Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Monday August 12 2019, @11:05AM   Printer-friendly
from the speaking-to-others-that-way-though dept.

Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:

We credit Socrates with the insight that 'the unexamined life is not worth living' and that to 'know thyself' is the path to true wisdom. But is there a right and a wrong way to go about such self-reflection?

Simple rumination – the process of churning your concerns around in your head – isn't the answer. It's likely to cause you to become stuck in the rut of your own thoughts and immersed in the emotions that might be leading you astray. Certainly, research has shown that people who are prone to rumination also often suffer from impaired decision making under pressure, and are at a substantially increased risk of depression.

Instead, the scientific research suggests that you should adopt an ancient rhetorical method favoured by the likes of Julius Caesar and known as 'illeism' – or speaking about yourself in the third person (the term was coined in 1809 by the poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge from the Latin ille meaning 'he, that'). If I was considering an argument that I'd had with a friend, for instance, I might start by silently thinking to myself: 'David felt frustrated that...' The idea is that this small change in perspective can clear your emotional fog, allowing you to see past your biases.

A bulk of research has already shown that this kind of third-person thinking can temporarily improve decision making. Now a preprint at PsyArxiv finds that it can also bring long-term benefits to thinking and emotional regulation. The researchers said this was 'the first evidence that wisdom-related cognitive and affective processes can be trained in daily life, and of how to do so'.

The findings are the brainchild of the psychologist Igor Grossmann at the University of Waterloo in Canada, whose work on the psychology of wisdom was one of the inspirations for my recent book on intelligence and how we can make wiser decisions.

-- submitted from IRC


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday August 13 2019, @03:06AM (2 children)

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday August 13 2019, @03:06AM (#879464) Journal

    To me, 'smart' is associated with hackery (taking advantage of problem peculiarities for a quick shortcut), 'clever' is taking an ingenious yet sound conceptualization of the problem when solving it - thus the capacity for future extensions is preserved.

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by coolgopher on Tuesday August 13 2019, @03:25AM (1 child)

    by coolgopher (1157) on Tuesday August 13 2019, @03:25AM (#879471)

    Interesting. The nuances of language is fascinating. It also makes me wonder how the hell any form of successful communication is possible, much like everything else in the world actually working... =)

    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday August 13 2019, @03:43AM

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday August 13 2019, @03:43AM (#879479) Journal

      Interesting. The nuances of language is fascinating.

      Well, specifically for this case, both of the words carry the "out-of-the-box" connotation.
      But I'll give you the reason for which the "smart"/"clever" works better in my choice of meaning: I heard many time the "smarty pants" used as a pejorative, but "clever pants"? Never.
      (yes, the "why! Aren't you clever?", loaded with sarcasm to switch to the negative, works. But "smarty pants" is sorta saying "You are acting as a kid, little or no experience, no wonder you got this ridiculously wrong")

      It also makes me wonder how the hell any form of successful communication is possible, much like everything else in the world actually working... =)

      I don't know, maybe because nuances come in play after the "bulk" of meaning is conveyed? Sorta like Pareto, the last 20% are contributed by nuances but you still have the 80% meaning to operate with.

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford