Debate Now Boxes and the Art of Thinking Outside of Them

No one can truly fix your "fence" but you. Emotions could play a significant positive role in decision making if used in a balanced way.

I could hire someone to fix my fence ... I don't like fixing my fence ... But I do it anyway.
If emotion played a part ... I would hire someone else, or not fix my fence ... But that isn't the way it works.

I am willing to concede I may be broken ... But my fence isn't.

.
 
If you read the article I linked you will see that it discusses the inability of people that have had the portion of their brains that generate emotion damaged to make decisions. Even the most simple decisions.

The people who wrote the article didn't fix my fence either.

.
No one can truly fix your "fence" but you. Emotions could play a significant positive role in decision making if used in a balanced way.

There is some controversy about that though. On the Myers-Briggs and similar scales, a Thinking person makes decisions based on available verifiable evidence and generally emotions will not factor into that. A Feeling person will of course be influenced by verifiable evidence but more often makes decisions on what feels right--goes with his gut so to speak.

Of course few of us are all Ts or all Fs but most of us trend one way or the other. The best decisions will often be made by collaboration by a T and a F. The F will remind the T of human consequences of an action the T might not consider. The T will be more likely to spot the unintended consequences of an action based on emotional criteria.

That's why I couldn't really fit emotion into any of the existing boxes. If reason had been one of the boxes, I would have had to re-engineer it into the perception box or leave it on the outside of the whole along with emotion. :)
 
No one can truly fix your "fence" but you. Emotions could play a significant positive role in decision making if used in a balanced way.

I could hire someone to fix my fence ... I don't like fixing my fence ... But I do it anyway.
If emotion played a part ... I would hire someone else, or not fix my fence ... But that isn't the way it works.

I am willing to concede I may be broken ... But my fence isn't.

.


I use whatever tools I have at my disposal to fix my fence. "Fence" of course being a euphemism for whatever goal I seeking to achieve.
 
If you read the article I linked you will see that it discusses the inability of people that have had the portion of their brains that generate emotion damaged to make decisions. Even the most simple decisions.

The people who wrote the article didn't fix my fence either.

.
No one can truly fix your "fence" but you. Emotions could play a significant positive role in decision making if used in a balanced way.

There is some controversy about that though. On the Myers-Briggs and similar scales, a Thinking person makes decisions based on available verifiable evidence and generally emotions will not factor into that. A Feeling person will of course be influenced by verifiable evidence but more often makes decisions on what feels right--goes with his gut so to speak.

Of course few of us are all Ts or all Fs but most of us trend one way or the other. The best decisions will often be made by collaboration by a T and a F. The F will remind the T of human consequences of an action the T might not consider. The T will be more likely to spot the unintended consequences of an action based on emotional criteria.

That's why I couldn't really fit emotion into any of the existing boxes. If reason had been one of the boxes, I would have had to re-engineer it into the perception box or leave it on the outside of the whole along with emotion. :)

I would consider myself Thinking overall because I may feel something but I will base a decision on the evidence available. Unless it is a pretty girl then I am in trouble before I say "hello".
 
If you read the article I linked you will see that it discusses the inability of people that have had the portion of their brains that generate emotion damaged to make decisions. Even the most simple decisions.

The people who wrote the article didn't fix my fence either.

.
No one can truly fix your "fence" but you. Emotions could play a significant positive role in decision making if used in a balanced way.

There is some controversy about that though. On the Myers-Briggs and similar scales, a Thinking person makes decisions based on available verifiable evidence and generally emotions will not factor into that. A Feeling person will of course be influenced by verifiable evidence but more often makes decisions on what feels right--goes with his gut so to speak.

Of course few of us are all Ts or all Fs but most of us trend one way or the other. The best decisions will often be made by collaboration by a T and a F. The F will remind the T of human consequences of an action the T might not consider. The T will be more likely to spot the unintended consequences of an action based on emotional criteria.

That's why I couldn't really fit emotion into any of the existing boxes. If reason had been one of the boxes, I would have had to re-engineer it into the perception box or leave it on the outside of the whole along with emotion. :)

I would consider myself Thinking overall because I may feel something but I will base a decision on the evidence available. Unless it is a pretty girl then I am in trouble before I say "hello".

