Remember, the Critical Thinking Personality Spectrum Ensemble is composed of at least three component filters, themselves ensembles of filters and components:

• The Cognitive Aptitude Personality Spectrum Ensemble
• The Innovation Personality Spectrum Ensemble
• The Likelihood Recognition Personality Spectrum Ensemble

This is a really tough one to develop. Importantly, those who actually have a nicely expressing Critical Thinking Personality Spectrum Ensemble (Filter) may not be likely to agree that they have it. I don't think that I have it. In reality, how would I know? (See Preface comment regarding our ability to know) Since both those with and without a nicely expressing Critical Thinking Filter may believe they have it, how does one credibly validate what the actual fact is?

• Those that do have it cannot agree that they do. They wouldn't think that. They require validation. Evidence is needed to validate. However, any enabled Critical Thinking advancements that they have flow obviously (to them) from simple observations with a little bit of creative thinking. This doesn't (to them) seem like that unusual of an achievement. It certainly does not show up as "unusual or non-traditional thinking" to them. Out-of-the-Box thinking enabled by an active Innovation Ensemble is simply easily done "creative thinking" from their perspective.
  
  
• Those that don't have a tendency toward Fuller Critical Thinking fall into two categories. Category A would say that they do not have it. Category B would say that they do!
  
  
• So, all we know is that if I thought I had an effective Critical Thinking Ensemble, then that would be "the tell" that I did not. But to think that I do not is not sufficient evidence to assess either whether I do or do not.

Why go forward?

Well, in case I do have an enabling Critical Thinking Ensemble (and I have no idea, or even suspicion that I do), then the way this works is that I simply write out what I do observe as obvious, put together a few implied suggestions that do rationally fall out of that, and somewhere along the way a newly insightful and plausible understanding regarding the cognitive MOA of the Critical Thinking Personality Spectrum Ensemble will unfold. The way this works (if I have it) is that I cannot predict what that description will be ahead of the epiphany or discovery of it. That's not how Innovation works. The innovator doesn't know ahead of "the innovation" what the innovation will be. And at the moment I am writing this, I don't know:

• what That is, and
• whether I have the ability to generate a descriptive understanding of it (the Critical Thinking Ensemble), and
• (if I had the ability to generate a description of it) when that epiphany will happen.

Why do I write all this down for you to read? Well, assuming I will eventually write something worthwhile, the perspective presented above is actually instrumental for understanding how the process of getting to the new understandings that are enabled by the Innovation Personality Spectrum Ensemble actually works.

Importantly, if I am enabled, and if I am going to develop something worthwhile on this chapter's topic, then for the time being I have to truly believe that I am enabled to write it. Because, to develop something that one does not know how they will actually achieve it, but is committed to moving forward on it anyway, requires the Faith that one Can achieve it. To do so, one must move forward confidently. In other words, developing this chapter requires an effective Providence Relationship Personality Spectrum Filter.

Are we clear yet?

Important → As a prerequisite for completing the first version of this chapter on the Critical Thinking Ensemble, I began and finished the first version of another chapter, The Credible & Consistent Sense of Reality Personality Spectrum Ensemble. While working on what would become version two of that chapter, I came to new understandings of how several steps unfolded during my Cognitive Reboot.

• Behavior Posture (The Compatibility Seeking Personality Spectrum Filter) influenced by Past Habituation was uncovered as a result of examining the data and interpretations of two independent people who also perceived the same event differently at a time that my rational cognitive ensembles were still offline. How was the behavior that unfolded during these events generated? All during a time when I actually could not develop any memories of the events, as my Long Term Memory formation functions were not yet back online at that time.
  
  
• Spirituality (non-validatable) - a.) Understanding of Primary Best Suited Purposes was understood in response to similar questioning by several people at separate times. This unfolded as a consequence of an innovative way of considering how evolution actually is driven, resulting in the lineage of the continuously living.

Because I AM able to consider new data Out-of-the-Box, with much less indoctrinated influence of how I "should" be considering what I was being asked or told, "epiphanies" like these unfold frequently for me. ← Important

---

Going Forward

Connect the dots drawing four
straight lines that pass through
each of the nine dots, never
lifting the pencil from the paper.
[ Click for one solution ]

Additional terminology which elaborates on the Critical Thinking Ensemble this chapter describes:

• Thinking Outside the Box - unconventional thinking from a new perspective.
• Eureka effect - suddenly understanding what was incomprehensible.
• Lateral thinking - solving problems through indirect, novel approaches using reasoning that is not immediately obvious.
• Genius - exceptional intellectual ability, creative productivity, or originality.

