LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksIn the following scenario, who is following who?
Two people are walking backwards one behind the other.
January 14th, 2008, 09:14 PM
In the following scenario, who is following who?
Two people are walking backwards one behind the other.
the person to the left is following the person to the right.
Who starts walking? It could be that the person on the left is following the person on the right but that could not be. Maybe the person on the left was walking first and the person on the right followed him.???
They could each equally be following only their own path, coincident with that of another. ie NOT following.
Yes intention, and also there must be something to follow in the first placeOriginally Posted by Megabrain
But also they could be being sucked into a black hole and so it all depends which one is the strongest to resist and gets sucked in first.
They could also be doing a backwards race and both have a goal that's apart from each other and in the next second the left one could overtake the right and then who's following who?
The direction of motion is forseeable. the one on the right is moving backwards and the one on the left is either following the one in front by doing that same motion, or he is really dumb and doesn't realise to get out of the way he can move in more than one dimension.
In my opinion the left is following the one on the right because the motion is backwards and the one on the left is moving backwards. Just like one moving forward and the behind following, the same applies here with the moving backward and the forward one following, regardless of whether he can see who he is following or not.
I don't know.
I'm following you
January 15th, 2008, 12:31 PM
I don't care. So long as they follow away from me.
Are they on an infinite straight path? Or a redundant one? (circle)
Is the second guy taking the first guy hostage?
Maybe they're BOTH following the herd towards www.sfdt.com?
Or maybe "who's following whom"?
And it's immediately obvious who the whom is, no? :P
You know, being scientific is about being literal :|.
Being scientific is about framing questions appropriately.
Touchea.Being scientific is about framing questions appropriately.
January 16th, 2008, 07:15 AM
Does knowing if its a circular path or straight plane affect your answer?I don't care. So long as they follow away from me.
Are they on an infinite straight path? Or a redundant one? (circle)
Is the second guy taking the first guy hostage?
Maybe they're BOTH following the herd towards www.sfdt.com?
January 16th, 2008, 08:29 AM
Really this depends on whether the left is aware the right is going in the same direction.
If not the right one will know where the left is going but really it is the right one in my idea.
Look, you wern't given any other information to answer the question so bottom line answer it using the information you have avaliable guys. You can't make up something that 'might' be happening here, just make a judgement on what data and information you have. Thats probably the reason why more information wasn't posted. At times you have to step back and not over analyse everything you become irrational then, which is no good.
January 16th, 2008, 06:00 PM
It can, yep.
Let's say the path is circular...such as, they're walking around a sphere. The guy on the right could actually be following the guy on the left, even though in the picture he appears to be behind the other person.
Again, in that same example, either could be following depending on how far ahead or behind they are in the "laps."
If it's a linear path, then chances are the stick on the left is following the stick on the right. There could be probably only two exceptions. Either the stick on the right is following the "lead" of the stick on the left, kinda like dancing or fencing, OR the stick on the right WAS following and passed the stick on the left, in which case he's technically no longer following...
January 16th, 2008, 07:59 PM
It can, yep.
Let's say the path is circular...such as, they're walking around a sphere. The guy on the right could actually be following the guy on the left, even though in the picture he appears to be behind the other person.
Again, in that same example, either could be following depending on how far ahead or behind they are in the "laps."
If it's a linear path, then chances are the stick on the left is following the stick on the right. There could be probably only two exceptions. Either the stick on the right is following the "lead" of the stick on the left, kinda like dancing or fencing, OR the stick on the right WAS following and passed the stick on the left, in which case he's technically no longer following...
Then again, the planet we live in is what you are describing (round) but if I walk towards you facing you behind you, I am following you. You are not following me. Simply because the shorter distance between you and me is too small to compare with the distance between you and me in the opposite direction of the sphere.
Therefore if we are talking about the two people on a circular plane or a flat plane, it shouldn't matter who is follow whom, right?
The significance of the distance is arbitrary. Of course, it does not fit within our cognitive scheme to think of 'following' in such terms, but it's certainly not 'philosophically conclusive'.Then again, the planet we live in is what you are describing (round) but if I walk towards you facing you behind you, I am following you. You are not following me. Simply because the shorter distance between you and me is too small to compare with the distance between you and me in the opposite direction of the sphere.
Considering no answer to this question is any more interesting than the other, I consider this a bad question.
No. Look at the picture in the OTP. Both figures are moving in the same direction. I never mentioned someone changing direction, and the illustration doesn't show that either.