I will tilt more T than F every once in awhile, but I have been mostly 50%T and 50% F on those kinds of tests for decades now. The T is highly beneficial to me as an administrator, the F is invaluable as a moderator/facilitator/counselor.

But I am too much T to fully trust going with my gut. And that's why emotion didn't get put into any of those boxes. :)
 
I use whatever tools I have at my disposal to fix my fence. "Fence" of course being a euphemism for whatever goal I seeking to achieve.

I am probably a lot more pragmatic than you are ... Which is why our boxes look so different.
Mine follow a sequence of problem solving ... That starts with the overall encompassing Knowledge.
Then it uses every other tool in the box to refine that knowledge into something workable.

It is like having a large toolbox ... If I need a flathead screwdriver ... I don't dig through my tool box looking for it.
I know what drawer it is in ... How to find and use it ... And have the wherewithal to put it back where it belongs.
Once you know what tool best suits the task ... It doesn't matter if you have a chainsaw ... It will never make a good paintbrush.

.
 
If you read the article I linked you will see that it discusses the inability of people that have had the portion of their brains that generate emotion damaged to make decisions. Even the most simple decisions.

The people who wrote the article didn't fix my fence either.

.
No one can truly fix your "fence" but you. Emotions could play a significant positive role in decision making if used in a balanced way.

There is some controversy about that though. On the Myers-Briggs and similar scales, a Thinking person makes decisions based on available verifiable evidence and generally emotions will not factor into that. A Feeling person will of course be influenced by verifiable evidence but more often makes decisions on what feels right--goes with his gut so to speak.

Of course few of us are all Ts or all Fs but most of us trend one way or the other. The best decisions will often be made by collaboration by a T and a F. The F will remind the T of human consequences of an action the T might not consider. The T will be more likely to spot the unintended consequences of an action based on emotional criteria.

That's why I couldn't really fit emotion into any of the existing boxes. If reason had been one of the boxes, I would have had to re-engineer it into the perception box or leave it on the outside of the whole along with emotion. :)

I would consider myself Thinking overall because I may feel something but I will base a decision on the evidence available. Unless it is a pretty girl then I am in trouble before I say "hello".

I will tilt more T than F every once in awhile, but I have been mostly 50%T and 50% F on those kinds of tests for decades now. The T is highly beneficial to me as an administrator, the F is invaluable as a moderator/facilitator/counselor.

But I am too much T to fully trust going with my gut. And that's why emotion didn't get put into any of those boxes. :)


The emotions of other can be a powerful ally in any contest.
 
I use whatever tools I have at my disposal to fix my fence. "Fence" of course being a euphemism for whatever goal I seeking to achieve.

I am probably a lot more pragmatic than you are ... Which is why our boxes look so different.
Mine follow a sequence of problem solving ... That starts with the overall encompassing Knowledge.
Then it uses every other tool in the box to refine that knowledge into something workable.

It is like having a large toolbox ... If I need a flathead screwdriver ... I don't dig through my tool box looking for it.
I know what drawer it is in ... How to find and use it ... And have the wherewithal to put it back where it belongs.
Once you know what tool best suits the task ... It doesn't matter if you have a chainsaw ... It will never make a good paintbrush.

.
^^^^
I am very much what you describe, however, a chain saw like many tools can be used for many thing including art not just a paint brush need be used.

hqdefault.jpg
 
The people who wrote the article didn't fix my fence either.

.
No one can truly fix your "fence" but you. Emotions could play a significant positive role in decision making if used in a balanced way.

There is some controversy about that though. On the Myers-Briggs and similar scales, a Thinking person makes decisions based on available verifiable evidence and generally emotions will not factor into that. A Feeling person will of course be influenced by verifiable evidence but more often makes decisions on what feels right--goes with his gut so to speak.

Of course few of us are all Ts or all Fs but most of us trend one way or the other. The best decisions will often be made by collaboration by a T and a F. The F will remind the T of human consequences of an action the T might not consider. The T will be more likely to spot the unintended consequences of an action based on emotional criteria.

That's why I couldn't really fit emotion into any of the existing boxes. If reason had been one of the boxes, I would have had to re-engineer it into the perception box or leave it on the outside of the whole along with emotion. :)

I would consider myself Thinking overall because I may feel something but I will base a decision on the evidence available. Unless it is a pretty girl then I am in trouble before I say "hello".

