Posts from Are you capable of thinking?

"...The problem is that, for the most part, people practically don't
understand, are unable to comprehend, and cannot independently assess
what they read or hear. Back in the 70s,
research showed that in all segments of the population, from workers to
the so-called intelligentsia, only 14% are capable of
retelling the text of a simplified article, and only 8% are capable of
understanding the conclusion that the author substantiated. The rest of the
information consumers simply memorize the conclusions and
then act depending on whether they believe them or not.
And the average person's belief depends on the beliefs of the crowd – what
the crowd believes, the average person believes as well. Therefore, in order to
stir up the average person, it is necessary for many media outlets to start talking about it at once, i.e., the crowd – then the average person will take
such information into account. Individual statements,
not supported by the crowd, have no
meaning whatsoever for the average person: he is not capable of understanding them on his own, and he cannot believe them, since this is not yet the opinion of
the crowd. It follows from this that for the complete dumbing down of
the population, the statements of individual
media outlets on any issue are completely safe. Whatever arguments they
present, however much the information is simplified and
however long it is repeated, the average person will still not believe it. And such publications create the illusion of complete freedom of speech..." (from the book by Yu. Mukhin "Power on Bones")

So, think for yourselves, ladies and gentlemen! :)

I am capable of thinking.

How scary it is to live, yeah © )))

Hehe, is there even a way to check that?

I think it's not difficult to check. Moreover, you can check it yourself. The main thing is to be completely honest with yourself. ;)

I checked myself here, and came to disappointing conclusions...:smile05:

Here, it is truly necessary to constantly develop this skill, to be able to compare information, and to give your own assessments. By the way, the discipline of history helps with this.

This is actually helped by the discipline of history itself.

You hit the nail on the head. ;)
Without history, there is no future.

It's a real treat for my ears :)
By the way, this Mukhin also dabbles in history, although (as I think) it doesn't turn out very well (judging by what I've read of his)... Oh well, never mind :rolleyes:

How can history help determine whether or not someone has good critical thinking skills, and even teach them something?:smile32:

How can history help you understand whether you can think or not? And even more so, teach you something?

Everything new is just a well-forgotten old thing.

Could you elaborate a bit more? I didn't quite grasp your point behind this template, and I'm particularly interested in learning more about powerful computers, internal combustion engines, and cloning – and once again, about the educational role of history in this process, if it's not too much trouble).

Hmm, yes, it's easier to explain using your example. The percentage of morality, communication skills, and similar attributes of internal, again, culture within you is, unfortunately, quite small. And your ironic post is completely unnecessary.
History consists of the wisdom of those reflected in it. And if you possess sufficient patience, attentiveness, and reason, then history will help you make more correct decisions. After all, someone may have found themselves in a certain situation in which you will find yourself, say, in a week. And then, knowing how they acted at the time, analyzing the consequences of that decision, you can then make your own choice: to repeat it or not. And if the action at that time was wrong, then there is a chance not to make that mistake now.

Although, for the most part, people are used to learning only from their own mistakes... and I too, probably, belong to people, at least from a biological point of view.

Actually, the irony of my previous post could have been easily understood, and one could have avoided fixating on it and projecting their own insecurities, but alas, some found it easier to do otherwise. I had hoped that it would spark some kind of dialogue about the value of history and its contribution to the development of humanity as a whole, but oh well, let's just say it's about morality instead. Regarding the topic at hand, one of Hegel's famous aphorisms states that the only lesson history has taught is that it has never taught anyone anything. People can learn from their own mistakes, from the mistakes of others, but the vast majority will learn absolutely nothing; they are an inert mass, nothing more. All the wisdom, all the knowledge, all the morality of so-called society is the achievement of a small number of people who then spread all these "new and well-forgotten benefits" to the rest of society. Ultimately, I believe that this percentage is what drives, or rather pushes, the rest of humanity towards progress (or regression – it's a matter of personal preference). And history is just statistics

it's quite easy to understand and not get hung up on it

Is it?;)

a small number of people who are already spreading all the "new and well-forgotten benefits" to the rest of society. As a result, I believe that it is this percentage that drives, or rather pushes, all of humanity towards progress.

It seems the author of the topic stated from the beginning that the percentage of thinking people is small:)

History is not statistics in any way, except perhaps in theory. History is written by people who have their own views on it. The chronicler not only records an event, but also gives it an assessment.

But actually, you yourself have now confirmed that history teaches, albeit a small number of people;

And what about Hegel?:) Although, he can’t compare to you:D