Analysis and Synthesis

It appears that all people can be assigned a position on a scale ranging from extreme analytical to extreme synthetical. At one extreme, the analytical person perceives objects and their properties well, but perceives the relationships between objects poorly. At the other extreme, the synthetical person perceives relationships and interrelationships between objects well, but perceives the objects poorly. It is my perception that all humans can be placed on a discrete position on such a scale.

To the analytical person, relationships are ephemeral things that only exist because they are created by objects, are relative not absolute to the individual perceiver, and therefore have no real existence except in the temporal consciousness of each individual per se. Thus "above" is a relationship that only exists in the mind of the beholder, and has no existence beyond the instance of perception. Relationships have low importance to an extremely analytical person. Thus George is a person with certain properties. His relationship to me and others is unimportant; it is his characteristics as a person that are of interest and that are important. The fact that George lives at 456 Main Street is an important fact about him.

To the synthetical person, objects are shells connected by relationships. It is not the nature of the object that contains significance; objects only have significance through their relationships. Thus the key significance of a perception or memory is that a certain object has a relationship to another object; thus "above" is the supreme significance of the perception. Objects have meaning only to support the relationship and properties have no significance if they have no bearing on the relationship. Thus the importance of my relationship to George is the highest significance. He may be my friend, my acquaintance, my uncle, or whatever. It is the relationship that defines George's importance to me. The fact that George lives at 456 Main Street is of little or no importance; what is important is that he is my uncle.

Most persons are not at either extreme, but exist somewhere on the continuum between the extreme ends. However only analytical persons would be aware of this.

CONVERSATION

I think that what we consciously withhold from saying is at least as important as what we say.

Some people seem to be unable to control the flow of words from their brain out their mouth, without the slightest attempt to censor it before it comes out. For them, once the brain has conceived the sentence, it comes out on its own. Even the concept of reviewing it before it is said is a foreign concept to some.
A good conversationalist will speak less than his/her counterpart. A good conversationalist will give the other the opportunity to express their opinion, and a good conversationalist is a better listener than a speaker.

Your own opinion does not matter much to your listener. Your listener is only interested in how you respond to his ideas; when you express yourself he is only waiting for you to finish so he can say some more. If you want to be appreciated, then listen. If you want to be tolerated, then speak.

If you do speak, then expand on the ideas elucidated by your counterpart. A good conversation is when the ideas of both together are more than their sum. When you and he build on each other's ideas to reach heights not attainable by either of you individually.

Most people respond emotionally to what you say; not rationally. Most of us are 95% emotional beings, and we do things for emotional reasons. So reason has little suasive potential, because your listener is not listening from a rational perspective. Thus, do not say everything that comes into your mind. Speak little, but when you speak make it persuasive and such that your listener will understand and at least respond to it.

Above all, use humour to bond with the listener, and to create the proper climate.

Intelligence

"Those stupid country people", I hear. Those stupid farmers. Those stupid peasants.
Does ignorance make you stupid, I wonder? Or is every healthy person roughly equally intelligent (on the variety of scales used today). Perhaps if you didn't spend your time at university, you made up for it in a variety of ways and are equally intelligent in other ways. For example, I spent 10 years studying philosophy, locked myself in a room for hours and hours every day, 7 days a week, 31 days a month, for years. So I come forth rather erudite because I learned all those big words. On the other hand, my wife's aunt never finished high school. But she is a student of people. All those years that I spent in books she spent reading people. Does that make her any less intelligent?
Do we confuse knowledge with intelligence? Are the beer drinkers and the soap opera watchers any less intelligent? My mother says "My son is so smart", but only because I'm always talking about things that she doesn't hear other people talk about. Aren't those other people around her that she considers not so smart, just as smart really?

Here's another question for another blog: Is there a maximum intelligence? Can artificial intelligence reach levels of intelligence far higher than any human's?

Workshop Thoughts

Twenty people in a room for three days, everyone with their own perspective and presuppositions. It was interesting only if you sit back and watch the proceedings from above.
How can you improve the group dynamic? Solutions are possible only if presuppositions are shared. So do you shift discussion to presuppositions?
How many presuppositions are in play here? Some people react emotionally; some rationally. Some are afraid that others will view them critically; others don't care. Some don't perceive their effect on others; others are only concerned with their effect on others. Some try to help the group reach a result; others offer points of view in an attempt to persuade others. Some ask questions; some make statements.
How would the ideal group work? What is an ideal group? Is the ideal group a group that achieves what an individual cannot? I.e. is an ideal group synergistic? Do similar personalities achieve more in a group setting than disparate personalities?
As a group member, what can I do to promote the group objective?