Intuitive thinking and analytic thinking seldom work exclusively. Many of us are faced with decisions that involve a lot of reasoning at first, and eventually, when it comes for the time to act, we often act intuitively. Ultimately, it all boils down to upbringing. That is why the tests that Gervais and Norenzayan conducted seem superficial and lacking in... well, analytic depth. Even if the conclusions that they have drawn seem reasonable, they are still quite evident: engaging in greater amounts of analytic thinking reduces one's tendency to believe in illogical conclusions. What can really help cognitive psychologists arrive at a conclusion is better tests: is there a way to conclusively establish that answering negatively in a religious survey can only be the result of having recently engaged in analytic thinking?
Tuesday, 1 May 2012
Analytic v. intuitive thinking
How Critical Thinkers Lose Their Faith In God
Intuitive thinking and analytic thinking seldom work exclusively. Many of us are faced with decisions that involve a lot of reasoning at first, and eventually, when it comes for the time to act, we often act intuitively. Ultimately, it all boils down to upbringing. That is why the tests that Gervais and Norenzayan conducted seem superficial and lacking in... well, analytic depth. Even if the conclusions that they have drawn seem reasonable, they are still quite evident: engaging in greater amounts of analytic thinking reduces one's tendency to believe in illogical conclusions. What can really help cognitive psychologists arrive at a conclusion is better tests: is there a way to conclusively establish that answering negatively in a religious survey can only be the result of having recently engaged in analytic thinking?
Intuitive thinking and analytic thinking seldom work exclusively. Many of us are faced with decisions that involve a lot of reasoning at first, and eventually, when it comes for the time to act, we often act intuitively. Ultimately, it all boils down to upbringing. That is why the tests that Gervais and Norenzayan conducted seem superficial and lacking in... well, analytic depth. Even if the conclusions that they have drawn seem reasonable, they are still quite evident: engaging in greater amounts of analytic thinking reduces one's tendency to believe in illogical conclusions. What can really help cognitive psychologists arrive at a conclusion is better tests: is there a way to conclusively establish that answering negatively in a religious survey can only be the result of having recently engaged in analytic thinking?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment