Simple Test for Analytical Mind

Normally to discover if the person to whom I am speaking with has an analytical mind, I have to converse a while on analytical subjects. But I have discovered it to be actually much easier than that.

If you want to discover if someone has an analytical mind, merely discuss definitions. I am amazed how effectively the very concept of definitions has been eradicated from the minds of the masses. Ask anyone to define almost anything and if they can’t quote a dictionary, they are completely lost. The average person, the non-thinker, non-analytic, non-critical thinker, cannot distinguish a definition from merely a comment.

Of course for you to use this method, you would have to learn what a definition is yourself, so maybe it isn’t for you. But for those very few who can still remember or perhaps even figure out what a definition really is, there is this simple technique to discover the actual bright people from those who merely memorize great detail and regurgitate.

This thread is due to your exist thread?

Define definition in your own words.
In my words–a definition is a description, often using metaphor to explain one thing (Unknown) in terms of another (Known).

Not here at this site and was merely a cap on the mountain of confusion very apparent concerning definitions of even the simplest of words or concepts.

That is a basic, un-refined explanation of what a definition is. But now provide some examples that are not merely quotes from a dictionary. The issues arise in the un-refined details.

A definition can be in pure informational terms e.g. relating to the measurable behaviours of objects, or it can be a derivative of that, mathematical or computer data. An intellectual defining of a thing can range from an assessment to a vague idea about something.

The former is observed and arrived at independently, the latter is secondary and perception based. So one is looking at a thing, the other is looking at that from another perspective [i.e. subjectively].

Not at all.

… and typical of the problem.

Education, location and family/friend upbringing has more to do with the ability than it has to do with the mind. Some minds cannot, but most could if trained.
Training can be done on these forums. Certain methods of conversing could be used to increase the abilities of young questioning minds. You do have the minds that just want to bitch and argue. That mindset is not open to any education or sharing of knowledge. How would you bring about a change in a mind with potential?

Could you give a couple of examples of definitions you have sought and the kinds of responses you from one of the masses.
I have been surprised how much in philosophy forums people can see the getting into the definitions of words and ‘quibbling’ over language as somehow beside the point. They want to ride in on their horses and proclaim and counterproclaim and this language stuff seems prissy to them, rather than something necessary for useful conversation. That said, I am curious about this actual not understanding the idea of definitions when they actually try. Like it is hard for me to imagine they cannot get what Define Dog should lead to and at least try to move in that direction with tougher more abstract terms. So what have you encountered?

I did not quote a dictionary, but gave my own idea of what a definition might entail.

A definition needs to distinguish ‘the thing’ from other things. So it will likely entail a description of some kind, at least often, but this description serves the purpose of forming a clear outline of the defined. Helping us know also what it is not, without necessarily at all going into negative defining. Words tend to describe sets unless they are names. So you need to include what is necessary to be included in that set and then also what limits that set.

You want the other person to form some kind of mental gestalt of the defined. A gestalt that is distinguished from the background of everything else.

A dog defined as a furry mobile thing fails in most terrestrial situations as a definition, though it is a generally correct description. This description would fail to distinguish the dog from cats or even some inanimate objects which are not dead dogs. It might be a good enough description when you have some person who does not know what dogs are while you are in an area where a feral dog pack can be heard and likely is about to attack. A furry mobile thing probably will be distinguishing enough for the other person to target well. Any cats or horses wandering into the battlefield will be acceptable collateral damage if there are only seconds before attack. The gunshots ought to keep them away, both being more easily startled animals than dogs.

(I suppose I am thinking mainly of nouns here)

We define the “thing” by comparing it with other things. The definitions generally include use of simile, metaphor. etc. that address the question “What it is it like”? In a thought experiment, one can describe ETs as about four feet tall, having large eyes, having only slits for noses, having frog-like hands and feet, and so on. The description will help one who has never seen one have an idea of what the ET looks like. On a more down to earth proposition–describe a cup. This is done by describing its physical characteristics and its common use.
Does description define “What is it like”? I can describe a bat, but Nagel insists that I can never know what it is like to be one. E. O. Wilson does a fine refutation of Nagel by giving descriptions of what it’s like to be a bee. Can we define batness? Beeness? Humaness?

That is a primary issue.

