Cabrera Lab ensures you'll take the fastest, surest path to excellence in critical thinking. Master the most important thinking skills better and faster than you ever thought possible (at your own pace). Our ground-breaking science (we pioneered the research) and step-by-step practice (we know what to practice) guides you from where you are (Good) to where you want to be (GOAT). Train yourself and your team in the skills that can't be replaced by AI.
Complexity allows for endless possibilities. When they combine in a way that has value for us or the ecosystem we see the results and often it still looks complicated. The driving force for the ants is survial and a way to reduce the work required. I played music professionally, an endlessly complex activity. We can't make sense out of noise so the great composers look at all the complexity and find ways to combine the notes in a way we can follow and that is surprising enough to be exciting. The simple rules are the resut of a search process that maximizes some metric. In the case of music it is a balance between noise (a white spectrum) and no variability (flat). It turns out most music is 1/f (pink). A balance that provides information at a rate we can understand. 1/f is almost a rule. Simple rules that address an actual need are all innovations. What is the value proposition? We use NABC (Need, Approach (offering and viability model), Benefits/costs, and Competition) to define the value of different alternatives. Solutions emerge because they have value. No complexity; no innovations. But nothing can be understood independent of the ecosystem, whether in nature or business. PS In the ant case. If the ecosystem changes you need those crazy ants who do not follow the rules. As Jobs noted, “It is the crazy ones.” That variability must be built in too. It is the need that creates the rules not the other way around. You said that but the micro makes the macro is always toward the unmet Need. The micro is the toolkit of possibilities. No need, no macro. For us NABC is a simple rule like the rules for flocking birds. It is not everything but if you violate them too much you will likely fail, as we have seen many hundreds of times.
My parents were very conservative and deeply spiritual people. They endured the Larry Flynt years and the installation of Play Boys and Penthouses in the local stores where they grabbed the milk, because they valued this country and the principals of securing judgement with a balanced scale. Things change so much today and so people think it would be no big deal to reduce the power and even remove a branch of government. We just need patience and this only comes from experience. So we will all hang on and hang onto all of it! Great discussion of the simple rules--we will see emerging intelligence if we endure and Think Up!
Enjoyed the video🙌 Btw I'm not really sure if it is the best time to ask but, While watching I noticed a few opportunities to improve the video, I've prepared a short video outlining some tips. Mind if I sent it over?
My room mate talks on speaker phone all the time. Literally , about 85% of his day is speaker phone . And I have sensory problems with sound and light .
Something my grandfather always said was that its not a sin to think through things but people tend to confuse that with thinking about, on or around things. You can only come out the other side when you think "through" things, otherwise you get stuck in them.
Well thinking about the wrong stuff is still thinking lol? Thats a dumb argument. If you work 12 hours a day to the point where you dont get stuff done, doesnt mean youre not working does it? Youre overworked, but still dont get a lot of work done cause youre doubg the wrong stuff. Overthinking little aspects and making isnt a productive thing and noone claims overthinking makes you smarter. Its still overthinking? Not that hard to argue. Bro overthought overthinking and came to the wrong conclusion
That just doesn’t make sense. If you’re thinking about this outcome and that outcome and this and that, how is that a lack of thinking? Obviously it’s not focused on one, but a lack of *thinking* when you’re stuck in a state of nothing but thinking? I’m not sure I follow
Disagree fundamentally. Go find the best people in any field the ones that do the best work are stressed about every tiny detail and how long each detail takes. The best are pressed by the world.
Exactly some perfectionist will not be overthinking but rather think of every possibility outcome to the point they will forsee the future in any event. This man lacks vision I would say.
If you don’t even over understand what overthinking is how the hell can you comment on it and be taken seriously? People like this I swear, just talk to hear themselves talk
I was just told at 44 years old that I have ADHD. After being told I was lazy , not listening , day dreaming , no motivation , no ambition and gifted . After starting medication I can hold a conversation , I can focus on one task at a time . And finish it! I have energy to go to the gym! That thing that needed to be cleaned for so long , got cleaned .
Naw, just shows he's not dealt with over thinking, your mind races jumping from thought to thought uncontrollably, it's an abundance of thinking just lack of focus
You missed his point, as I originally did. What he means is that when you’re so focused on certain aspects of your situation which puts you in a state where it seems like you’re thinking, but you’re actually just spinning in a behavior/thought loop, where you don’t really think, but your mind is running. You are simply letting your brain run, with stuff you aren’t really thinking about, but just worrying
Might be one of the worst takes I have ever heard. And I've listened to flat earthers. It takes effort to be so confidently wrong about things you don't understand.
