How do I learn to think better? (2019) | Hacker News Reader

How do I learn to think better? (2019)

quora.com

118 pointsAustin_Conlon29 comments

Perhaps the greatest document addressing this question is Plato's "Sophist." Therein, Plato demonstrates that the ability to reason well amounts to knowing which of the most general classes of things go together. He compares this ability to musical ability, or knowing which notes harmonize with each other. The imposter can only repeat specific combinations, lacking as he does knowledge of the underlying structure.

> Then he who is able to do this has a clear perception of one form or idea extending entirely through many individuals each of which lies apart, and of many forms differing from one another but included in one greater form, and again of one form evolved by the union of many wholes, and of many forms entirely apart and separate. This is the knowledge and ability to distinguish by classes how individual things can or cannot be associated with one another. [Sophist, 253d]

This. Perhaps i'm biased, since i'm supposed to graduate from philosophy department this year, but i do think that reading ancient philosophy (Plato & Aristotle are the most representative example of what was going on there) is the best way to think better -- and get in touch with origins of European culture.

My recommendations, apart from "Sophist" (which is a difficult, very technical dialogue regarding problems with platos theory of ideas) would be "Nicomachean Ethics" (Joe Sachs' translation), "Philebus", "Phaedrus", and of course "The Republic", Platos' magnum opus.

Which is the easiest to start with?

> "Sophist" (which is a difficult, very technical dialogue regarding problems with platos theory of ideas)

For the general lay reader, is there a more accessible equivalent you can recommend?

I would start with Philebus. It is considered a pretty late dialogue, so problems with theory of ideals are considered (and musical metaphors play a prominent role). Also, its topic is worthy; Socrates & Protarchus discuss a role that pleasure and reason play in furhishing a good life.

Thanks for the recommendation - I'll have a look for it.

There is another kind of thought that is equally important, though separating out categories of reason, creating new forms and structures from shape is my favourite.

The thought that goes into balancing quantities and ideas, bringing them together into something greater than the sum of their parts and highlighting an inherent property in that mess, is something different and just as valuable as creating a new form.

Strange to mention the differences between perceptions and reality without mentioning the philosphers that explored it. Leaving a notion of confusing concepts without a way to explore it is not particularly productive.

Philosophy is a way to ask better questions.

Thinking better implies you can think correctly and defining that is half the battle.

Writing a short one here cause almost time to leave office hehe

I am a software engineer and I use DDD (Domain Driven Development) Before becoming a software engineer I read books on Philosophy. The thinking methods are very important.

Well I really out of time here Maybe I will write more later :P

Which ones would you recommend? Plato/Socrates, Kant, Foucault, de Tocqueville?

Not parent, but like i said in the thread above, if i were you, i would start with the ancients.

Every fundamental topic that later philosophers discuss is there, and discourse is much simpler.

For full comperhension, some googling of greek terms is required, but it's not that big of a deal in the age of /r/philosophy and communities like that. Also, feel free to hit me up if you have any detailed questions :)

I had the same question and came across a book called "Sophie's World" which tells the story of philosophy in human history, starting with Socrates and coming all the way to modern times. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophie%27s_World

I'm currently about half way through, i think the book is geared towards a younger audience but i'm finding it really enjoyable.

Once you have a high level view of the highlights of philosophy, you can answer for yourself which philosophers to deep dive on.

There is a course "The Philosopher's toolkit - how to be the most rational person in any room" at TheGreatCourses.com by Philosophy Professor Patrick Grim.

The first lecture is about about this very topic. How we think and how to think better.

I've ~~listened to some audio lectures once~~ taken the course and since then I am thinking a lot better.