To reiterate what I said before, it's just like race cars on a track. You can have a car that appears to be in the lead, but who is actually several laps behind and is following the true lead who appears to be behind him. They're both moving in the same direction, yet since the track is circular, there is an opportunity for the follower to appear ahead simply due to the distance being greater than the length of the track.
In my other scenario, the two figures might be on an endless straight path, like this pic here:
If that's the case, the only way for the person who appears to be leading to become the follower, is if they change direction.
It's a thought stimulus. It's not really meant to have an absolute answer. Depending on the rules applied, multiple answers can be possible. These kinds of models are really useful in theoretical physics, philosophy, and psychology.
Dammit sunshine, I resisted, but you were weak. :P
In order to find out who is following whom, just stop one of them and see the reaction of the other, then repeat the experiment in reverse.
The 'leader' if stopped should provoke the follower to stop, whereas stopping the follower, the leader should continue, only stopping when arriving at his/her destination.
Since not all times will this be true the experiment must be repeated many times. Only when data is clearly in favour of one being followed and the other being led should this be commented upon with some authority.
That is the view of the scientist. :wink:
Nietzsche obviously never considered the matter so the philosopher has no view.....
The layman need only be told which is male and which female for his answer though today one may need to sample several males.
I'll peer review and publish your discovery to a science journal.In order to find out who is following whom, just stop one of them and see the reaction of the other, then repeat the experiment in reverse.
The 'leader' if stopped should provoke the follower to stop, whereas stopping the follower, the leader should continue, only stopping when arriving at his/her destination.
Since not all times will this be true the experiment must be repeated many times. Only when data is clearly in favour of one being followed and the other being led should this be commented upon with some authority.
That is the view of the scientist. :wink:
Nietzsche obviously never considered the matter so the philosopher has no view.....
Well... at least it was weakly, not daily, I did it...Dammit sunshine, I resisted, but you were weak. :P
I beg to differ. Anything abstracted from reality and into the higher cognition, into higher mathematics will no longer tell us something about reality. Physics is only scientific when it pertains to observable data. Postulating the existence of an infinite amount of universes is not.It's a thought stimulus. It's not really meant to have an absolute answer. Depending on the rules applied, multiple answers can be possible. These kinds of models are really useful in theoretical physics, philosophy, and psychology.
of course, the different answers may have different metaphysical implications - which makes them interesting, in contrast to this case.
As for philosophy and psychology, not I don't see how they are useful. I've always found game theory, per example, to be rather simplistic. Make one mistake - like postulate that the global economy is a zero-sum game - and you get radically different outcomes. Science is concerned with reality, with observed empirical data and theories regarding predicting events rooted in reality. Not word games or questions of agency.
Philosophy, as I have hitherto understood it, is the voluntary living amongst ice and high mountains, seeking out everything strange and questionable in existence that was hitherto banned by Morality.Nietzsche obviously never considered the matter so the philosopher has no view.....
I have not once debated someone on Nietzsche who considered that I was too influenced by them. My opinion and interpretation have always found respect; those people remarking that I follow Nietzsche too rigorously have rarely read him (or Pindar, for that matter).
By the way, my soon-to-obtain Bachelor will be in science, not philosophy.
If you're looking for answers about something physical, you're probably right. But then again who ever used a thought experiment for that...
When did we (or you) get locked onto this being about proving physics?
Either way, scientists use hypothetical experiments and thought experiments all the time to try and figure things out.
Why? How can you (or anyone for that matter) be certain that contemplating multiple universes is bogus? Careful, if you think about it, you just killed your argument...
You're right. No one has never used a hypothetical situation or scene to stimulate thought or discussion before...
:?
Another example you've surely heard of is presenting a glass filled 50%. After being asked if the glass is "half full" or "half empty" you can determine something of a person's psychological disposition based on their answer.
There is no right answer to the question. "Half full" and "half empty" are both valid answers. The question isn't asked to get an answer, it's to make people think. In doing so, you can both study a person's thought processes, their disposition, and thought itself.
Like any field of study, there are needs for basic models. If you're going to study the articulation of thought, it's sometimes best to work with simple subjects.
There are a great many of projection tests. Not one of them has ever been demonstrated to be valid. There is reliable, valid research into implicit attitudes.
Study? Not scientifically you can't.There is no right answer to the question. "Half full" and "half empty" are both valid answers. The question isn't asked to get an answer, it's to make people think. In doing so, you can both study a person's thought processes, their disposition, and thought itself.
I'm not denying the importance of thought experiments. Einstein riding on a beam of light was surely useful. That's not the question. The question is whether this particular thought experiment is useful for determining anything, I say no.Like any field of study, there are needs for basic models. If you're going to study the articulation of thought, it's sometimes best to work with simple subjects.