I will tilt more T than F every once in awhile, but I have been mostly 50%T and 50% F on those kinds of tests for decades now. The T is highly beneficial to me as an administrator, the F is invaluable as a moderator/facilitator/counselor.

But I am too much T to fully trust going with my gut. And that's why emotion didn't get put into any of those boxes. :)


The emotions of other can be a powerful ally in any contest.

Oh definitely. And there are lots of people with mad skills in effectively using the emotions of others to direct their actions or control them. And some who know how to evoke an emotional action with no malice or controlling motive of any kind. I look at videos almost every day of the world that bring a lump to my throat or tears to my eyes or make me laugh out loud and most warn me in advance that will happen. (I'm on Facebook. :))

But because emotion involves every box on the OP list (except math), I left that outside the stack available to all.
 
^^^^
I am very much what you describe, however, a chain saw like many tools can be used for many thing including art not just a paint brush need be used.

Different tool for a different job ... A paintbrush would have a terrible time carving an image in a tree trunk.

When I go to fix the fence I take Science (a come-along, pulley and lever) and Mathematics (the right amount of fence to repair the hole).
When I go to a funeral I let emotion come along.

If I let Language or Emotion come to the fence fixing ... There would be a lot of foul language and I might get flustered and hurt myself.
Neither would be very productive.

.
 
On the list, the four most fundamental (atomic if you will) elements are science-mathematics and religion-belief. In truth, belief is a fundamental subset of religion so I would place belief in the religion box. Mathematics is a form of science and an inherent principle and so I would place mathematics in the science box.

These two boxes I would place inside the philosophy box as most people will have a philosophical bent toward a religious concept or a science concept. Rare, but occasionally, both can be present and so these three concepts are all encompassed by philosophy.

All of these boxes and concepts I would place in the box of perception. Perception is a combination of what it contains as these are driving influences of ourselves. A parent who raises a child either through science or religion will cement the perception of that person and how they view the world.

The perception box would then be contained inside the box labeled language. In the end, language is the over-reaching method by which we communicate not only with ourselves and nature, but with our fundamental precepts of science or religion. After all, mathematics talk so some, and many talk to God. Language need not be confined to the spoke or written word, nor to actions of individuals. Language encompasses all that we do.

Combined, all of the previous 7 boxes would comprise what I call Knowledge. It takes each to have a greater understanding of the world and universe around us and cannot truly exist without the contents of each of the preceding boxes.

Finally, all of that would be placed in the final box labeled emotion. It is our emotions that define everything and I have yet to see a person who could not communicate without some form of emotion driving the need. In other words,

I have yet to meet Mr. Data.
 
I'm not sure what you are saying, can you explain?...

I think it's true that emotion pervades and encompasses belief/knowledge, mainly because it is a deep-seated motivator in decision-making (whether we Mr. Spock types like to admit it or not), but it's hard for me to see how emotion could precede some initial perception, even for 'emotionally unstable' individuals (I.E. women. J/K :laugh: ). I don't exist in a state of pepetual fear; something frightens me. I feel no love or hate for anything or anyone intrinsically; there are always identifiable reasons for such feeelings, all of which are traceable back to some instigative perception. For me, in order to feel the love for X, I must first sense something lovable about X.

RAVI said:
...It is very hard, if not impossible, to create or even decide on a course of action without emotion.

I don't deny that. It's a big part of the reason I put knowledge/belief into the emotion box; but for me, it would also be "very hard, if not impossible" to feel emotion without some perceptive cause. On a baser level than that of my previous examples, I think it's likely that our bodies actually sense (and I mean that literally, in a tactile way) certain aspects of the physiological machinations (chemical reactions, ETC.) that give rise to our emotions.
 
^^^^
I am very much what you describe, however, a chain saw like many tools can be used for many thing including art not just a paint brush need be used.

Different tool for a different job ... A paintbrush would have a terrible time carving an image in a tree trunk.

When I go to fix the fence I take Science (a come-along, pulley and lever) and Mathematics (the right amount of fence to repair the hole).
When I go to a funeral I let emotion come along.

If I let Language or Emotion come to the fence fixing ... There would be a lot of foul language and I might get flustered and hurt myself.
Neither would be very productive.

