Formulaic Thinking

The following will share our response to a recent email asking us the question: “What do you consider to be the greatest cognitive impediment [in finding solutions to problems, identifying opportunities, and gaining a better understanding of anything] today?” The bracketed words are ours. 

Answer: formulaic thinking. 

By definition, formulaic thinking is thinking based on packets of someone else’s claimed knowledge, a consensus perspective that has been around long enough and used apparently successfully enough to seem applicable and pass for gospel truth. The problem is that by examining something through using such popular formulas—i.e., shorthand abstractions—it is easy to think you understand something when the understanding is wholly or partly illusory, due to less than thoughtful thinking. 

Perhaps the most abused abstraction today is “quantum.” Every uncreative reckless-driving formulaic thinker who wants to appear as if on the leading-edge of creativity is chroming and mounting the word “quantum” on the hood of whatever conceptual vehicle they are selling. Another popular shorthand abstraction is advanced through use of the term “placebo.” At some inevitable point we will hear defense attorneys standing in court arguing: “It’s not fraudulent; it’s a placebo,” in matters having nothing to do with pharmaceuticals.

To build upon concepts that one does not understand—that, perhaps, no one really understands—is to build a castle on sand at the edge of an ocean at low tide. 

Conventionally-trained scientists commonly use “random samples” in conducting various kinds of research. CPAs performing audits of financial institutions use them too, as do professionals in many other fields. Yet, as J. B. Rhine (1895-1980) demonstrated—ad nauseum—almost one hundred years ago, in his laboratory at Duke University: human intention can alter randomness, and alter it to a substantial and provable degree. So, in any given repeated experiment employing random samples, not only will my samples be different than yours; my randomness may be different as well. 

The Noetitek™ system is based on the “language of Nature”—primary principles rooted in the spectrum of creational energies and expressed through natural patterns and processes. Using our system can, then, be seen as employing a “top-down” approach to the study of anything. To read more about Noetitek™, use the “search this site” feature on our front page. If, like most of our visitors, you are reluctant to publicly post a comment, do not hesitate to send your comment or question to eastwood@PluribusOne.com. Thank you, in advance.

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , ,

2 Responses to “Formulaic Thinking”

  1. Stark Raven Says:

    I love the smell of napalm in the morning.

  2. PluribusOne™ Says:

    Our posts are not aimed at attacking or confronting anything other than closed-minded-short-sighted ignorance. Our larger goal is to liberate the genius that resides within every human being.

    “Consensus” is not, by defintion, Universal Truth; it is the buttressed alignment of popular perceptions, for better or worse.

    The term “new truth” is another popular term among world-changer-pseudo-shamans that deserves red-flagging.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s