you need a publicist and an editor. I'd volunteer, but even I dont feel like wading through the wall of text .The old Immanuel Kant understood that rationalism and empiricism were by themselves incomplete. The trouble is that the senses do not think, and logic does not see. A person who relies on the senses alone, for instance, could easily mistake a WWF wrestling match for a real fight. Without the application of logic and critical thought, the sensor is left with no known notion for discerning the difference between the one and the other. The senses, moreover, do not by themselves tell us about the way the furniture of the universe relates to each other. On the other hand, a logician can construct entire edifices of knowledge that are highly abstruse and based on subtile chains of reasonings, but these eloquent theories may be murdered by brutal facts. It really only takes one dubious brick to cause the superstructure to collapse in a way that cannot be put whole again. It is, therefore, the humpty dumpty of an intellectual system. Therefore, if one's stated goal is to be as intellectually bulletproof as possible, then in Myers-Briggs speak this requires synthesizing intuition and thinking--imagination and logic. This requires that one rethinks one's intellectual infrastructure, (for sensors it requires taking a sledgehammer to the whole system), and making modest investments in the right places (intuition and logic or, when fused, 'colored logic').
Investing in intuition. What is intuition? In simplest terms, intuition refers to the immediate perception of truth without rational calculation. We use ‘perception’ in the definition because perception may or may not square with reality. After all, intuition tells one that the world is flat. It is only through critical thinking and a careful weighing of the evidence that one can establish that this intuition is false. We conclude, then, that intuition necessitates perception, but that perception may collide with reality. It can be deduced, then, that intuition may collide with reality. If intuition can be at odds with reality, then intuition itself is an incomplete means of arriving at knowledge, and this should come as no surprise as good investments come in packages. Still, before moving on to logic, it pays to briefly mention some of the merits of intuition, which is an asset. Intuitives often see the solution before making the calculations. Isaac Newton, for example, often intuited a solution before the mathematical proof. One can view thought through the prism of road systems. Like basic road systems, if one wants resources to circulate efficiently this requires that there are no clogs in the arteries of thought. In effect, one will need to establish the conditions that give rise to clear intuitive signals unfettered by the traffic of lesser thought. To do this, one needs to distinguish between meaningful signals and noise. If running efficiently, then intellectual selection will have it that noise is weeded out, so that all that is left, at least in terms of intuitions, are those with merit (as brain space for noise that does not result in abstract or else tangible benefits is by definition a misallocation of resources. That is, resources that could be used contemplating and/or storing more interesting things). The question remains: what is an intuitive signal? What circumstantial evidence can one look for to know that they are intuiting and not thinking logically or feeling? One intuits if (1) One’s train of conscious thought is suddenly interrupted by an intuition that differs from where one might figure that stream of thought would have lead. This could easily happen if one is dispassionately contemplating something at a mall and suddenly one sees something that triggers a thought involuntarily. One can then use logical thinking to check if there is any validity to the intuition. (2) An inner voice reveals a pattern to conscious thought without conscious calculation. One might suspect that this medium for expressing intuitions is particularly indicative of auditory learners. (Learners with a preference for visualization or kinesthetics may have different cues). (3) Intuitions, for me at least, typically come in waves (clusters of thought). In this sense, there is a wave of intuitions, but this wave is moving in a particular direction (that direction is established by Ni) and is moved along with extroverted thinking. In summary, sudden interruptions, an inner voice, and waves of thought that come in clusters are all signals of intuition.
Investing in logical and algorithmic thinking. Once one has established a system for detecting intuitions, one must also have a system for assigning probabilistic values to them. The thinking function can be used to verify whether or not one’s intuitions accord with logic and square with the evidence. One might find, for instance, that certain intuitions are much more likely to be correct than others. It follows, therefore, that if one is to establish a systematic account of one’s intuitions, then one must craft a probability distribution curve of previous intuitions. This probability distribution must constantly be updated as new intuitions come to fruition, which may alter the odds. The exceptional intuitionist need not write out each probability because they already have built into their psyches a self-correcting mechanism that automatically updates the probability distribution of the correctness of intuitions based on historical precedents. However, intuitions are liable to err and therefore any rational thinker must be severely mistrustful of intuitionism alone. In one sentence, intuitions are not a substitute for logical thinking; optimality will usually require a combination of the two.