Valid in what way? I think we got a valid result from the OTP's question...
If you ask someone the question and they answer that the glass is "half full" or "half empty" what does that tell you? If you believe it doesn't tell you anything, I'm in question as to your ability to assess this subject. :?
In either regard, the glass is merely a thought stimulus. It doesn't have a solution, it doesn't prove anything, and no one really cares if it's "half full" or "half empty"....unless yer a waiter...
The stimulus doesn't end there, with the statement of "half full" or "half empty." Just like the stick-figures question, when someone answers, that's not the end of it. If someone says the glass is half full, you ask why they think it's half full, and not half empty. Their rational and thought processes not only provide a forum for the mind, but an insight into the thinking processes of the person.
Although proving something wasn't the objective of the OTP's question, what if it was a thought tool used to analyze the meaning of the term "follow" and it's associative impact on others?
You could do the same exact experiment with "lead" instead of "follow" using the same picture. "Who is leading who?"
You'll get a similar discussion, and again there isn't a right answer, but two things are happening.
1. You get to see what other peoples think when asked which is the leader. If anything, you find out that not everyone thinks the same way. That, itself, is a result.
2. You learn to flex the mind. If someone says the guy on the right is leading, you might ask "How could you make it so that the guy on the left is leading instead?" There's no physical result, but the person might learn a new way of looking at things or articulating a thought.
If you were expecting to get some kind of profound scientific result from this, yer missing the point. That's not what these are about. The discussion that resulted from the OTP's question is exactly the result intended. It's not meant to prove gravity or anything. It's meant to get people thinking about a problem. In that regard, it's entirely valid. One can exercise the mind in many ways. They don't all have to put something in your hands.
If a logic instructor puts questions to his students for homework, is he trying to solve actual problems? Probably not. Is there a purpose and value to the results of the work? Outside of spontaneous distribution of knowledge, probably.
The answer...
The glass is one third bigger than it should be and the water one third less than it should be
Construct validity.Valid in what way? I think we got a valid result from the OTP's question...
Let there be no doubt: I do not claim to have any ability to assess anyone's personality, disposition or attitude by asking one question about half-full glass.If you ask someone the question and they answer that the glass is "half full" or "half empty" what does that tell you? If you believe it doesn't tell you anything, I'm in question as to your ability to assess this subject. :?
You have departed rather far from the path of empirical study and scientific inquiry.In either regard, the glass is merely a thought stimulus. It doesn't have a solution, it doesn't prove anything, and no one really cares if it's "half full" or "half empty"....unless yer a waiter...
The stimulus doesn't end there, with the statement of "half full" or "half empty." Just like the stick-figures question, when someone answers, that's not the end of it. If someone says the glass is half full, you ask why they think it's half full, and not half empty. Their rational and thought processes not only provide a forum for the mind, but an insight into the thinking processes of the person.
And my answer would be the same - a meaningless discourse.Although proving something wasn't the objective of the OTP's question, what if it was a thought tool used to analyze the meaning of the term "follow" and it's associative impact on others?
You could do the same exact experiment with "lead" instead of "follow" using the same picture. "Who is leading who?"
What - exactly - are you measuring? And don't bring up 'holistic approach,' because if you measure everything, you measure nothing.You'll get a similar discussion, and again there isn't a right answer, but two things are happening.
1. You get to see what other peoples think when asked which is the leader. If anything, you find out that not everyone thinks the same way. That, itself, is a result.
What new way is introduced here? What use does this thought experiment have? Like I said in my first post, I do not see one. You are taking a suspiciously long time to come up with one. All you do is talk about thought experiments in general and 'half-full cups,' about which this thread is not.2. You learn to flex the mind. If someone says the guy on the right is leading, you might ask "How could you make it so that the guy on the left is leading instead?" There's no physical result, but the person might learn a new way of looking at things or articulating a thought.
The logic instructor can demonstrate the effect of his educating. He can demonstrate, through tests, that people have gained a greater understanding. What has been learned here? What uses does discussing this 'thought experiment' have?If you were expecting to get some kind of profound scientific result from this, yer missing the point. That's not what these are about. The discussion that resulted from the OTP's question is exactly the result intended. It's not meant to prove gravity or anything. It's meant to get people thinking about a problem. In that regard, it's entirely valid. One can exercise the mind in many ways. They don't all have to put something in your hands.
If a logic instructor puts questions to his students for homework, is he trying to solve actual problems? Probably not. Is there a purpose and value to the results of the work? Outside of spontaneous distribution of knowledge, probably.
