quote:

BTW, you don't think there is such a thing as infinite convergence?

quote:

Originally posted by Loganthor:

quote:

BTW, you don't think there is such a thing as infinite convergence?

Practically I would say no. However I sure someone may have an argument toward the theoretical dissemination of information in an ever narrowing answer.

quote:

Originally posted by Loganthor:
Divergent thinking is the absence of applying judgments.

quote:

If your goal is to leave the house and retrieve the morning paper and your primary route is block. There are only a finite amount of alternative possibilities that allow you to achieve your goal. So you gather your “right” possibilities for achieving your goal, garage door, back door, windows are all possible alternatives. For the infinite player and divergent thinker they require even more possibilities so they draw of the “wrong” answers in order to expand their possibilities. 911, Chainsaw, ax, jumping, Fire alarm, etc. Any one of those “wrong” answers are listed as possibilities would achieve the primary goal of retrieving the morning paper. But could a person rationally conclude the “right” answer as using a chainsaw to cut a hole in your house in order to achieve the morning paper?

quote:

A new executive player has joined the corporate scene, where the organization chart has vanished and where life is a lot more complex (in fact counter-intuitive). The Pepsi Generation of executives has a different vision, are young in years but seasoned in experience, and often behave in quite unmanagerial ways.

In the mid-1950s, W.H. Whyte painted a portrait of "the man in the grey flannel suit." He was the authoritarian "hard box," a product of bureaucracy that came of age in World War II and was dying by the mid-1960s.

The new generation of managers is strikingly different; they want to participate in decision making and not merely be on the receiving end of instructions. These existential executives are gamesmen, creative risk takers, who want to win (Maccoby 1976).

The existential manager who relies on a gut feeling about things will have a strong preference for a divergent, rather than a convergent, cognitive style. This divergent style is one with a strong preference for problems that have open-ended spectra of answers. What this Pepsi Generation of managers wants is more joy in work, to live and work more fully, and to have authentic and aware relations with others. These existential executives are marching to a different drum with a different tune.

The existential style is essentially a search for an alternative and a supplement to the nitty-gritty analytic style that is good for problem solving but has nothing to say about either problem finding or solution implementation. Getting beyond the traditional MBA analytic style (highly quantitative, preoccupied with salami-slicing problems into components and convergence-working to the answer at the back of the book) requires an effort in lateral or divergent thinking. Instead of moving vertically in a linear train of A, B, C, the existential executive tries to move laterally in a mental context where intelligence and feel (a compound of hunch, hypothesis, hype, vibes, and experience) count-to try and find the real problem. He tries to find out if "there is a crisis;" to find out "what we really want."

These new managers who are comfortable with computers are trying to turn on their metaphoric, intuitive, and analogic processes. This means switching on their right brains, which have been left in cold storage. What our system is good at (and our business schools best of all) is turning up the left brain, which is good at linear, rational, and digital thought-the kind of brain activity that takes place when someone says, "Let's bear down on this problem."

Faced with paradox and uncertainty, the existential executive is trying to supplement and find an alternative to his or her analytic skills. The executive is trying to get in sync with an "intuitive-synthetic" cognitive approach that has an inventive mode (uses metaphors like "Monte Carlo Random Walk of the Drunken Man" or "E = MC[sup.2]") and an integrative mode (uses Zen Koans such as "Do not let the good become an enemy of the best"). (p. 8)

quote:

I disagree. Divergent thinking begins with a judgment that the foreclosed options need to be expanded, to make room for the goal the divergent thinker has in mind.

quote:

Step 1: Divergent Thinking
Here are some examples of divergent thinking triggers:

*List all the uses you can think of for a shoe.
Generate meanings for a nutshell.
*List all the resources available for your next project.
*Make as many sentences as you can using all of the following words: candle, hope, tissue, egg.

Notice how each is an open-ended exercise. No evaluation is required or asked for. None of the questions asked you to meet any criteria whatsoever. The responses are free from any restriction, even if they are outside the parameters you perceive in the question. That’s an important point.