No seriously He teaches a lot of tricks and techniques. FOr insstance: Ironclad, airtight validity. Thought experiments. Statistics. Really applying all this takes some effort of course

Underlying the process of thinking is a flow of sensory data that comes into contact with memory. There is a matching process taking place. Laughter is an example of a mismatch between sensory input and memory. The mismatch triggers jerks in the motor control system. The matching process goes on for a while, giving rise to what has been described by Kahneman as fast thinking and slow thinking. A lot of the brain is incoming somatic sensory signals and outgoing motor control signals. Thinking with words and symbols is a tiny part of the brain's receptive and expressive ability. A baby pulls itself to stand and experiences an exhilarating thrill as the balance organs and muscle circuits fire away to hold her body upright. That is why opera singers stand up to sing, that is why the bailiff in a court says "All Rise". And we haven't even begun to do thinking in the academic sense.

I'll add this. I work with severely disabled kids as a classroom aide. I keep getting the impression that the difference in their thinking and mine is quite small. I am geting to be 73 years old and the medical fact is I am probably losing brain cells. But the illusion that I can think remains pretty complete. I see an increasing time delay in the process of summoning detail from old memories. I can also see an increasing fragility in the old memories.W With warmth, I can tell the student I work with "I'm getting a little slower now too.

I read half the post before I realised who wrote it. Don't really want to spoiler it, but it was interesting to explore my biases.

Play chess.

It helps you think strategy before execution. It also helps you keep focussed on the bigger picture.

In the last 2 years, I have gone from being ranked 800ish points to now 1200 on chess.com and it has definitely developed my thinking.

This is a... tactical view of thinking. Getting better at chess doesn’t help you deal with biases, logical errors, etc. Something as simple as the gamblers fallacy doesn’t show up in chess.

I had a similar thought: chess doesn't teach you to clarify thoughts, cut through to the central points, and reason clearly about things that may at first seem 'fuzzy'. These are the things I associate with 'good thinking', and are much of what philosophers do (morality, free will, consciousness, truth, etc).

See also the Hierarchy of Disagreement, and old HackerNews favourite - https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Hierarchy_of_disagreement

There was research in brain training apps. The conclusion of the study was that they simply made you better at them, rather than generalizing to other tasks. How is that different to Chess?

It isn't:

https://theconversation.com/does-playing-chess-make-you-smar...

of course training and only training to be good at a game won't lead to wisdom/insights, but anything can be generalized to other tasks if you take the time to reflect on it.

I think Chess is ripe with lessons that apply to common, real life scenarios. Off the top of my head:

- early/mid/end game; you apply a different strategy based on the stage of the game you are in, relates to software product lifecycles.

- tempo; when your moves don't just profit, but set you up with momentum to continue making more good moves.

- zugzwang; being in a position where any move you make results in a loss.

- The value of your position can exceed the value of your material based on context.

- You can still play a game where you're down to a draw.

The list goes on :)

Seems like starcraft would be an even better game to play then, considering that it has all of this, but also forces you to think in realtime.

Come to think of it, the information asymmetry in starcraft that is lacking in chess would teach you a lot more lessons as well.

Gary Kasparov was a chess grand master, and, obviously, not a great strategists. Vladimir Putin, on the other hand, is not known for his chess abilities.

To be fair, this is a bit of a strawman.

The marginal utility of almost anything (cross fit, big muscles, abstract maths, jazz trumpet ability...) tapers off at the highest levels. OP is saying that there are gains in going from Elo 800 ("total novice, inconsistent playing tending to lose") to 1200 ("plays at baseline level consistently"), not that you should dedicate your life to chess to the exclusion of everything else.

I'd be willing to bet that Putin has a recorded Elo somewhere at least in the 1400s. For comparison, pros have 2000+ scores, the greatest champions (and computers) 2600+. A 400 point difference roughly means you're 10 times better.

Chess is a zero sum game and is very limited in it's application in life. Chess probably has had an overall negative effect on the course of history by excluding the win-win possibility.

Strategy through the lens of chess results in local maxima and is thereby the worst approach to achieve better long term outcomes.

You might as well solve crossword puzzles.

I took Dr. Barbara Oakley's Mooc, "Learning How to Learn" a while back. It's truly an interesting class, and I'd like to think it gave me some good tips.

Like what?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com