Why? What's your template for a valid construct? Is this an invalid test because it doesn't prove atoms exist? Or because it doesn't have a singular answer?
Only if you believe psychology, philosophy, sociology, and cognition, aren't part of science...but I'll let you make that call. :?
The discourse IS the meaning. Once again, it's a discussion/thought stimulus. The very discussion and thought surrounding the puzzle is the objective of it all. Getting people to think things out, learn how to extrapolate a solution, how to turn it around, how to think creatively. Those are things which many people value, including many (if not all) of the famous scientists throughout history. As chess is a "meaningless" endeavor in which two people can share cognitive processes, so to is a riddle, puzzle, or hypothetical.
In that case, it's measuring the variance in people's thought processes. You seem to think everyone thinks the same, but something tells me that's not the case.
On one hand, we find that there are differing views on the subject of leadership or just the depiction, and in finding those we can explore them.
On the other hand, this is called thinking outside the box, or thinking outside the norm. There isn't really a box in those statements. It's merely a statement alluding to how someone has found an alternative viewpoint or solution on a subject.
When people are, as they say, "stuck in a rut" about something and can't see their way around a problem, we often tell them to step back and look at it again. There's no doubt that they have the ability (as brain users) to think, but learning to use different approaches helps us problem solve. People aren't always born knowing how to do this, and it can probably be argued that no one really knows how to do this from birth. Through life we learn how to avoid getting trapped into a single pathway of thought. It's what keeps the monkey's hand in the trap and leaves us free.
Life experiences give us plenty of things to tease our minds with, but sometimes we just have to make up our own little problems, too.
Maybe because you already understand most of the facets of this particular problem. Like a finger-trap, the intrigue is lost once the solution is found. Unless you enjoyed the journey, you're not likely to enjoy it again. It's just a thought experiment, not a universe. Like the glass of water, there's a limited number of responses to the problem itself.
So great, now you know how the person on the left can be the follower, AND the person on the right. Intrigue over for that one. Now you can either go away onto something else, or you can stay and watch what others do in your situation. We can't stick a cable in someone's head and read their thoughts, or upload knowledge to them. So instead we watch, we introspect, we converse, we analyze what others are thinking, we help each other understand. It's part of being human.
With the stick-figure experiment, there was quite an exchange of ideas. Some people thought the stick on the right was the follower, while others, the left. They had to explain themselves and give examples because not everyone understood or saw it so clearly. They had to figure out the reasoning behind the approaches...and although you don't seem to think so, that IS learning, and thus has a value.
I've given you several explanations, and several times at that. I cannot force you to understand if you refuse to listen or just don't get it. Perhaps that's a fault on my part. Perhaps I have not yet learned how to explain things in a way YOU understand, as opposed to someone else. I'm not god...not yet at least...
Disregarding the glass of water example for what it was (a more common example of the same thing as in the OTP question) I'm confused now. Thought experiments is what we've been on about for practically the whole thread. I don't remember reading where the OTP said this wasn't a thought stimulating problem, and that it had a definite solution and that there were two people outside right now in which one was actually the follower, ready to hand out rewards for the correct answer...
Then again, if you don't believe that the thought processes of others are different, or interesting, or worth speculation, I could see why you think this is all nonsense. Of course, if you think it's nonsense, why are you in here at all? Why waste your time? Why even try to rationalize with others?
Woops, sorry, I was getting curious about yer differing thought processes and psyche. I forgot we are exactly the same...
Alright, let's try another angle...
Let's say you take this stick-figure problem to someone, and they just don't get how you could say the person on the right is following the person on the left, when in the picture the person is to the right, and thus front of the person on the left.
What do you think is the impact if that person never learns to figure that other solution out?
Is there no value in the person figuring out how that picture could show that the person on the right is following the person on the left?
YyyaaaAAAaaawwWWWwwnnnnnnnnnnn...........zzzzzzzzz z..........zzzzzz.........zzzzzz
.....zzzzz
zzzzzzz
zzz
z
zz
z
.............R.E.M....................
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construct_validityWhy? What's your template for a valid construct? Is this an invalid test because it doesn't prove atoms exist? Or because it doesn't have a singular answer?
You think 'half-full glass' has anything to do with the scientific discipline of psychology?Only if you believe psychology, philosophy, sociology, and cognition, aren't part of science...but I'll let you make that call. :?