Modest investments in logic can yield great pay-offs at a relatively low cost. The reasons are as follows: (1) Logic provides one with a set of tools that place the furniture of the universe under rules that are sensible and applicable; otherwise it is merely pieces without purpose. (2) Logic and algorithmic thinking is useful for problem solving. An algorithm is a set of rules for solving a problem in a finite number of steps. For example, when a mother calls her doctor and says that her child has a fever, one of the first questions the doctor might ask is whether the child’s neck is stiff. If stiff, then this symptom could mean the underlying cause is meningitis, which implies that the child needs to be taken to emergency immediately. If not stiff, then the doctor continues down his checklist. Thus, the doctor goes down a decision tree questioning for a set of symptoms. It is methodical, systematic, algorithmic, and uses differential diagnoses. Algorithmic thinking not only applies to medicine, but problem solving more generally. A Rubik’s Cube, for instance, can be easily solved by the simple application of algorithms. Although the color configurations change, one can follow the algorithms and always solve the cube. In effect, algorithms are isomorphic. Isomorphism is a kind of mapping between objects, which shows a relationship between two properties or operations. If there exists an isomorphism between two structures, we call the two structures isomorphic. For example, a wooden cube and a lead cube both share the geometric structure of a cube, which is isomorphic. Accordingly, isomorphism focuses on underlying patterns rather than changing details. Algorithmic and logical thinking, therefore, is part and parcel to isomorphic thinking. The relevance of this point comes later in the sequence. In summary, we have established that if one seeks to strengthen one’s intellectual infrastructure, then resources will need to be concentrated into intuition and logical, algorithmic, and isomorphic thinking. These are the corridors to the highest level of thinking.
An effective training ground for strengthening intuitive thinking is playing more chess. Why? Chess involves a mixture of imagination and logic. After three moves played by both sides there are over 64 million possible chess games. Altogether, there are more possible chess games than elementary particles in the universe. Thus we conclude (1) Chess contingencies will never be exhausted (2) Chess is a viable means for increasing possibility/contingency thinking precisely because they cannot all of them be contemplated. Following this, some are contemplated while others are not, which means there must be a principle of selection to tell one what is relevant and what is not. Inevitably, survival in chess means adopting principles that are applicable across a range of cases. Principles that are applicable across a range of cases are by definition isomorphic. It follows, therefore, that chess requires isomorphic thinking. And since it has been concluded that isomorphic thinking is part and parcel to logical and algorithmic thinking, it follows that chess requires logical and algorithmic thinking. We conclude, then, that chess is a perfectly fitting training ground for strengthening intuitive, logical, algorithmic and isomorphic thinking. These are the basic mental conduits for higher thinking.
Why is higher thinking desirable? Why would one want to be ultralogical rather than just have common sense, for instance? The reason is as follows. Most, if not all, value stems from scarcity. If there is an abundance of a resource, it is not as valuable. This principle explains why water, which is vital to our sustenance, costs very little (it's abundant in industrialized societies). Meanwhile, diamonds, which provide no such basic need for humans, are very expensive (rare). Economists conclude, therefore, that value stems from scarcity. If value stems from scarcity, then what is not scarce (common sense is by definition common and what is common cannot be scarce) is not valuable precisely because it is abundant. That is not to say that common sense is not necessary, but that it is not sufficient! Not only is it crucial for higher levels of understanding, but if one is to have a competitive edge over the herd then this requires an ultralogical/hypersensible approach to thinking that is beyond what the typical philistine can conjure up. This mini-essay has laid the groundwork for this enlightened approach by demonstrating the specific areas that require resource allocation and a means for how this can be accomplished. This exposition has focused on the individual rather than the collective. If one is interested in learning about what culturalogical changes would have to occur for this to happen on a wide-ranging scale, then in addition to what has been stated hitherto I recommend visiting my thread on the mathematization of culture.