Generally, though, we unconsciously know there are “right” answers and that there is only one right answer to every question. To truly appreciate the gift of divergent thinking, a change of attitude is required. People need to be open to the idea that there may be many “right” answers. The goal of using divergent thinking is to generate as many potential “right” answers as possible. In order to do this, the potential “wrong” answers must be included. One of the benefits of using divergent thinking is knowing that in the second phase, during convergent thinking, the best responses will be selected and ideas not worth considering will be left behind, modified, or saved for later.

How do you get outrageous ideas? Ask for them! Research conducted in the ’50s showed that when idea-generating participants are asked to generate outrageous ideas, they do. When they are not asked for outrageous ideas, they are not as likely to offer them up. Try it out, and see for yourself.

quote:

Good to see you back in mono-syllabic form, Loganthor

quote:

Got any sentences and paragraphs

quote:

Whassup with the Trent Lott thing?

quote:

Originally posted by --Kate:
Good stuff, Ren. But, 1992 is "back in the day" ...

quote:

In the mid-1950s, W.H. Whyte painted a portrait of "the man in the grey flannel suit." He was the authoritarian "hard box," a product of bureaucracy that came of age in World War II and was dying by the mid-1960s.

quote:

I keep thinking of that article we looked at in the New York Times Magazine, a couple years ago now. One of the central figures in the current administration talked about changing the rules of the game. I don't remember the author, or the person who gave the quotes right now. Seems like it was, maybe, Joe McKenna who wrote the article (?) So, anyway, if the person who was interviewed for that article is right, and the rules of the game shifted, 1992 stuff is so ... Clinton administration.

quote:

Doesn't exactly address the question. If the rules have shifted, what have they shifted to?

quote:

In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend -- but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.

The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''

quote:

Originally posted by Ronald Rutherford:
Loganthor, since you seemed to have studied this in depth then I wonder how would we identify people inflicted with PARANOID LOGIC as either divergent or convergent thinkers?

quote:

Every time a leak in that ideological dike appears, the paranoid brand chewing gum is brought out to stop it up. The TNG memos were a clever plot by Karl Rove. The Bush Administration was behind 9/11; Katrina was allowed to destroy New Orleans because Bush hates blacks. George Bush is about to impose a theocracy on the unsuspecting U.S. Pat Tillman was murdered because he wanted to meet with anti-war activist Norm Chomsky. The list of the paranoid delusions goes on and on and on.

Taken as a whole, they are evidence of an ongoing and determined refusal to face reality--because it is a reality that threatens the belief systm of a whole section of the American population. Without the delusions and conspiracies concocted by the always creative political left, their whole house of Marxist cards will come crumblin down.

quote:

If scientists can say that obesity is "socially contagious", consider for a moment how a much more contagious psychological processes like paranoia and projection are. Indeed, this tendency to deny reality is at epidemic levels. In our own country, we must deal with an entire poltical party and half the nation in the grip of the illness.

quote:

It is inconceivable to paranoid persons that people actually exist who view the situation differently from them. It is inconceivable that they could be wrong about their perception of reality. Con men always think others are out to con them. (emphasis as in original)

quote:

Kind of like someone else I know who studied the "narcissistic personality disorder" in depth, and then found it every where he looked, kind of like the shadows on the wall in Plato's cave.

quote:

Loganthor, since you seemed to have studied this in depth then I wonder how would we identify people inflicted with PARANOID LOGIC as either divergent or convergent thinkers?

quote:

Originally posted by Loganthor:

quote:

Loganthor, since you seemed to have studied this in depth then I wonder how would we identify people inflicted with PARANOID LOGIC as either divergent or convergent thinkers?

Diffidently divergent, paranoia wants to expand the possibilities and seemingly not real interested in narrowing the possibilities

quote:

In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend -- but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.

The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''

quote:

I found the New York Times article I was thinking of yesterday. It's by Ron Suskind, and this is the part about reconfiguring the rules of play that I was thinking of yesterday.

quote:

Ah. I see.

Fabrication

quote:

Originally posted by Ronald Rutherford:

quote:

Kind of like someone else I know who studied the "narcissistic personality disorder" in depth, and then found it every where he looked, kind of like the shadows on the wall in Plato's cave.

LOL, you make me smile also. But seriously, do you want to discuss this?

quote:

seemingly not real interested in narrowing the possibilities

quote:

Originally posted by /rén:

quote:

Originally posted by Ronald Rutherford:

quote:

Kind of like someone else I know who studied the "narcissistic personality disorder" in depth, and then found it every where he looked, kind of like the shadows on the wall in Plato's cave.

LOL, you make me smile also. But seriously, do you want to discuss this?

"This"?

quote:

Originally posted by --Kate:

quote:

seemingly not real interested in narrowing the possibilities

quote:

Originally posted by Ronald Rutherford:

quote:

Originally posted by /rén:

quote:

Originally posted by Ronald Rutherford:

quote:

Kind of like someone else I know who studied the "narcissistic personality disorder" in depth, and then found it every where he looked, kind of like the shadows on the wall in Plato's cave.

LOL, you make me smile also. But seriously, do you want to discuss this?

"This"?

I am confident you can think of what 'this' is...
Just use a divergent thinking process.

quote:

seemingly not real interested in narrowing the possibilities

quote:

Originally posted by /rén:

quote:

Originally posted by Ronald Rutherford:

quote:

Originally posted by /rén:

quote:

Originally posted by Ronald Rutherford:

quote:

Kind of like someone else I know who studied the "narcissistic personality disorder" in depth, and then found it every where he looked, kind of like the shadows on the wall in Plato's cave.

LOL, you make me smile also. But seriously, do you want to discuss this?

"This"?

I am confident you can think of what 'this' is...
Just use a divergent thinking process.

So you have no "this" in mind then...? You just throw out some words and see what pattern might form?

quote:

NP. Go ahead and think your same thought patterns as before...

quote:

Originally posted by Ronald Rutherford:

quote:

Originally posted by /rén:

quote:

Originally posted by Ronald Rutherford:

quote:

Originally posted by /rén:

quote:

Originally posted by Ronald Rutherford:

quote:

Kind of like someone else I know who studied the "narcissistic personality disorder" in depth, and then found it every where he looked, kind of like the shadows on the wall in Plato's cave.

LOL, you make me smile also. But seriously, do you want to discuss this?

"This"?

I am confident you can think of what 'this' is...
Just use a divergent thinking process.

So you have no "this" in mind then...? You just throw out some words and see what pattern might form?

NP. Go ahead and think your same thought patterns as before...

Or assemble more diatribes...

quote:

Originally posted by Ronald Rutherford:

quote:

Originally posted by Ronald Rutherford:

quote:

Originally posted by /rén:

quote:

Originally posted by Ronald Rutherford:

quote:

Originally posted by /rén:

quote:

Originally posted by Ronald Rutherford:

quote:

Kind of like someone else I know who studied the "narcissistic personality disorder" in depth, and then found it every where he looked, kind of like the shadows on the wall in Plato's cave.

LOL, you make me smile also. But seriously, do you want to discuss this?

"This"?

I am confident you can think of what 'this' is...
Just use a divergent thinking process.

So you have no "this" in mind then...? You just throw out some words and see what pattern might form?

NP. Go ahead and think your same thought patterns as before...

Or assemble more diatribes...

No permission granted or even needed. You have given me plenty of permissions to explore also. I say go ahead and knock yourself out with your assumptions. Putting a question mark does not cover up your assumptions or provide a question that I can even recognize. It only shows an assumption that is clearly not born out by the data.

Carry on...

quote:

Originally posted by --Kate:
As for the Hypothetical, let me throw out this. I figure the unnamed character in that NYTimes article could have easily been Karl Rove. He is the quintessential divergent thinker, when it comes to political wrangling, and information management...

quote:

Yes perfect example of divergent thinking. As well as some of the other posts on page one.

quote:

Here we have no proof

quote:

or even a hint as to why we should assume anyone in particular.

quote:

As for the Hypothetical, let me throw out this.

quote:

Assume: to take for granted or without proof; suppose; postulate; posit: to assume that everyone wants peace.