So now suddenly, it's no longer a thought experiment, now it's an exercise. Well, I'll admit that it may very well be an exercise - so can the theological argument how many angels can dance on a pin. That doesn't mean it is any more useful - which was my main objection. If you are saying that people learn to think more critically because of thinking about 'who follows who,' as if agency can be derived from stick figures - I'll leave that as it is without asking for evidence.The discourse IS the meaning. Once again, it's a discussion/thought stimulus. The very discussion and thought surrounding the puzzle is the objective of it all. Getting people to think things out, learn how to extrapolate a solution, how to turn it around, how to think creatively. Those are things which many people value, including many (if not all) of the famous scientists throughout history. As chess is a "meaningless" endeavor in which two people can share cognitive processes, so to is a riddle, puzzle, or hypothetical.
I think everyone thinks the same? Yeah, I must have missed where I said that. I study cognitive psychology, by the way.In that case, it's measuring the variance in people's thought processes. You seem to think everyone thinks the same, but something tells me that's not the case.
Yeah, what exactly are you saying?On one hand, we find that there are differing views on the subject of leadership or just the depiction, and in finding those we can explore them.
On the other hand, this is called thinking outside the box, or thinking outside the norm. There isn't really a box in those statements. It's merely a statement alluding to how someone has found an alternative viewpoint or solution on a subject.
Yeah. Like chess. If you are saying that something improves one's understanding of other problems, that's an empirical - testable claim. Frankly, I doubt it. Demonstrate it. Hell, I'll even settle for a theory why talking about agency and stick figures will make you more perceptive to other problems.When people are, as they say, "stuck in a rut" about something and can't see their way around a problem, we often tell them to step back and look at it again. There's no doubt that they have the ability (as brain users) to think, but learning to use different approaches helps us problem solve. People aren't always born knowing how to do this, and it can probably be argued that no one really knows how to do this from birth. Through life we learn how to avoid getting trapped into a single pathway of thought. It's what keeps the monkey's hand in the trap and leaves us free.
Life experiences give us plenty of things to tease our minds with, but sometimes we just have to make up our own little problems, too.
How is that possible? I never encountered it before?! Unless you are saying that the insights gained by this supposed problem may also be learned by other problems, in which case some problems might elicit learning better than others. Consequently, you may actually be - relatively speaking - holding people back with this particular problem!Maybe because you already understand most of the facets of this particular problem.
Yeah, I don't think you have really established that the glass of water method is really sufficient.Like a finger-trap, the intrigue is lost once the solution is found. Unless you enjoyed the journey, you're not likely to enjoy it again. It's just a thought experiment, not a universe. Like the glass of water, there's a limited number of responses to the problem itself.
Yeah. So when they ever encounter two stick figures and someone asks them who is following who, they won't have to start thinking then, but they can use their memory. :/So great, now you know how the person on the left can be the follower, AND the person on the right. Intrigue over for that one. Now you can either go away onto something else, or you can stay and watch what others do in your situation. We can't stick a cable in someone's head and read their thoughts, or upload knowledge to them. So instead we watch, we introspect, we converse, we analyze what others are thinking, we help each other understand. It's part of being human.
With the stick-figure experiment, there was quite an exchange of ideas. Some people thought the stick on the right was the follower, while others, the left. They had to explain themselves and give examples because not everyone understood or saw it so clearly. They had to figure out the reasoning behind the approaches...and although you don't seem to think so, that IS learning, and thus has a value.
Yeah, as a cognitive psychologist I often have difficulty understanding people's..err.. intuitive ideas about psychology.I've given you several explanations, and several times at that. I cannot force you to understand if you refuse to listen or just don't get it. Perhaps that's a fault on my part. Perhaps I have not yet learned how to explain things in a way YOU understand, as opposed to someone else. I'm not god...not yet at least...
Exactly the same? It's rather difficult to address an argument when your assumptions are not just wrong, but seem without any foundation.Disregarding the glass of water example for what it was (a more common example of the same thing as in the OTP question) I'm confused now. Thought experiments is what we've been on about for practically the whole thread. I don't remember reading where the OTP said this wasn't a thought stimulating problem, and that it had a definite solution and that there were two people outside right now in which one was actually the follower, ready to hand out rewards for the correct answer...
Then again, if you don't believe that the thought processes of others are different, or interesting, or worth speculation, I could see why you think this is all nonsense. Of course, if you think it's nonsense, why are you in here at all? Why waste your time? Why even try to rationalize with others?
Woops, sorry, I was getting curious about yer differing thought processes and psyche. I forgot we are exactly the same...
I don't think there is any impact whatsoever.Alright, let's try another angle...
