To start, I'm going off of the assumption, which wasn't ever formally defined, but seems to be implied, that "High Context" means "meaning is required to be found by looking at the context it was used in" while "Low Context" means "meaning is self-contained and independent of its context".
If this is incorrect, please correct me and disregard the rest of my post until we're on the same page.
...
Answered earlier -- Yes.
Could you go over again how "high context" leads to "concrete thinking" (at least as your defined it)? Also, before getting too far, could you also explain how you mesh this sort of thinking with non-physical sensations and things, such as gravity, atoms, magnetism and the internet?
Namely, you can't "see" any of these things, nor (for most) can you "feel" them, and the representations you can see are objectively false or extremely oversimplified. How do you know they're real? Or do you think they aren't?
...
I answered the first paragraph of this earlier. Contextual thinking and Conceptual thinking have little or nothing to do with each other except that Concrete thinkers may find it easier to think in Low Context terms.
My experience with Concrete thinkers is they prefer yes/no either/or situations while Abstract thinkers may not even notice they are in a situation with no clear questions and no clear answers.
As to the second paragraph:
I personally am not a concrete thinker. I can, and often do, think in concrete terms as there are many things in life that are dealt with best using this form of thinking. I can only discuss it to a degree. For completely accurate answers perhaps you should address your questions to a concrete thinker.
First: Gravity is VERY physical. It can be felt and sensed. Just fall from a tree. When people panic while under water or snow they often go the wrong way -- But I was taught by a survivalist that if you first conquer your panic you will almost always know which way is up.
Magnetism is easy. You know it the way the first scientists knew it. You throw some metal filings down by a magnet and watch them line up.
In other words it does not matter how you think -- If you stub your toe in the dark you know something is there. Much of science is knowledge of things -- NOT by observation of the thing itself but by observing the effect of the thing and then chasing down the thing that caused the effect.
It may or may not require an abstract thinker to postulate an atom -- But once you show a concrete thinker how manipulating atoms produces results they will accept them as real.
What does logic have to do with context? If by that you mean that in formal logic you can make statements that are logical conclusions from other statements, I can somewhat see where you're going, but even in formal logic, the implication is that you certainly still need the context to assume that your starting premises that you're coming to conclusions on are actually valid and equal. (More on this later.)
...
Logic has nothing to do with context -- Which in fact is the point. Logic has to do with the least possible context.
The bolded part:
What you need to use on the premises to assure they are valid is not context but empirical referencing. I often call myself an empirical thinker -- and most people (including college graduates) think I am talking about the emperor, but I am actually talking about "checking it against physical reality." If it can be measured I will measure it -- I will not guess.
You already missed an important part -
Also wrong.
..
Please...
I missed nothing and I am not wrong.
I studied logic under the assumption it was the only valid way to come to a "true and valid" conclusion. Then I discovered semantics which at that time was a hole in the wall subject in very few colleges and was a relatively easy subject to master. Now it has become a horrendous nightmare where it is almost impossible to find what branch of semantics you are looking for. After that I discovered that while logic is the dominant form of reasoning in the western world there are many others. Logic is not alone.
IF I were attempting to teach, or perhaps even to disprove, logic
THEN I would have missed points and I would be wrong.
But I am doing neither. I am showing an alternative form(s) of reasoning. Ones(s) that produce equally valid conclusions using different methods.
I did not choose logic because I disrespect logic or because I think logic is wrong or invalid.
I chose logic because:
A. it is the preferred form of reasoning for Low Context thinkers
B. High Context thinkers need to know they are NOT stupid because logic is extremely difficult for them to understand.
C. High Context thinkers need to know there are valid forms of reasoning out there that are much easier for them to understand and relate too.
Yeah, you missed the entire point that the logic class was trying to teach, namely the logical fallacy of linking a negation ("No cat") with a positive assertion ("has five legs"), as well as simply making contorted statements in order to seemingly come to nonsensical conclusions. This is akin to the math game where you start with "x = y" and then cancel each of them out and conclude "therefore 1 = 2". The point of the exercise isn't for you to pick at the wording, and you're missing the lesson (given the context) if you allow that to stop you.
..
Did not miss the point. I passed the class.