Hypothesis: a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.

quote:

Just that this person has characteristic A and thus he might be Karl Rove.

quote:

Or assemble more diatribes...

quote:

Etymology: Latin diatriba, from Greek diatribē pastime, discourse, from diatribein to spend (time), wear away, from dia- + tribein to rub

1 archaic : a prolonged discourse
2: a bitter and abusive speech or writing
3: ironic or satirical criticism

quote:

Personally, I tend to think "hypothetically" rather than "assumptively" as in the above two definitional examples. Seeing as how you show a tendency to interpose "assumption" for "hypothesis," maybe you'd like to go back through all my posts, perhaps others' here as well, like Kate's, and re-examine them to see if you've perhaps subconsciously interposed "assumption" for "hypothesis"? And once you've done that, a whole new way of seeing what some of us are doing may emerge. Think of the possibilities!

quote:

I think this is such a good idea, that maybe you should explore and test your hypothesis and see what your research reveals.

quote:

Personally, I tend to think "hypothetically" rather than "assumptively" as in the above two definitional examples. Seeing as how you show a tendency to interpose "assumption" for "hypothesis," maybe you'd like to go back through all my posts, perhaps others' here as well, like Kate's, and re-examine them to see if you've perhaps subconsciously interposed "assumption" for "hypothesis"? And once you've done that, a whole new way of seeing what some of us are doing may emerge. Think of the possibilities!

I think this is such a good idea, that maybe you should explore and test your hypothesis and see what your research reveals. You already have the null hypothesis set up and phenomenon is already present here by the numerous observations available on the many posts I have posted. Then you can explain it all to us. Yes, just think of the possibilities for yourself?

quote:

Omphaloskeptic

quote:

Originally posted by Loganthor:

quote:

Loganthor, since you seemed to have studied this in depth then I wonder how would we identify people inflicted with PARANOID LOGIC as either divergent or convergent thinkers?

Diffidently divergent, paranoia wants to expand the possibilities and seemingly not real interested in narrowing the possibilities

quote:

In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend -- but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.

The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''

quote:

While you're outside, why not take a close look at those snowflakes. Study their geometric shapes and so on. I figure they fit within some kind of natural rule set. And, then, the range of variation within that rule set, I expect, is infinite.

quote:

Perhaps you could start a new thread to explore your personality insights. Kulak and PeeWee have expressed a clear preference to avoid navel probing in this one.

quote:

I'm still interesting in working the Hypothetical. If you're not, that's fine.

quote:

Kulak and PeeWee have expressed a clear preference to avoid navel probing in this one.

quote:

Thanks for your words of wisdom as well as providing another example of divergent thinking.

quote:

As for the Hypothetical, let me throw out this. I figure the unnamed character in that NYTimes article could have easily been Karl Rove. He is the quintessential divergent thinker, when it comes to political wrangling, and information management...

quote:

hypothetical:
IN BRIEF: Assumed for purposes of example.

quote:

Why would you do that?

quote:

let me throw out this. I figure the unnamed character in that NYTimes article could have easily been Karl Rove.

quote:

He is the quintessential divergent thinker, when it comes to political wrangling, and information management...

quote:

"Hypothetical" and "assume" can have different meanings and thus different implications, and by slipping one in place of the other, you just done what could be viewed by a keen observer as a verbal shell game.

quote:

Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption.
...
A tentative supposition with regard to an unknown state of affairs, the truth of which is thereupon subject to investigation by any available method, either by logical deduction of consequences which may be checked against what is known, or by direct experimental investigation or discovery of facts not hitherto known and suggested by the hypothesis.
...
In empirical research, assertion made about some property of elements being studied. Such an assumption is made early in the investigation, guiding the investigator in searching for supporting data. The hypothesis is found to be true or false at the conclusion of the research study, depending on whether or not the proposed property actually characterizes the elements.
...
A general supposition made as a basis for reasoning but not held to be true until proven by reference to empirical evidence.
...
An assumption or theory.