.


It is not about the paintbrush for me it is about the art, in other words the journey and the road I wish to take. Being goal oriented means that I use whatever tools I deem necessary to accomplish my task, in many instances I have to improvise and use the tools available in ways they may not have originally been designed for and other times a simple application usual use may apply. My life has taken the path of the former rather than the latter.
 
It is not about the paintbrush for me it is about the art, in other words the journey and the road I wish to take. Being goal oriented means that I use whatever tools I deem necessary to accomplish my task, in many instances I have to improvise and use the tools available in ways they may not have originally been designed for and other times a simple application usual use may apply. My life has taken the path of the former rather than the latter.

Of course ... That is where adaptation comes in.
Some people just have difficulties with change ... While others search for better tools as a matter of nature.

To me ... The only real difference is how it is influenced by where you look for tools ... And how long it takes you find the one you want.
The better a person is at adaptation ... The easier they can adjust on the fly to situations that occur from what they gave up in more careful examination.

.
 
In thinking about "mathematics", I started second-guessing myself about its relationship to the language box. What is "language", after all, but a series of meaningful equations? The characters 'c', 'a', and 't' all have potential sounds associated with them, and those sounds are determined by dialect and the letters' respective placements in larger groups (we know, for instance, that the "c" in "cat" is hard, meaning it's pronounced with a hard K sound). Beyond pronunciation equations, we're further forced to solve larger, more meaningful ones. On its own, the word "cat" brings to mind a number of literal and figurative possibilities, but without factoring in the context of its placement in a larger equation (such as the sentence, "Our cats, Saturn and Ollie, are both very cool, each in his own way."), we could neither affirm nor discount any of those meaningful possibilities (we might be talking about a brand of tractors or an archaic slang phrase from the era of swing). Of course, language isn't restricted to the realm of literacy, as evidenced by many relatively 'well-spoken' illiterate people over the years. For that matter, it isn't restricted to vocalized speech, hearing, or sight (can anyone say "sign language" or "Braille"?). It is, nonetheless, in all forms and applications...contingent upon meaningful equations.

On the flip side, math seems no less dependent on linguistic-like characters (or concepts) to convey various meaningful values (yes, in my opinion, numerical value is meaningful). So, here again, I'm stuck with a chicken v. egg type of quandary. :eusa_think:

Suggestions? :dunno:
 
Last edited:
In thinking about "mathematics", I started second-guessing myself about its relationship to the language box. What is "language", after all, but a series of meaningful equations? The characters 'c', 'a', and 't' all have potential sounds associated with them, and those sounds are determined by dialect and the letters' respective placements in larger groups (we know, for instance, that the "c" in "cat" is hard, meaning it's pronounced with a hard K sound). Beyond pronunciation equations, we're further forced to solve larger, more meaningful ones. On its own, the word "cat" brings to mind a number of literal and figurative possibilities, but without factoring in the context of its placement in a larger equation (such as the sentence, "Our cats, Saturn and Ollie, are both very cool, each in his own way."), we could neither affirm nor discount any of those meaningful possibilities (we might be talking about a brand of tractors or an archaic slang phrase from the era of swing). Of course, language isn't restricted to the realm of literacy, as evidenced by many relatively 'well-spoken' illiterate people over the years. For that matter, it isn't restricted to vocalized speech, hearing, or sight (can anyone say "sign language" or "Braille"?). It is, nonetheless, in all forms and applications...contingent upon meaningful equations.

On the flip side, math seems no less dependent on linguistic-like characters (or concepts) to convey various meaningful values (yes, in my opinion, numerical value is meaningful). So, here again, I'm stuck with a chicken v. egg type of quandary.

Suggestions? :dunno:

That is why I put both science and mathematics in the language box.

My answer is a lot more simple than yours but I think we arrive at the same outcome.
Language is the board aspect that is more fluid and undefined ... Where science and mathematics allow us to actually define the usage of language.
I also do not think that science nor mathematics could do their jobs without language ... And they are both expressed through language.

I am certainly not positive, but would guess that a form of language appeared before the organized application of science and mathematics in a strictly chronological sense.

.
 
Last edited:
Speaking of a "chronological sense" ... That is what helped me decide where the boxes went.
I think of it as if it was the chronological occurrences of man that lead us to our boxes.

