Road to Mastery

[AndyC]

How would one master the practice of thought?
If you could divide intellectual thought into different systems such as:
Strategic Thought
Analysis-Deductive Thought
Analysis-Inductive Thought
Creative Thought (i.e. divergent)- This one is not so much a system, but there may be systems to help provoke such thought
Problem Solving Thought (i.e. convergent)- ^^^ (above)

How could you, if possible, master each system?
I think complexity could go a long way for me personally because I have a limited working memory (ADD), I more so want to master the first 3 systems above, and how would one go about improving their focus too.
please contribute if you have any ideas, but a valid response would be very much appreciated, thanks.

 

[Invisible Gorilla]

This will probably give you a good starting point:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Thinking

The key to mastery is practising, again and again, in different contexts.

Also keep in mind that certain modes of learning that are more apropriate for certain kinds of "thinking". In other words, following a "diffuse" mode of learning, rather than a "focused" one, might be more appropriate when you try to think creatively. However, when you try to critically analyse or understand something the "focused" form can be better. Trying to apply both forms of learning simultaneously doesn't seem to work. Instead maybe try to alternate between the two: https://staciechoice1010.wordpress.com/2014/08/08/focused-vs-diffused-mode/

 

[Happy]

I guess you'd master it in the same way you'd master anything else. Thought is a little harder to master than - let's say - athletics, because you can't define mastery so easily as saying the guy who runs in circles faster than everyone else is a master. So I'd suggest the first step is to define mastery.

Some questions off the top of my head to think on (and maybe even answer - I for one would be interested to read your responses):
Who would you consider a master?
What do they do that quantifies them as a master? (Most crucial question IMO)
How did they get to that ability level?
How do their practices differ to your own?
What challenges did they face?
What are their weaknesses?
Why did they choose to pursue mastery?
Why do you choose to pursue mastery?

 

[Auburn]

I like your thread topics lately. +1

How could you, if possible, master each system?

Well, what a packed question!

How can one master an artform without a cohesive understanding if its containing medium and environment? Wouldn't the most perfect deductive/inductive thought necessarily require omniscience?

Our thinking is flawed to the extent that we are ignorant, regardless of the cleanliness of our processing. That would push the question of mastery-of-thought into the acquisition of knowledge, which enters the messy world of ongoing research, academia, and an exponentially growing collective body of human-produced information.

But maybe what you seek is the ability to do the best that can be done, with the amount of data available? To deduce or think through something to its finest granularity, given the situation?

I don't have a complete solution for this but...

Chess, RPGs and video games in general are perfect for this. This is because closed systems are excellent sandboxes for the mind. A video game is a closed system where your thinking and logic can play itself out in a properly defined vector. So it's possible, for example, to replay and replay a game or move until you get a perfect outcome; and "perfect" is measurable here. In real life, the endless flux of changing information makes it terribly hard to measure progress or degrees of success in thinking.

Secondly, it's been proven that the mind works most optimally when it is deeply engaged with a task on a multitude of levels. Video games are exceptionally designed to be engaging (that's the whole point) while also being mind-puzzles, brain-teasers and reflex-testers. They are incredibly under-appreciated for the positive brain-training effort they produce. Though studies are catching up with this fact.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

How would one master the practice of thought?
If you could divide intellectual thought into different systems such as:
Strategic Thought
Analysis-Deductive Thought
Analysis-Inductive Thought
Creative Thought (i.e. divergent)- This one is not so much a system, but there may be systems to help provoke such thought
Problem Solving Thought (i.e. convergent)- ^^^ (above)

I think you fail right after you pose your question.

Masterful use of thought is efficient, it achieves what it sets out to consider without unnecessary distraction.

Right below your question you immediately make a mistake of getting distracted by the habit of categorising things without a real need for it. Does creating all those categories help you reach the answer?

All those categories do one thing, problem solving. There are many domains of knowledge used in problem solving like deduction, reductionism, mathematics, logic, etc.

I think what it boils down to essentially is how to efficiently problem solve and you can definitely learn how to do that both in theory and practice.

Okay divergent/convergent thinking does give a proper picture because divergent is fuel for convergent thinking so you'd end up needing to efficiently do both. Which involves practicing your focus, task managing, dividing, knowing which method to use for which problem, delegating simpler things to tools like search engines or other tools/resources, consistent and semi-formal approach to structuring your thoughts so that you can translate and operate on them quickly and so on.

 

[QuickTwist]

Observe. That is the key.

As Auburn mentioned video games and chess, I would add games that deal a lot with an interchange of people who have different goals than your own.

My suggestion, however is a different angle. Reason being is that I do not think that there must be a "sameness" to the structure that purports the thought and in fact, if one wants to be a master of thought, one must be able to think differently. So different that I would suggest doing the same thing over and over with variances would really only be the starting point. The ending point which I think is much more advanced is rooted in creation - specifically - the creation of ideas. Once you get to the point where you can imagine anything, doing becomes easy. You would then only be limited by the physical world that you live in.