Let's say you take this stick-figure problem to someone, and they just don't get how you could say the person on the right is following the person on the left, when in the picture the person is to the right, and thus front of the person on the left.
What do you think is the impact if that person never learns to figure that other solution out?
No. I don't see any value whatsoever. I can't even think of an unrealistic witty example in which it might be valuable.Is there no value in the person figuring out how that picture could show that the person on the right is following the person on the left?
If you're not going to attempt to contribute, don't waste bytes.
What's the difference between a person who argues that a glass is half full, verses someone who argues that it is half empty? Why is their initial reaction that it is full, or empty? What is the effect on them in either case? Further, if it is equally weighted to the person, why choose one answer over the other?
Exercise, experiment, does it matter in the assessment of the validity of the debate/discussion of the OTP's post?
The question could be part of an experiment. It could also be an exercise. It could also just be a tool for provoking thought and sharing ideas.
It was useful in starting a discussion...it also attracted someone to remind us how we were apparently wasting our time by our own choice. Good, bad, whatever.
If you want to see how people deal with self preservation, put them on a sinking ship. If you want to see how they theorize about a problem, give them a problem.
Well apparently you believe there's no point in the differing viewpoints or ways of thinking of people, so either you believe we all think exactly the same, or that our differences in thinking don't have any effect (and thus aren't worth study).
Is that supposed to mean something? At best it makes you someone worthwhile to discuss this with. It doesn't drop the lid on anything, though.
When I was younger I used to play chess with my sister. She was younger than me, and her moves were always based on what she wanted to accomplish in one step. Of course, I usually won. When she finally got fed up and asked why, I explained that when I make my moves, I think about what the other person is trying to do. In short, I put myself in the other player's shoes.
The result was that she started winning more often because she stopped thinking just about moving forward and starting thinking about why I was making the moves I was. She had learned a new way of thinking. She probably could have learned the same lesson doing something else, but it was the chess game that did it for her.
Maybe we're just too far along in our own development that things like the stick-figure problem aren't difficult for us to think about and change around...but there's probably someone out there who couldn't understand why some of the other responses worked. Their ability to think along those lines just wasn't there yet. Now that they've (hopefully) seen how other solutions can work, they can apply that knowledge to other problems, both theoretical and physical. Sometimes a change of viewpoint helps (does the person on the left have to be following the person on the right?), or breaking down a problem into its parts (what if the pathway isn't straight? What if it's endless? What if they're walking backwards?).
There's probably a lot of reasons why someone may not see all the solutions to a problem. Why someone doesn't know of (or see the advantage of) viewing a problem from both sides, if they've never experienced that before. If they're not put in a situation where they can experience such a thing, what is the likelihood that they will develop such a way of thinking?
I probably should have been more explicit in my statement, but you did figure it out. :P Anyhow, if the learning achieved from this stick-figure problem is the same as can be found elsewhere, what difference does it make? If the desired goal is to achieve that learning, was it not successful? I'll agree it may not be the best way, but it's still a way.
Unlike a poorly constructed RPG, we can learn how to do all kinds of things from all kinds of experiences. We don't have to go to one particular problem to achieve a certain facet of learning. We can easily learn all we need to know to solve a particular problem elsewhere, and in so, make the problem seem utterly trivial when we arrive.
But fortunately, even though we know how to give a solution to questions like this stick-figure problem, the learning isn't over. Just when you think you have all the possible answers, you can try and sit back and think of another one. Is there a way we haven't thought of yet? How could we, for instance, get a solution where both stick figures are following each other? It may not always work, and we may not always find something, but if we do, sometimes we learn something.
It may sound corny, but a lot of times I pose questions like these to my friends. Is the glass half full, or half empty? I know my friends have already heard of this and probably already know of lots of things to say about it, but once in a while someone says something I haven't heard before. Suddenly there's a new viewpoint, a new logic, a new way of thinking. We explore that and sometimes the knowledge we acquire from the discussion becomes a part of our own way of thinking.
Are you really looking at this that literally? Do you really think I'm trying to prove that this stick-figure question is useful because they might get asked it again?
And that's my fault...?
Problem solving and creative thinking are useless. Got it.No. I don't see any value whatsoever. I can't even think of an unrealistic witty example in which it might be valuable.
In the end, this problem has induced a discussion about the solutions and in doing so we have learned some things and (at least some of us) have had a little fun. I also learned that there are people who don't think they learn anything form these discussions. I'm good. Time for lunch.
Knowing that would be nice - at least then I knew what you were measuring with that question. See construct validity.If you're not going to attempt to contribute, don't waste bytes.
