we can encourage systematic, logical ("scientific") thinking. The best way to do that is to set a good example - you teach more by the example you set than by what you advocate. If your "gut instinct" drives you to want a certain conclusion to be true, you can bet that is chemically driven (even if it happens to be correct). Resist believing what you want to believe. Instead, study logic and the scientific method. Subject every matter to rational analysis and consider every conclusion to be semi-tentative, at least capable of being modified if and when there is more evidence.
Behaviors are a rather different subject. Even a trained, scientific thinker makes at least 5/6 of their decisions "chemically" - instantly, automatically, according to what they "feel like." But the difference between 100% "chemical thinking" and even a small percentage of rational thinking - if one requires the latter for important personal, family and political matters - is vast. The difference between the stone age and the modern one. In the 20th century, travel became perhaps too easy. In the 21st century, information flow became perhaps too easy. Social systems did not evolve in the context of either. We need to learn NOT to take that "better job" in a different place without evaluating how it will affect our family and our community and possibly our nation or the whole world. Yet the norm is to never think about any of these. We need to identify, and somehow mitigate, traditions that is wrong to "snitch" - to report illegal, dangerous and immoral behaviors - or to face them directly. [Any problem faced tends to diminish, any problem ignored tends to get worse]. We need to learn how to resist the temptation to use automation, artificial intelligence, and machine based efficiencies when these reduce the amount of direct human management of problems. [Walking police - or perhaps community service - patrols are superior to driving in a vehicle. Walking the community produces a more intimate grasp of what is happening, and the nature of the neighborhood - ask a person with direct experience of both. Armed police tend to generate thinking in terms of how to solve a problem with a gun. Unarmed police - study in particular USMC military police training for walking patrols which are either unarmed, or otherwise which use unloaded firearms - focused instead on the concept "your voice is your first, fifth and fifteenth line of defense." Note that implies you understand the local languages - never patrol with people unable to communicate in all the important local languages - again party of US Navy/USMC training. Computer logic is useful in analysis of problems and identifying potential problems. But it cannot be trusted to make decisions. USAF's "man in the decision loop" must become a universal axiom if we are to avoid an increasingly frustrating relationship with our institutions. Or if we are to facilitate proper treatment for people with behavioral problems.]
A final general principle is to grasp - and then sell - the idea that it takes effort and costs money to improve our social systems (local or international). Discharging people from mental institutions (and closing those institutions) has simply turned most of those patients into street people. Failure to fund treatment facilities (and the costs of treatment) has compounded the greatly reduced cost of making and delivering "recreational" drugs to vastly increase the rates of addiction based behaviors (including the vast majority of prostitution and property crimes). It is in the interests of even the most conservative to pay for professional solutions to these problems. Civil society may not survive if we fail to change general practice in this regard.
Greetings Yes, the other language develops the linguistic thinking and then the overall thinking. There is no doubt that the brain chemistry takes part of the intervention of the impact and impact ...
Very insightful response Lawrence. Thank you.
I wonder in cases where voices are known to have been driving subjects to criminality and the cases look hopeless. In such cases, will it be better to lock them up to forestall recurrence while ministering probable solutions under confinement?
In the global picture, distrust among nations will not go away because of vagaries in the behavior of leaders that ascend to power at various times. This means systems must be in place to monitor continuously compliance with the accepted global norms and rules.
In theory, the reason to confine someone is they are a danger to society. In practice, this is both expensive and complicated to implement. Normally, one must prove they are dangerous. And "in like cases, like judgements" (translating the original Latin principle of Common Law) often limits what one can do - danger or not - their sentence is up: you must turn them loose.
The traditional mechanisms for "monitoring" and "insuring compliance" with international norms are diplomacy and warfare. These are related and often misunderstood names for the extreme ends of the spectrum of competition among nations. They are very complicated and inefficient for a person who wishes for instant and perfect justice. Yet they DO work, and better than is generally understood. A number of war criminals who were confident they would evade justice in the last generation ended up being wrong. Just as happened in the previous century. Nations are naturally in a relationship of competition and cooperation and always will be. If one replaced the international system with a global "nation" - all that would change is that external conflict and cooperation would become internal conflict and cooperation. It would likely be as inefficient and imperfect as the last four centuries have been. I fear it might be a good deal worse: the will to build and maintain a global empire probably would not be very tolerant of freedom as we understand it.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Cognitive Science
- Thinking