As others have said, this comes with practice. No structured thing can allow you to imagine what cannot be imagined by anyone else alive. The structure would be detrimental to the expansiveness to which you would think.

 

[Ex-User (8886)]

do a lot of mistakes, but don't repeat them. mastery is when you don't make mistakes, because you know all of them.

 

[Turnevies]

Why do you want to become a master in thinking?

Think about this question first. Of course, being good at thinking can be beneficial for a lot of things. But trying to become a master in thinking overall? I am convinced you can keep improving yourself by exercising.
However, speaking from experience here, don't rush yourself into thinking all the time in order to avoid the other aspects of life.

 

[AndyC]

As part of the image streaming I've just started (3rd day), I'm going to start each one with some visual affirmations to act upon the 'law of attraction' that goes with visualization. But I'm not sure what to visualize...
I'm not sure if it's possible to imagine yourself as 'smarter' because it's not a material and objective reality one can imagine due to it's being transcendental. So now I'm kind of lost. I'll probably imagine a goal I have, and my state of having completed that goal. I have a few goals, but one that I really want to achieve is the International Math Olympiad, mainly because of the problem-solving skills I will gain in my training for it. But I feel as I could be doing something else more effective for my road to mastery.

I'd reply to everything, but I'm too lazy and will instead simply take note of what you have said. But I guess I can be brief seeing as I just wrote that above. My motivation can be likened to learning an instrument, so one can enjoy playing it. In terms of these different methods to master, you could take for example problem solving, and the strategies you learn to help you tackle different problems. I'm looking for strategies and processes to use to assist activities such as creative thinking, strategic thought, detective analysis and etc. But upon further investigation I realised that there is too much interference from the cognitive functions, specifically my dominant Ti, to master Te based activities. So now I want to learn how to develop & apply (both are important) my Ti using possible strategies and processes without killing myself via less developed cognitive functions. I think the systematic reductionist approach used in Ti is extremely important for such approaches and should be developed via activities I wish to become aware of. Yes, rambling is done.
Visualisation is the main topic of this post.

 

[Yellow]

This is an interesting thing to think about. Some of these come more naturally to some than others. I'd say though, that mastery is simply a matter of practice. However, when looking to master anything, you need to start from a place of strength (unless you somehow know how to build a bridge in mid-air). Take your strongest thought type, and build on it. Once you think you've achieved "good enough" mastery, take the next natural step to master another form of thought.

By the way, I'd argue that problem-solving is the sum of the other types of thought. You have to apply them creatively for each unique problem.

 

[AndyC]

I'd agree problem solving would use different types of thought. I would say finding a way to optimise the process of using Ti and flow together (not sure if this works neurologically), and the ease of entering flow could be a starting point for understanding possible states of mind. The issue that seems to arise is defining the forms of thought and how they may work (although this may prove unnecessary), then figuring out exercises to strengthen that ability, then find ways to apply it as if it were a tool. Anyone know some good sources or areas I should look into, such as stuff on flow and other things discussed?

Edit:
Forget what I said about Ti and flow, I have no idea what that would do or if it's possible.

 

[Architect]

You need grist for a mill, and likewise need a subject to practice thought upon. You can't do it in the abstract, but you need a medium to work within, such as words, computer code, architecture design, or the like.

 

[AndyC]

It's difficult for me to differentiate my competence in Ne and Ti, but I will choose Ti for now and for the sake of the forum. Ti is great at building systems and reducing concepts to their key principals, so I will use something like the 100themesChallenge on Deviantart (example), and break them down as a way to set up a storage of devices that could be used to help understand things to a greater depth. I can see some errors with this, but I'm hoping to start a trail of ideas.

What would be interesting is to come with categories or simplified functions of reality to develop a system, and apply the derivations to help further guidance when using or creating this system... I saw something similar on a google groups forum on image streaming, where they wanted to explore how to do just this to minimize the lack of efficiency language can have (I'm pretty sure). I found the forum, and Brandon, supposedly the expert, did introduce a few ideas, I just read a post on using ontological categories in your image stream. He linked this:https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/brain-training/gh5xgRRwVtc as a possible set. Here's the page of the forum where he talks a bit about it too: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/brain-training/d-p0sjpe3FU[126-150]

 

[AndyC]

If a moderator could do so please, please merge my last 2 posts before this one.
I think using ontological categories, and creating many different systems is paramount to exercising and applying Ti. Learning the basic systems in which form our subjective and (subjectively) collective ontologies (i.e. internal/perception and external/reality) and importantly the systems governing their isomorphisms (right word?) (or causative correlations [such would consequence by starting with external/reality], this would disengage the necessity for these extra systems, although I think there will be both), is likely of extreme significance to using Ti across other fields of thought. By emphasing an isomorphism, or causative correlation, there will be justified chunking and development of laws, therefore it should be easier. The more people that work on this, the faster we can accumulate ontological expertise and Master Thought. This is definitely one of the most exhaustive methods I could have come up with, but it also seems like a bunch of fun and is relatively simple as a general process, but an awesome, complex project.