What's the difference between a person who argues that a glass is half full, verses someone who argues that it is half empty?
Again, I don't know. It might be their particular disposition to that question - which means that you are only measuring an attitude to a question, not anything beyond it. If you are saying that you are measuring more than that - prove it.Why is their initial reaction that it is full, or empty?
You lost me here.What is the effect on them in either case? Further, if it is equally weighted to the person, why choose one answer over the other?
Of course it does. There's a difference between an experiment and an exercise. A thought experiment seeks to test something, what would plausibly happen if I did this. An exercise doesn't have a purpose beyond the exercise itself. Well, perhaps the training of the brain. I'm not saying this can't be an exercise, although then I question how well it fulfils that purpose.Exercise, experiment, does it matter in the assessment of the validity of the debate/discussion of the OTP's post?
Yes, true, but if you are saying it is an experiment, I'm saying it is a useless one. I haven't made any claims beyond that.The question could be part of an experiment. It could also be an exercise. It could also just be a tool for provoking thought and sharing ideas.
Yes, but the argument about angels and pins starts a discussion as well. That doesn't mean its useful, neither does the fact that it brought up this particular discussion about its use.It was useful in starting a discussion...it also attracted someone to remind us how we were apparently wasting our time by our own choice. Good, bad, whatever.
So now this is an experiment into human problem-solving? Ad-hoc reasoning is a fallacy, you know.If you want to see how people deal with self preservation, put them on a sinking ship. If you want to see how they theorize about a problem, give them a problem.
Yeah. You have a marvellous way with misrepresentations.Well apparently you believe there's no point in the differing viewpoints or ways of thinking of people, so either you believe we all think exactly the same, or that our differences in thinking don't have any effect (and thus aren't worth study).
No, I'm good at discussing scientific theories on human cognition, not ideas about folk-psychology.Is that supposed to mean something? At best it makes you someone worthwhile to discuss this with. It doesn't drop the lid on anything, though.
Right. I don't object to that. Except if you are going to have a discussion, debate that means looking at a matter from more than one side - you might as well pick a subject that elicits this without being itself useless to discuss.When I was younger I used to play chess with my sister. She was younger than me, and her moves were always based on what she wanted to accomplish in one step. Of course, I usually won. When she finally got fed up and asked why, I explained that when I make my moves, I think about what the other person is trying to do. In short, I put myself in the other player's shoes.
The result was that she started winning more often because she stopped thinking just about moving forward and starting thinking about why I was making the moves I was. She had learned a new way of thinking. She probably could have learned the same lesson doing something else, but it was the chess game that did it for her.
Maybe we're just too far along in our own development that things like the stick-figure problem aren't difficult for us to think about and change around...but there's probably someone out there who couldn't understand why some of the other responses worked. Their ability to think along those lines just wasn't there yet. Now that they've (hopefully) seen how other solutions can work, they can apply that knowledge to other problems, both theoretical and physical. Sometimes a change of viewpoint helps (does the person on the left have to be following the person on the right?), or breaking down a problem into its parts (what if the pathway isn't straight? What if it's endless? What if they're walking backwards?).
There's probably a lot of reasons why someone may not see all the solutions to a problem. Why someone doesn't know of (or see the advantage of) viewing a problem from both sides, if they've never experienced that before. If they're not put in a situation where they can experience such a thing, what is the likelihood that they will develop such a way of thinking?
:?Problem solving and creative thinking are useless. Got it.
Deares wolf....i must have fell asleep on the keyboard.....i mean to say.....GOD THIS IS BORING!If you're not going to attempt to contribute, don't waste bytes.
If you are not going to attempt to even ponder anything useful instead of inane tediously boring subjects that are meaningless, brainless and utterly pointless then do something better with your own bytes.
You just called all of philosophy pointless.Deares wolf....i must have fell asleep on the keyboard.....i mean to say.....GOD THIS IS BORING!If you're not going to attempt to contribute, don't waste bytes.
If you are not going to attempt to even ponder anything useful instead of inane tediously boring subjects that are meaningless, brainless and utterly pointless then do something better with your own bytes.
Wow. You pounced on this quick. You hanging around waiting for my response or something? :P
What if the purpose of the question was to invoke that response, thus giving me a way to observe and study it? It's difficult to ask someone to react to something so you can study the reaction, without giving them something to react to.
If you give someone something that causes them to be angry or happy, it's pointless unless you go beyond the fact that they had a reaction. Once there is a reaction, you can study what caused it and maybe why. Same happens with the thought experiment/exercise. If you want to explore different ways of thinking about a problem, you have to have a problem before there are ways of thinking to explore.