An effectively set Critical Thinking Personality Spectrum Ensemble enables (a few) to propose alternate hypotheses that most others would simply consider "unusual thinking" or even "Bat Shit Crazy". Yet, the proposer considers these alternates as serious ideas, creatively generated Out of the Box, that are worth validating to determine if there is any potential Truth in their approach.

Humanity, as a whole, has advanced as a result of a few of these ideas actually being enabling precisely because they actually do (it turns out) reflect a greater degree of truthfulness than embraced at the time of their initial proposal. It is also true that for the Critical Thinking Ensemble to confer selective advantage to the "collective" that are impacted, not all the positively impacted need have the trait. Only a sub-population need have it, so long as they are included within the group that is benefited. In fact, not all in the collective need even agree with or understand or care about or appreciate the "epiphany" at all. They benefit so long as most of the "group" is significantly "on board", loosely meaning "not working against it."

Examples of what were certainly originally considered "Bat Shit Crazy" ideas that eventually caught on are:

• Let's hunt the larger animals with hammers and spears and knives, potentially requiring us to jump on them to kill them, even though they might harm or kill us in the process. We'll harvest more meat that way, and as a benefit be less hungry and likely to starve.
  
  
• Let's try planting these seeds left over from our plant hunting and gathering to see if they will grow us plants that we don't have to look so hard for. We could more easily harvest more plants that way, and as a benefit be less hungry and likely to starve.
  
  
• The Earth may not be the center of the Universe. If we consider that instead the sun is, and that we orbit that, we may have a better time understanding why our climate keeps changing and repeating over the year, and be better at anticipating (and ignoring) what we think we can (and can't) count on.
  
  
• Let's let individuals be responsible for the decisions they make to take care of themselves, and let them have property that is considered to be their own that they can do with as they please, rather than impose behaviors required of them through dictation. (The emergence of market based economies, rather than tyranny based economies.) It could be possible that the increase in personal initiative and devotion to successful outcome could result in a much greater standard of living for the entire collective as a whole.
  
  
• Monogamy is a much better arrangement for a man's family than polygamy, for a number of reasons (not listed here, but it turns out are real even if not understood at the time.)
  
  
• The above were random suggestions, and many more can be made. In each case, in retrospect we can appreciate their positive outcomes, but at the time proposed, they were not the norm, were not what people had EVER been used to, had never been tried out before, and were certainly considered "Bat Shit Crazy" (BSC).

It is very likely true that of all the "Out of the Box" ideas ever put forth (and that continue to be put forth,) most were probably not good ideas at all, and have failed in any number of ways. However, a few of these innovative and BSC ideas turned out to be good, and eventually led to positive outcomes. Several things with regard to these should be kept in mind:

• They really were considered "unusual, not normal" ideas by nearly everyone else at the time they were proposed.
  
  
• The folks who came up with these had a strongly functioning Innovation Ensemble which enabled the generation of their ideas, which they considered to be possible solutions (that required validation). And if they were found validatable (and thus credible) would confer benefit among those (of the collective) that adopted them.
  
  
• These BSC ideas were NOT going to be generated by people without a strongly functioning Innovation Ensemble. Some may disagree and insist that of course they could have been. However, that is not what we actually observed. In every case, the proposers were labeled the equivalent of Bat Shit Crazy (e.g. unconventional, heretical, bizarre, odd, abnormal, weird, etc.) Almost all of those "considered reasonable" either voiced disagreement with them or kept quiet.
  
  
  
• Finally, while it is true that a few of these Out of the Box ideas were helpful, and may even have provided selective advantage, what was also a selective advantage is that only a few (a minority, perhaps a relatively small minority) actually had strongly functioning Innovation Ensembles. From these a few good and adoptable ideas eventually were generated. If the collective had a much higher percentage of members with strongly functioning Innovation Ensembles, then the collective would have been swamped with too many ineffective ideas that may have represented actual negative selective advantage to the collective. (At some level, a high percentage of people having strongly functioning Innovation Ensembles may be lethal or degrading with regard to the ability to survive "competition" from groups less "Bat Shit Crazy".)

So there you have it.

→ The Introduction section above was last updated 12 Jul 2017 17:50 PDT ←

How is it that one can portray credibly to another how the Critical Thinking Personality Spectrum Ensemble works factually?

Can't. Yet.

I am not aware of many biophysiological or genetic science articles that has are obviously relevant to the entirety of this topic. There have been more focused research investigations, however.

---

The Cognitive Aptitude Personality Spectrum Ensemble is a key player in the mechanism of action (MOA) of the Critical Thinking Ensemble. One important component (out of many) of the Cognitive Aptitude Ensemble is Memory (not forgetting.)

