What happens to us when we learn new stuff? I will tell you what happened to me when I learned new stuff. I assume that most people are affected in the same way. We must use metaphors and analogies to speak about such matters. I choose as two of my metaphors the kaleidoscope and the pot of stew. World view and intuition I think of as similar terms. ‘Intuition is kaleidoscope’ and ‘intuition is stew’ are my two metaphors. Learning new stuff is like putting a new seasoning or a new veggie in the pot of stew. Most of time the new seasoning or the new veggie has little or no effect upon the stew; sometimes a great change takes place--that new ingredient has a large effect. When the effect is large it might be like turning our kaleidoscope a notch and the intuition takes a dramatic change. Let’s look at what happens when we examine our intuition as a result of our changing knowledge of the concept we call science. I am a retired engineer and as a result I had a very high regard for and a very narrow comprehension of science. I considered science to be primarily a domain of knowledge encompassing matters that have as basic ingredients physics, mathematics, and chemistry. Any domain of knowledge that did not rest on the foundations of physics, math, and chemistry were of secondary or tertiary importance. As I grew older my intuition was dramatically affected by my study of philosophy and later by my becoming what I call a self-actualizing, self-learning, and critical thinking man. My comprehension of the meaning of the word ‘science’ changed dramatically. The dictionary has several definitions of the word ‘science’, one is--a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study. My comprehension of the meaning of science took dramatic changes; my kaleidoscope took constant turns over a 25 year period. When I had a very narrow view of science and because I held that concept with such high regard my intuition was vitally affected as my comprehension of that concept changed. My attitude toward every other domain of knowledge was determined by my comprehension of this concept. As I grew in my comprehension of this concept my world opened up dramatically, my narrow and negative attitude toward all domains of knowledge changed tremendously. Because I placed such great confidence and trust in science my world view, i.e. my intuition, became very unsettled. The ego is in charge of putting a check on anxiety and thus my ego fought hard against this change but my curiosity overcame my ego’s repression of these new ideas and these new ideas awakened a vast new world for exploration. Do you agree that Joe and Jane have little comprehension of the meaning of science? Do you agree that this narrow minded misconception is unhealthy
1. Depends if they had post-graduate liberal arts education, or did well academically in high school. If you focus so much on a single concept (science or otherwise), you'll always have trouble seeing the forest from the trees. There are physical sciences (physics, chemistry), social sciences (sociology), biological sciences (geneticists, zoologists), applied sciences (engineering), medical sciences (M.D., D.O., R.N.), mathematical sciences, etc. If you've obtained a Bachelor of Science degree, it doesn't mean you're only a biologist, chemist, or physicist. 2. Yes.
Ok. I'll bite. What exactly are these new ideas you speak of? As in Mr and Ms everyman/woman? Sure. Don't know that it much matters to the world at large. Not that I'm a working engineer who also has a great regard for what science has achieved. But this does not leave me with a narrow or negative view toward "other" domains of knowledge, whatever they may be. I can gusee where this is headed.
I will tell you where this is headed. I am working on a follow up post and the following is what I have so far. The decider is the ego Humans appear to be the only species of animal that has placed self-consciousness, in the form of what is called the ego, between animal instincts and animal behavior. That is, the ego interrupts the flow of instinct directly into action. The ego, the decider, says HALT, HOLD IT, to the force of instinct. Human action does not immediately follow instinct because the ego absorbs the energy of instinct. The ego is also a decider regarding all manner of things that might cause the creature to feel anxious. As the ego learns what causes anxiety it learns what inputs from both inside and outside the creature must be controlled. The ego becomes both the decider and the defender. In its role as defender the ego utilizes the mechanisms of denial, repression, and partialization. The latter represents the highest price that the creature pays for this defense against anxiety. The process of partialization limits the experience that the ego allows the creature to enjoy. “The ego, the unique “psychological organ” of the higher primates, develops by skewing perceptions and by limiting action.” Early in the infants life the “ego grows by a dispossession of the child’s own inner world. The mechanisms of defense are, after all, par excellence techniques of self-deception.” We often lament that “I can’t make him change his mind.” Why is it virtually impossible to change another’s mind? Often it is because the ego will not allow it. The ego recognizes that to change the mind in this matter is to lead to anxiety and thus the ego will not permit it to happen. THEY are not necessarily too stupid to change, just as WE are not necessarily too stupid to change. It may very well be that their ego and our ego will not permit the anxiety that will result from the change.
While the ego may play some role in the matter, the biggest hinderance to changing one's mind is pretty clear. Mosr people do not wish to spend the mental effort and time to examine something that is contrary to their current line of thinking or outside their usual realm of concern. It's far easier to just refuse to reason things out.
I do not think lazy is the answer and psychology seems to agree with me. We do a turtle often because our ego is afraid new knowledge will lead to anxiety. We cannot handle our freedom. We must curtail our world for fear of what we might discover. Only the brave will venture out into the unknown.
Who's this "we" of whom you speak? And do you have any evidence of those statements? Or is it like a religious belief to you .....you just believe it without any facts or evidence to back it up? Baron Max
So, you are coming to the conclusion that other ideas have merit besides hard sciences? Well, you are a human, and humans have emotions, so of course you will be attracted to ideas containing more emotion than just observational sciences.
Humans have always been swayed by emotionally charged people telling them whatever it is they are trying to incite the people about instead of listening to reason and finding out the truth.
I do not think the key is emotion. The key is the denial of anything that might cause anxiety. The ego defends the creature against anxiety by limiting the creatures experience. The ego does this by repression of the unconscious and by limiting knowledge. Learning about the natural sciences is not as apt as learning about psychology especially for one who is religious. The ego of a religious individual must limit lots of stuff.