Of course, such questions are getting really much more deep into the OTP's intents than were probably desired.
If we get really broad, we can examine what the effect is on the life of a person who goes around looking at things in terms of emptiness, verses someone who looks at things in terms of fullness. We don't know what their particular disposition is in this regard until we put them in a situation where they divulge that information. For example, we don't know if they are inclined to view things in terms of emptiness unless we put a glass of water in front of them (as just one example scenario).
Also, if a person comes to the glass of water and has no particular disposition towards one answer or the other (ie - equally weighted) why does the person choose to go with one answer over the other? It's just another aspect of their responses to study.
But you're right, I'm probably getting a bit off the mark in the analysis of the responses of this experiment/exercise.
Alright, let's assume I am saying it's an experiment (although my flucuations in terminology are mostly due to my lack of attention :P ).
We haven't established that the OTP didn't intend to see what happened after putting the stick-figure question into a post. If he wanted to see what the results were, what things we came up with, I'd say it's an experiment. The chances that he's going to take the findings and publish a study or something are slim, but the mere fact of creating a situation and observing the results is something.
Maybe we can assume that the OTP put the question out there as an experiment to see if others had the same ideas as he did?
If the OTP did in fact put the question out there just for kicks, with no desire to look at the responses at all, then yeah, it probably is pointless. Although if the question was put out with the interest of reading the responses with no scientific purpose, from a scientific standpoint it's probably pointless, but otherwise it served its purpose.
It does if you're studying the concept of angels...
Uh, it's always been an experiment in human problem solving, although you're probably right that it's more of an exercise than an experiment in the absence of a study. Although I'll admit much of it involves interpretation rather than solving, especially if you already understand the problem.
The problem is: Who's following who?
Yeah. You have a marvellous way with misrepresentations. [/quote]
If you don't believe there's a point, then it probably follows that you don't believe there's any effect, and thus the aspect is moot.
If you do believe there's a point, I want to know how you would invoke the reactions of others without giving them a situation to react to. Or are all the possibilities already known? Also, why does the situation have to be real, or even make sense, to still be used? If you do have to present a situation, doesn't that make the situation important by the fact that the rest of the experiment/exercise couldn't exist without it?
If you are trying to teach someone to think in different ways, how do you do that without giving them some different problems to think about?
If you believe this is low-grade discussion, why even bother coming in to say something about it? Unless you desire to prove something, at which point the distinction is moot.
If you didn't want to prove something, then why is your statement about this all anything more than detrimental?
(Prove's probably the wrong word, but I'm writing too fast to pick another.
Not everyone is lucky enough to be given a real-world-effectual situation at any given time. The value is in the result, not so much the journey towards it. If I used the chess game, or some other method like a picture in a science-forum post, and got the same result, does it matter? Who says that the pathway has to be real? That the outcome be anything more than a learning experience?
Or, simply for the purpose of having fun?
And if the pathway to that experience achieved its goal, why was it a useless pathway?
Well at least that was better than the spam before...
Although if you think this discussion is boring...why are you here? We ARE pondering something useful, even if not to you. I'm sorry you either lack the interest or whit to join in, but please don't spam post. As you say, I'm sure there's something better you can do.
Again, sorry for discussing a subject you're not interested in. We'll be sure to use telepathy in our next thread, okay? I know we're all here to ensure that all the posts in this forum appeal directly to you.
Philosophy!?? Ha ha ha ha ha ha
Who are you kidding? Oh, yes, of course, your good selves.
Philosophy is useful and purposeful, and aims to reach a conclusion, this discussion isn't and doesn't.
Yes and i agree, please make sure you talk about something more interesting and worthwhile in the future.
It might attract more visitors and 'interested' browsers
Spam? Troll? These are just words for narky people to spout and accuse others of when thier pride is hurt and they have nothing else to respond with.
Replies to these ideas are responses to the question. A forums purpose is to share knowledge and to express thoughts on a particular subject.
And no not everyone is going to agree with you or think that what you are saying has any meaning or purpose, even if you do.
Yawwn and zzzzz are my honest thoughts on this subject.
The least you could do if you are going to spend all that energy on bytes and typing is share some knowledge or something of interest.
What you lot are doing is expelling gaseous nonsense in order to see who's farts smell better.
Like a wolf chasing its tail round and round to give the illusion that is doing something useful and important, yet it is never actually getting anywhere and is only wasting its time and energy.
Shame.
| « "To Live" by Nishant Shukla | Who are we? » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