Very interesting talk that brought me a needed perspective on the way people think differently. It also brought questions to me about the way my own mind works. While I don't think I'm on the spectrum I see similarities in the way I think to a neurodiverse mind.
there are a lot of similarities Dan. especially as the pace of life "speeds up" and gets "more interconnected." The more this occurs, the more often we will see neurotypical people feeling a lot like or resonating with neurodiverse people (and wanting to claim it as a "disorder"). The difference is, as I say in the podcast, how much damage its doing (historically) to your life. By way of example, alcohol, in and of itself, isn't a problem, unless it is ;-) ...then we call it alcoholism.
Today, I literally thought someone was mad at me. Because I listened to this I asked them about it, and it turns out they were stressed about something else. I was totally wrong. Wow! Great catch. Thanks for making my life better.
How about this theory? Freedom "The End Of The Human Condition" By Jeremy Griffith. Then how do you know what is real or unreal based on the state of acting out of instinct and not a "mental model" Remembering that there's alot science still can't explain.
Very grateful for ya'll answering my question, and affirming for me what I thought the answer was to what's real. I got very stuck with the human-centered perspective part of it, like "how can I not view something from my own perspective? Even if I read other perspectives, I'm still filtering it from my own point of view." But I now realize that ones point of view is dynamic as perspectives can shift when others are learned. Big takeaway for me is that science is for the everyday thinker and accessible to all!
Science in order to operate get rid of human-perspective. There is a recent book about it that I strongly recommend "The Blind Spot" by Evan Thompson and other co-author who's name I don't recall. I agree that people are capable of taking different perspectives and sometimes revising beliefs but I don't share the view that all people are scientists or think like scientists. The two aren't the same things. Science is taking strength from being a rigorous method. We aren't even rational most of the time, so to speak.
Thinking Up helps me sort through what I perceive and what is real. By triggering the breakdown of both aspects identity/other, action/reaction etc. the balanced view helps me see more and depending upon the importance of the situation will be supplemented by the scientific method for a pragmatic and different perspective, perhaps. What is real does become what is the feedback from what is.
Can we dive into retirees and how the “Work-Life Balance” impacts them? One friend’s mental model is “work is a part of my AMAZING life.” Another part of his life is cycling. He worked, cycled, and enjoyed the travel, companionship, experiences, etc. that it brought him, AND had a rewarding, high-impact career. He retired and continued LIFE … which now involved MORE cycling. Another friend of mine is about to retire. Their mental model is “work is work, life is life, and they should not mix.” They have mental models of how to do great things at work and have an incredibly successful professional life. As they approach retirement, they’re anxious about applying those mental models to “not-work.” These thoughts create conflict for them. If they retire and apply their “work mental models” to not-work, then, they worry that their work will in some ways haunt them. The ways of working at work, by coming into their personal life, will make them always seem to be at work. So, the fulfillment of retirement can be at risk for them. I know they can build a new mental model and adapt. Life has been great for them. If they choose to build a new model, life will continue to be amazing.
Great presentation overall. I do like the layers you develop in your analysis. One critique I would offer is that it would seem as though a false dichotomy between ST and CT is being presented, at least implicitly. I do think that an excess of criticism can have a stifling effect which would then need to be countered by perspectives with a strong countervailing... dare I say, bias. However, I do think it's important to follow this up with discussion about the proper and necessary role of critical thinking. Too often, we are inclined to take models and attempt a perfect instantiation of them only to find these efforts frustrated by the complexity of the world. Here, it seems paramount to use our critical thinking to do reality testing and decide if we should either redouble our efforts or reallocate them elsewhere.