Knowledge ... Being the largest box and starting with the simplest concept of self-awareness.
The ability to understand that we do exist ... And that other things exist around us.

Language ... The desire to start making sense of what we know exists.
Even if it is just memory, and acceptance that one thing is what it is ... And will remain that way.

Science ... The first attempts to use what we know as a measure to its use or contributing factors.
Take for instance a caveman looking at a fire ... Then reaching the hypothesis that the fire may have an effect.
He can use science and test that hypothesis ... Stick his hand over the fire and feel warmth.

Mathematics ... In its crudest form he can then equate the results of his experiment.
How hot is hot ... How long before he is burned ... To what degree does it burn?

Although the caveman's perceptions of fire, philosophy about fire, beliefs concerning fire ... Or complete absence of religion or irrelevance of emotion could exist ...
The fire ... His knowledge of the fire ... Whether or not the fire burns him and to what degree ... Will all occur independent of his interpretations.

.
 
Last edited:
BlackSand said:
. . .Language is the board aspect that is more fluid and undefined ... Where science and mathematics allow us to actually define the usage of language. ...

I can see where you're coming from there, but I'm not convinced that even the vaguest notion of language isn't intrinsically mathematical in nature. I can picture a bunch of cavemen drawing petroglyphs and making up distinctive grunts and gestures to refer to specific depictions as they go. Such meaningful references would have required a baser concept of equivalence, which to me, seems first and foremost mathematical in nature.

blacksand said:
...I also do not think that science nor mathematics could do their jobs without language ... And they are both expressed through language.

Wholeheartedly agreed.

However, I don't see how the "expression" of any given concept could have preceded the initial conception. In other words, it seems to me that some notion of equivalence (I.E. that X-sound or gesture refers to something specific in the world outside of our minds) must have been integral to the formulation of the expression. It could well be the case that I'm improperly blurring the lines between the widely accepted formal definitions of "math" and "language", but I really feel strongly that a mathematical impetus underlies any and all meaningful expressions.
 
BlackSand said:
. . .Language is the board aspect that is more fluid and undefined ... Where science and mathematics allow us to actually define the usage of language. ...

I can see where you're coming from there, but I'm not convinced that even the vaguest notion of language isn't intrinsically mathematical in nature. I can picture a bunch of cavemen drawing petroglyphs and making up distinctive grunts and gestures to refer to specific depictions as they go. Such meaningful references would have required a baser concept of equivalence, which to me, seems first and foremost mathematical in nature.

blacksand said:
...I also do not think that science nor mathematics could do their jobs without language ... And they are both expressed through language.

Wholeheartedly agreed.

However, I don't see how the "expression" of any given concept could have preceded the initial conception. In other words, it seems to me that some notion of equivalence (I.E. that X-sound or gesture refers to something specific in the world outside of our minds) must have been integral to the formulation of the expression. It could well be the case that I'm improperly blurring the lines between the widely accepted formal definitions of "math" and "language", but I really feel strongly that a mathematical impetus underlies any and all meaningful expressions.

I don't know. Even now I think there are human experiences or observations for which there is no language to express. We are aware of them but do not translate them into language.

I can imagine that as human intelligence evolved, primitive man was able to know the basic elements of mathematics; i.e. the difference between four and five objects or that two plus two more makes four even if he didn't have words to express that.

I have always considered that language followed observation and knowledge as we created sounds to indicate what it was we needed to tell or explain to another. It is for that reason that I put language on the outside of the nested boxes so that it would be available to all.
 
I don't know. Even now I think there are human experiences or observations for which there is no language to express. We are aware of them but do not translate them into language.

I can imagine that as human intelligence evolved, primitive man was able to know the basic elements of mathematics; i.e. the difference between four and five objects or that two plus two more makes four even if he didn't have words to express that.

I have always considered that language followed observation and knowledge as we created sounds to indicate what it was we needed to tell or explain to another. It is for that reason that I put language on the outside of the nested boxes so that it would be available to all.

If we are aware of something ... Then we have knowledge that it exists.
That is why I put knowledge in the biggest box ... Because it is the combination of everything we know exists.

It can exist without our ability to identify, explain, quantify or believe.

.
 

Forum List

Back
Top