So much of comprehending something new is due to the ability to observe and recall things that others either did not notice or did not believe would be needed to be remembered. Remembering details (which at the time may have seemed insignificant or something that you might prefer to forget) is essential to the ability of being able to synthesize alternative ways of regarding things more accurately than before.

Many do not have the instinct to notice or recall the kinds of things that lead to new, more complete comprehension. Others are drawn to and enjoy remembering what truly is minutia in the grand scheme of things.

ConserveLiberty is not advocating that folks remember all the minutia that they comes across. Much of it is truly not important and not worth thinking about longer term. The point is simply that new comprehension does actually derive from the consideration of data that prior to one's epiphany was once considered minutia and that at the time was felt better to be dismissed rather than remembered.

How do you know which "minutia" is worth actually remembering? You don't. Glad to be helpful.

The Cognitive Aptitude Personality Spectrum Ensemble itself is made up of an ensemble of influential components and traits. Some of these are touched on as the various Cognitive Startup or Reboot Prerequisites that provide the basic cognitive operating system upon which all additional Cognitive Personality Ensembles are built.

Generally speaking, the Cognitive Aptitude Filter is a subset of the ensembles that make up Intelligence. One research investigation looking for genetic marker associations with measurements of intelligence is featured in this chapter, entitled "Genome-wide association meta-analysis of 78,308 individuals identifies new loci and genes influencing human intelligence".

The Cognitive Aptitude Ensemble hypothetical "default" settings will be discussed in a subsequent revision.

---

The Innovation Ensemble is another important component of the Critical Thinking Ensemble. The discovery or comprehension of new things not previously uncovered (but found after investigation) requires hypothetical prognostication. Since the innovation to be had cannot be known before it is uncovered, multiple differing hypothesis are generally considered, none of which are known to be true, or even believed to be actually true, and in fact are known to be currently unknown to be True at the current time. Evidence is being looked for "consistent with Grouping A", "Grouping B", "Grouping C", etc.

The experiments (evidence gathering) are all oriented towards finding and organizing data having consistency with the appropriate groupings, until enough evidence points to a likelihood that one "Grouping" is more likely than the other. The Innovator is going for Facts, of course, but what one understands one actually has is evidence for likelihood. Eventually, the newly identified higher likelihoods are understood to be a higher likelihood "grouping" that is more useful for more accurate prognostications on average than the understandings that had been previously embraced before.

What was important for this process is the ability to hypothetically prognosticate, and the ability to view data as likely consistent with a hypothesis, but not necessarily factually. Statistically likely. Many cannot do this easily. True scientists do it naturally. So naturally that it doesn't seem unusual to them. And they overlook that others don't. And those that don't think probabilistically don't really understand what those that do actually do.

The Innovation Personality Spectrum Ensemble itself is made up of an ensemble of influential components and traits. There are:

• the instinctual drive to move forward promoted by an effective Providence Relationship Personality Spectrum Filter.
• novel thinking that is Outside The Box - the ability to be able to frame or perceive what is known within paradigms that may not (yet, if ever) be accepted or acceptable.
• the willingness to express these Outside The Box ideas publicly even though the likelihood of criticism for being "not realistic or comfortable within accepted norms" is high. This desire to communicate novel, unpopular ideas can be occasionally perceived as Bat Shit Crazy.

The Innovation Ensemble hypothetical "default" settings will be discussed in a subsequent revision.

---

The Likelihood Recognition Personality Spectrum Ensemble is another key player enabling the Critical Thinking Ensemble. One important trait component (among others) is the ability to consider multiple competing hypotheses as true (not dismissing them) while credible information is limited that would quite likely validate them as True or Not True.

The Likelihood Recognition Personality Spectrum Ensemble is important to ensure that alternative hypotheses are fully considered and tested. This is because in order to "validate" a new idea (e.g. credibly prove or disprove), one must be able to believe that it actually may be true. One is more likely to be creative enough to look for ways to actually prove something is true if they believe it is true. Similarly, one must be able to also believe that the new idea may be false, and thus creative enough to look for ways to credibly disprove it. Giving both potential outcomes a "fair shake at validation" rather than a "biased effort at validation" is best done if one understands their validation status in Probabilistic terms. At this point, a validation effort simply becomes a matter of varied and clever testing done for the purpose of improving the accuracy of the likelihood "score" that is ones "best hunch". Not everyone has a good "statistical sense." In fact, more likely, most don't!