As Critical Thinker I am on the same page with you about: - avoiding black&white thinking - approaching reality from multiple-perspectives - and using multivalence thinking as extension to bivalence thinking to address complex real world situations with more flexibility. All of this, in my opinion (IMHO), is essential to critical thinking. I don't know of any formulation of critical thinking that goes against it or doesn't try to embrace these concepts. I think that when someone is learning critical thinking, they should always choose examples of good critical thinking to learn from, not anecdotes like Derek's, which I would say go against the principles of critical thinking. I really never met problems with bivalent thinking in CT therefore it could be interesting if you show real life examples of this when someone teaching or representing CT while expressing these flaws. My approach to models is a little different though - the same as in this clip: ru-vid.comUgkxbugJ7pShDyXLy4oFnVuH0J8Uevur6yiA?si=4KMjJ4dNRHNXzFg6 Transcript: "I have to start with a little disclaimer like Stafford Beer, the creator of the model, always did in his lectures. He always pointed out that the model is, of course, not the reality. It's not the truth; it's just a tool, and tools are more or less useful. Therefore, please do not mistake the model as something that could explain everything. If we would deal with a model that could explain everything, well, then there's a high likelihood that we deal with an ideology, and at least from my point of view, that's something I don't want to deal with." - Mark Lambertz Another thing is that I can't make sense of basketball analogy. Because for me for me thinking is more like moving itself and not a particular game. I can't learn one method of moving and have all martial arts, dances, moving skills for free. Lately I learn something about kung-fu that I think is a good analogy here or maybe more than one thing. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-RblW8-lU_rU.htmlsi=yTQYnpaa6pwKS6oh&t=507 When master explains what kung-fu stances means he bring attention to concept of rooting. All stances are designed to root person to the ground. But it's not that simple as it seems. There is no big difference when we look from outside between rooted and that which isn't rooted position, the difference lie in small internal changes to the structure. The changes are small but the results are huge. I see CT in the same way as complementary to Systems Thinking and providing that essential element of being rooted to the ground.I think we can find a person who learned your method, all the "moves" from it, but lacks that insight about the internal structure, which makes it prone to being biased. But I would not say it's a problem of your method, we just need to be aware that your method not guarantee being unbiased (and I doubt that there is one method which do that). ST is great but without CT I find it incomplete and prone to failure. There is also one more thing, when master explains difference between kung-fu and karate both are teaching about movements but the philosophies of moves are hugely different and distinction between them is still valid. I think the same about different kinds of thinking. Distinctions aren't always necessary because there might be convergence but are valid and we might want to emphasis one aspect over another without being biased (rather vice versa - we choose what is relevant to a situation and our needs). It seems as though you are claiming that your method is free from bias. I would argue that bias is inherent to taking any perspective. My hopes of hearing your response to this point were previously disappointed. I would say you missed tactical level of CT because it's in small structural changes in thinking and isn't that obvious and easy to apply without guidance. And vice-versa there is as much generality in operational level and vagueness of strategical level to the System Thinking, overall literature about complexity science is rich and full of different approaches that take different angles on the topic of sense-making. I take it as a nature of these levels and theory overall and don't see it as good arguments against CT. Thank you for taking time to make an episode. Our perspectives may vary but that's ok. I appreciate your input. edit (I have problem with posting next post therefore I add edition): I found this description on your webpage: "Cabrera Lab ensures you'll take the fastest, surest path to excellence in critical thinking. Master the most important thinking skills better and faster than you ever thought possible (at your own pace). Our ground-breaking science (we pioneered the research) and step-by-step practice (we know what to practice) guides you from where you are (Good) to where you want to be (GOAT). Train yourself and your team in the skills that can't be replaced by AI." I wonder why don't you stick with it but now you named it as useless modificator that produce bias. 🤔
I found this description on your webpage: "Cabrera Lab ensures you'll take the fastest, surest path to excellence in critical thinking. Master the most important thinking skills better and faster than you ever thought possible (at your own pace). Our ground-breaking science (we pioneered the research) and step-by-step practice (we know what to practice) guides you from where you are (Good) to where you want to be (GOAT). Train yourself and your team in the skills that can't be replaced by AI." I wonder why don't you stick with it but now you named it as useless modificator that produce bias. 🤔
Great discussion of yet another narrative we tell ourselves that generally makes us less happy! By not UpThinking Work/Life Balance we stop thinking and just feel based upon our current situation with minimal analysis and intentional action.
Thinking about our thinking is the best learnings I have got from Dr. Derek Cabrera. Amazing!! Eager to learn more and apply and make things better for me and people around me.
What a great discussion involving shared memories, history, and pop culture. Went a total different direction than I thought it would. This was just fantastic!
Always love the great descriptors the Drs. use that are so descriptive (LOL!) and also kind. Like fixed mindset-this is so much better than biased, oblivious, etc. and better tags the problem-that being Inertia.
Nice. If you study music or play sports it is obvious people can get better, no matter the starting point. The big questions are, what are the best ways to improve? Clasical music is a great example because the methods have been refined for hundreds of years. They work (see Juilliard). They adhere to the core principles of active learning, starting with engagement.