I made the point which you just reinforced:
Namely that a High Context thinker has a lot of difficulty "suspending their disbelief" in order to master logic. The study of logic requires intelligent people to accept what they see as outlandish propositions in the hopes that future rewards will be worth it in the form of improved thinking.
And then the
bolded part: It is implied that High Context semantic thinking is somehow inferior to the thinking of Low Context people who find logic a natural form of reasoning.
I suppose it is somewhat just that some semanticists consider logic to be a lower form of reasoning -- But I don't agree. I think it is just a different form of reasoning suited to a different type of thinker.
Maybe, if they're stupid. But then that's true, regardless of how your thought processes work.
..
Not stupid. Conditioned. If they were stupid they could not get good grades.
This is why introductory logic is taught. One of the first things you should be taught is that you can only come to a true conclusion given two important things - fully valid logic, and true premises. If you reject the premises, then of course you can reject the outcome, regardless of its veracity or not. That's why the initial statements are presented as 'givens'. Namely, you can make a valid conclusion if you start with the assumption that the givens are true.
The bolded part is the problem and the point:
This is NOT the only way to come to a true conclusion.
This is the only way you can come to a LOGICALLY true conclusion.
To come to a semantically true conclusion you use different approaches.
To come to an empirically true conclusion you use still different approaches.
To come to a dichotomously true conclusion you use still different approaches.
To come to a systemically true conclusion you use a systems approach.
To come to a mathematically true conclusion you might use Boolean Algebra.
To come to a problematically true conclusion you would use probability theory.
To come to an erratically true conclusion you consult Eris.
You can't if you ignore the context of using 'givens'. You have to use your imagination to expand your learning a bit.
...
Can you see that the part in bold is a learned response and not a thinking response from yourself. It was programmed into you by people who firmly believe, and will not accept, that there are other, equally valid, forms of reasoning out there.
It is not just asking High Context thinkers to suspend their disbelief for future gains; it is insinuating their thought processes are somehow inferior.
They should start with the presupposition that they are taking an introduction to logic class, and have been presented with idealised statements in order to teach them an introductory lesson in logic. After all, it was also never defined what "Man", "Mortal", "Cat" and "Leg" mean.
...
Yes they should -- If they want to learn logic, or if they have to learn logic to get a grade -- But a lot of people, such as myself, learn logic in the mistaken belief it is the only way to achieve true and valid conclusions.
To do the latter logic is not required.
Already addressed. You're attacking the 'givens' rather than the logical issue with the presented statements. Pretend that it is objectively true that there never is, was or will be a cat that has five legs. To make this so, any cat that develops five legs is from here on defined as a "cat+" and is no longer a "cat". Do you still see what the issue with the presented syllogism is?
...
Not attacking. Showing an alternative approach.
I personally believe that those people teaching logic would do better to learn how best to teach it to people who are naturally differently oriented mentally than the teachers. They would be giving more respect and have greater success.
Look into Laplace's Law of Succession, which does allow for you to make predictions of the future merely given past observations. Will the sun rise tomorrow? If you've observed the sun rise every single day without fail for the 5000 years, you technically cannot be 100% certain that it will rise tomorrow. But giving only the simple options of "it will rise" and "it will not rise", you can calculate that the odds of the sun rising tomorrow, based on past observations, is roughly 1,826,250:1.
...
A full context thinker would say, "You need a genius to figure that out?"
Actually you do not. Even untrained Low Context thinkers can figure it out easily.
It takes a genius to explain it.
And you have to be pretty smart to understand his explanation.
But anybody can use it.
And that's without invoking anything silly like "scientific knowledge" or "definitions", which is what is done with the "all men are mortal" statements.
Scientific knowledge is not silly and most scientists use logic at some point. I think all of them are versed in it whether they use it on a regular basis or not.
Semantics is not silly. It is a scientifically proven, valid, form of reasoning.
Nope, you're just being obstinate by ignoring that the context is that of a logical statement and the statement you're dissecting isn't being suggested as a 100% factual statement about reality, but instead as an idealized situation that exists solely in your mind.
...
Obstinate sounds so bull headed and stubborn. Can't I just be alternative?
Something doesn't cut it, I'll grant you that...
The only thing that really doesn't cut it is the insistence by its devotees that logic is the only one true path to reason and that those who do not, or cannot, use it are somehow inferior.
That describes me.
But thanks for looking further, Bott.