During a criminal trial, a hypothesis is a theory set forth by either the prosecution or the defense for the purpose of explaining the facts in evidence. It also serves to set up a ground for an inference of guilt or innocence, or a showing of the most probable motive for a criminal offense.
...
A supposition that appears to explain a group of phenomena and is assumed as a basis of reasoning and experimentation.

quote:

It's your discussion, Loganthor, you and Ronald have a good time, now, ya hear?

quote:

* Perception
* Assumptions
* Emotion
* Language
* Argument
* Fallacy
* Logic
* Problem Solving

quote:

You did choose to post it in a forum with the subtitle, "The Art and Science of Political Persuasion."

quote:

Perhaps you'll generate some new interest, in the spin you have set out in your original post.

quote:

Stage Five: Dialectical Reasoning

Dialectical reasoning refers to critical thinking about problems and evaluating conflicting viewpoints. Dialectical reasoning is best applied in resolving controversial issues and assessing opposing positions. Often times, there are several possible ways of resolving questions and understanding issues, rather than one single right answer. We may have situations where information is incomplete, where many approaches and views may compete, and we have to decide which one is most reasonable based on what is known, even though there is no clear-cut solution.

Dialectical reasoning consists of moving back and forth between contrary lines of reasoning, using each to cross-examine the other. This is what juries are supposed to do in arriving at a verdict: consider arguments and evidence for and against a case, point and counterpoint. It is a process in which opposing facts and ideas are weighed and compared for the purposes of determining the best solution, resolving differences, and coming to the most reasonable conclusion based on the evidence and logic.

In a democratic and pluralistic nation such as Canada, there are a number of identified issues that reasonable people will still disagree about even after a careful analysis of both sides of the issue. On the other hand, it is important to also realize that there are certain issues that reasonable people do not disagree about; for example, all reasonable people know that racism is wrong.

Some people have difficulty with dialectical reasoning because their self-esteem depends on their being right and having their beliefs accepted by others. We all have our convictions, but the inability to consider alternative views and evidence with an open mind is a major obstacle to critical thinking. Other obstacles include:

· the tendency to form quick, impulsive opinions instead of fully developed arguments;

· reaching decisions based on what “feels right” at the moment be, and not distinguishing between knowledge and belief, or between belief and evidence, and not seeing any reason for justifying a belief;

· thinking that because some things cannot be known with absolute certainty, any judgement about the evidence is purely subjective, and defending a position with the explanation that “We all have a right to our own opinions,” as if all opinions are created equal.

When we become capable of critical thinking, we understand that although some things can never be known with certainty, some judgements are more valid than others because of their coherence, their fit with the evidence, and their usefulness. When reasoning dialectically, we are willing to consider evidence from a variety of sources, to justify our conclusions as representing the most complete, plausible or compelling understanding of an issue, based on currently available evidence -- this means abandoning “ignorant certainty” in favour of “intelligent confusion.”

Dialectical reasoning can also be described as reflective judgment: the ability to evaluate and integrate evidence, relate that evidence to a theory or opinion, and reach a conclusion that can be defended as reasonable and valid. To think dialectically, we must evaluate evidence and question assumptions, consider alternative interpretations, and stand ready to reassess our conclusions in the face of new evidence. This process works in a cycle that involves 3 basic steps:

· a thesis, which is a statement of an idea, viewpoint or position;

· an antithesis, which is the statement of an alternative and possibly contrary (conflicting) idea;

· a synthesis, which is the reconciliation of the two prior ideas in a way that integrates the best aspects of those ideas.

Ultimately, the synthesis serves as a new thesis and the cycle repeats. The synthesis typically shows that ideas that seem to conflict or to be contradictory are not necessarily so – there is unity in the diverse aspects of the issue. The reconciliation of the ideas, however, may require discarding weaker or flawed aspects of the ideas. Thus, other aspects of the ideas can be integrated in a way that builds on their strengths and more reasonable qualities.

quote:

Originally posted by --Kate:
lol

quote:

you are a woman of few words, and with this you always manage to 'knock em' down.

quote:

Loganthor,

I'll be interested in picking up a discussion of the New York Times article, when you're up for it.

quote:

Ronald Rutherford,

Your analysis of convergent thinking lacks clarity, and I guess that's an oxymoron

quote:

Originally posted by michael:
Hey Kate.