People who Think Probabilistically are people who think in Likelihoods. What they understand are not considered "Truths" to them in the way that they understand the term "Truths". Rather, they think in terms of the likelihood that something is an Actual Real Fact. They do not think this way in rare or exceptional circumstances. They think this way in ALL circumstances. For these people, "Facts" are those things that are verifiable, and only that which is fully validated is considered fully a Fact. Facts are those things that actually exist. What is Imaginary may not. However, for them, much of what is "considered to be known" may not necessarily be a "considered a Fact". They may certainly considered it to be likely a "Fact" or likely "Not a Fact."

The embrace of information as "potentially factual" and having relevant "likelihood associations" with other potential truths enables one to be open to alternative explanations of situations more accurately. Innovation is enabled when one understands that more than one interpretation may exist within a collection of interpretations that have the potential for being truthful. Only one may be Fully and Factually Truthful, and some may be "closer to the truth" than others.

In the absence of definitive information, it may not be known which interpretation is actually the correct (or most correct) one. And for a number of reasons, both practical and grounded within the Fundamental Prerequisites (variability is a Fundamental Prerequisite), a likelihood of 100% can never be achieved.

Experimentation done scientifically (e.g. skeptically) functions to segregate the options that wind up not being relevant or factual from those under consideration. Innovation then happens!

In an important "tell" for the enablement of Critical Thinking, many people do not regard the environment they interact with from the perspective of Likelihood (e.g. statistical, probabilistic) Thinking. They more often regard the world using "Is or Isn't True" Thinking. This creates a communication challenge. (And all must make decisions even when they do not regard the status of their interpretations as Most Likely To Be True.) How does the "Likelihood" thinker communicate intelligently with the "Is or Isn't" thinker? The "jargon translation" often is expressed in the following way:

Likelihood	Term Used
99-99.999 % probability	Virtually certain
90-99 % probability	Very likely
66-90 % probability	Likely
33 to 66 % probability	About as likely as not
10-33 % probability	Unlikely
1-10 % probability	Very unlikely
0.001-1 % probability	Exceptionally unlikely

In order to get through life productively (even, to actually survive it), most of the time "good enough" is just going to have to do. However, the person who Thinks Probabilistically relates to information under consideration as a "likelihood", and perhaps enough to "let it go for the time being" when being "considered a Fact" by those who do not think statistically. Otherwise, dialog between these two types of people most often would not get anywhere productive.

Those who Think Statistically leave their discussions regarding whether or not something is actually a "Fact" to be had with those who think like them. Among them the conversations even more interesting. They resonate more as they get closer to the Truth. And, along the way, discoveries are made. New ways of understanding are uncovered that get us "closer to the truth".

Default Likelihood Recognition Personality Spectrum Ensemble "settings", different for each individual for genetic reasons (and also culturally and environmentally influenced) may result in the following drives and behaviors enabling Belief or Perceived Comprehension and its sharing:

• 81-95: those dialed up (by default, genetics) at this extreme are driven to increasing the fullness and accuracy of their Understanding (based on the patterns they are seeing).
  • At this level, the expectation that one might be criticized as "not thinking traditionally" doesn't negatively override the thrill of "possibly being on to something helpful." Receiving the "thinks unusually" label is interpreted as being the result of others simply not understanding "the idea" sufficiently or not easily able to think Outside-the-Box, which induces a desire to explain and educate. It is a significantly active part of the Likelihood Recognition ensemble, and enabling.
• 71-80: Dialed by default a little lower, and many of us experience and understand different patterns as potentially true, but just not at the same levels of complexity. Not an effective enough level to enable deep Critical Thinking behavior.
  • At this level, effective Out-of-the-Box thinking is appreciated and sought after, is a significantly active part of the ensemble, and enabling.
• 61-70: Dialed a little lower, and we still are moved to understand a few potentially plausible explanations for the same thing, but these need to be in the "pragmatically relevant" domain.
  • At this level, an effective Pattern Recognition Personality Filter is a significantly active part of the ensemble, and enabling.
• 41-60: Dialed lower still, these persons aren't necessarily driven to deriving Understanding themselves, but, they want understanding (perhaps it stimulates the Reward Center) so they become "followers" of whatever they are being told that sounds OK to them. They embrace one explanation, and when they do, they believe it is true. For them, the notion of "most likely is true", is generally regarded as "is true."
• 21-40: And so on and so forth
• 1-20: The clueless. They don't really know why they consider or understand things the way they think they do, and actually don't really care. They may insist that they care, but if "effort devoted to understanding something" is a measure of how much one actually cares to understand it, then, actually, they don't.

(If you were linked to this Likelihood Recognition section from another chapter,
consider using your "BACK" function to return to the previous page.)

→ The Big Picture section above was last updated 12 Jul 2017 17:50 PDT ←

← Previous - Preface         Next - Research Articles →

Consider thoughtfully.