EDIT:
The more systems the better, but the main exercise is identifying systems in everyday experiences, and building on that, what I said above should be taken as a very slow process, and this is what you should be trying to do.

 

[AndyC]

UPDATE: Forget everything that has been said above. Mastery= Mastery of the Mind.

'Formula' for Genius (Mastery here means mastery of any activity):
Mind- Accept -> Transcend
Method (Creative Problem Solving)- Commit -> Evaluate
Mastery- Engage -> Challenge
Manifest- Explore -> Create

How this works is... complicated, but something that will make more sense as you apply the general principals I've layed out.

Some Questions: What are the best activities for mastering the creative problem solving process? In general, different activities will be 'different', hehe, but it is true that you can, given time develop a universal method.

Mastery: Reasoning is the key contributor to increasing overall performance. Many studies have demonstrated the effects of intense reasoning training. Where to find such training? I don't know. In another thread about deductive reasoning I mentioned a possible program that has not yet been created, please look into that if you're interested. http://intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=26309

If you are aware of any programs like this, please share.

And last of all, what are your thoughts on Meditation as a method for improving attention, and possibly other skill? http://cedar.wwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1519&context=wwuet
The conclusion of this study is that it simply helps with mind wandering, which is perhaps of great help to me. But, at the same time, I believe it will alter hyperfocal states so that they are less effective.

 

[AndyC]

Reasoning Training for one study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3657728/

35 hours for Logic Games, 35 hours for Logical Reasoning

For the Logic Games section, students were taught to break down problems into the essential information and to use diagrams to represent and integrate rules. For the Logical Reasoning section, students were taught basic logic principles (such as modus ponens and modus tollens), as well as how to avoid common logical fallacies. Students attempted problems at home and then instructors worked through the problems in class, answering any questions students might have. Special attention was paid to keeping motivation levels high by making the content fun through relatable examples.

Broadly, we sought to test the hypothesis that engaging in novel, complex cognitive tasks would strengthen connectivity within the reasoning network at rest. Indeed, the present findings show that connectivity between brain areas implicated in cognition is experience-dependent and can be modified by intensive training.

Any idea where one could find similar training?

 

[AndyC]

https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...ctivity-associated-with-high-level-cognition/

 

[AndyC]

I think that reasoning training study I linked used LSAT preparation materials.
Here are some I found, although you have to buy them, I'll link anything free but also sufficient: https://books.google.com.au/books?i...ved=0ahUKEwjZrL3u7NrTAhXDq5QKHWHgBR0Q6AEILDAC
https://books.google.com.au/books?i...ved=0ahUKEwit6LGj7NrTAhXFHJQKHeQNDwcQ6AEIIjAA
https://books.google.com.au/books?i...ved=0ahUKEwicvaqq7NrTAhXFFZQKHZLiBnAQ6AEIIjAA

 

[Lazy Vulpes]

How to master a thing: Practice.
How to practice: Try out new methods.
How to try out new methods: Recognize the effect by your behavior, and act accordantly.

Experience, experience experience! That's how you become a master. How much experience that's required is relative to the success of your ability to pattern recognition, you ability to pattern recognition is relative to your amount of experience.

 

[AndyC]

About the LSAT study:

I was really just critiquing the article, but honestly I'm not a huge fan of this genre of research either. I might catch some heat for this, but the "pick anything" and scan it method has always seemed somewhat scattershot to me. As such it has all the strengths and weaknesses of an exploratory approach. Sometimes you find something you didn't expect, e.g. chess grandmasters have recruited parts of the fusiform face area to analyze chess board states, but often you are just casting too wide a net.

Don't get me wrong, tools such as fMRI are huge advances, but there is a tendency to ignore their limitations. Research like this seems to come with so many caveats that their conclusions just aren't all that conclusive.

Between the relatively low spatial resolution and poor understand of functional localization there are a lot of claims being thrown around about "emotion circuits" and "reasoning circuits" and "LSAT circuits" that are really unsubstantiated. Worse yet, when you pick a complex task such as LSAT studying, or any other "normal activity", there is no assurance that every participant's experience has been the same.

So to sum it up, no there is nothing inherently wrong with this research as long as we are moderate with conclusions and acknowledge the potential errors. The more specific the choice of task and more well understood the regions they are focusing on the better the research is likely to be, but even then there are significant issues that need to be considered.

We also don't know if the brain connectivity means anything.

 

[AndyC]

For those interested, my current research holds that Relational Frame Training is the only proven method for increasing general ability that carries across multiple fields for almost any individual. There are different technologies, but I cannot confirm any one of them as necessarily safe nor reliable. The issue with RFT is that the complexity of the tasks is not sufficient for smarter individuals in any available programs, neither are there many programs. I have a friend of mine who has just started programming one, but it is early in development.
Please also note that my research is not finished and that I am aware of other successful studies, but not the methods they used.