Years ago, I would ask people “What is a god?” Invariably the only responses that I got were:

1. “There is only one!” or
2. “God is just a myth.”

When I would ask what it is that you believe in (or insist is merely a myth) the question of definition of “god” was completely dismissed in favor of ranting either pro or con.

To this day, that doesn’t vary very much. And even though that word is a bit emotionally and/or socially charged, almost any inquiry of definition yields such poor results.

That isn’t bad, but neither does it complete the function of a definition. The bit about often using metaphor or whatever is superfluous. And the fact that a definition is a description is true, but there can be many descriptions that are not defining or determining descriptions:

Define an apple:
“Its a fruit”
…yeah, and?
“It’s usually red”
…and?
“It grows on trees”

So anything that is a fruit, red and grows on trees is an apple?
“yeah I think so.”
What about a cherry?
“A cherry isn’t an apple”
So what else isn’t an apple?

A definition is a inclusive qualifier description. If anything fits within the stated description, it must be the thing being defined, else it is a poor defining description, if one at all.

If you look up “to exist” in the dictionary, or just ask anyone, you get just about everything BUT a definition. Mostly you get merely substitute words; “to be”, “real”,… So on that one, I made a thread to give (as far as I know) the first actual defining description (involving having to have the property of affect - hence my “Affectance Ontology”).

But even after explaining the whole definition issue and giving a definition, what did I get in response? Alternate word substitutes or common characteristics: “existence is becoming”, “existence is the now”, “it is what it is”, “That which creates in the cradle of emptiness”, “the collusion of events in proximity”,… of course at this site, I got merely off topic discussion of peripheral issues (exactly as expected).

That is not how we define things. That is how we convey the basic idea.

To define a thing, we must give an UNAMBIGUOUS description, NOT VAGUE, NOT merely a SAMPLE, NOT merely some TYPICAL properties - a description that doesn’t fit anything else.

[list]Definition ≡ an unambiguous categorical description.[/list:u]

It all boils down to platos forms, the absolute.

A furry thing IS the definition of what it is not. Furry=a bunch of lines. Lines are already defined as a subset of space, that which it is not.

So a dog = A furry thing = a bunch of lines smooth to the touch. If you confuse a cat for a dog that is generally due to laziness and lack of effort by the definer.

Smooth is a qualia, it varies but is generally within consistent bounds.

… another case in point.

An example of a lazy definition yes, but extend that definition and you include all its forms, described the eyes etc and you have a dog. There is no room to debate, a dog is a dog as its defined, plato’s forms. If you confuse it with a cat that is the fault of the artist.

Again, James, fine.

There are clearly folks who are intrigued by these speculations. Fascinated enough to broach, discuss and to propose conclusions regarding how one might be obligated to think about the “analytical mind”. And, in turn, speculating on when one either is or is not in possession of a fully functioning one.

But my own interest in philosophy revolves more around any possible limitations that the analytical mind might come upon. When, for example, connecting the dots between the definition and the meaning given to words and the extent to which they either are or are not fully functional out in the world of actual interacting behaviors.

So, for those here who might be interested in taking their “analytical” contraptions out for a spin in the world that we do live in, please keep me in mind.

Good.
Thank you.

That is a part of my disappointment. Webster didn’t actually define “existence”. They stated that it is something that is independent of thought. Well okay, true, but that doesn’t tell what it is, merely one of its properties.

Have you thought that a social disability to define as you correctly request might have a deeper reason? How many words does the average person know? How many ways can words be used? How many sentences does a person form each day? How much time can the average person devote to a single thought?
The average mind is not an organized computer, the average mind is more like an overfilled unorganized garage. You know the general placement of what you want but, you got to get through crap to find it. It is so much easier to throw out the first thing that resembles what you want. Time and organization. True there are brains out there that are computer like but, damn James we are not popping out of one perfect machine.

I said nothing of testing for perfect minds. I am only speaking of the talent of an analytical mind.

And such minds are often not particularly educated. What gives them away, their visible trait, is attention to the details of a thought or communication. When the details concerning definitions of the words being used are lost, everything is soon extremely complex and lost as well. Analytical minds tend to dislike that, preferring simple and straight forward. Correct the details concerning the language and a whole, whole lot of the confusion, misunderstandings, and conflicts go away.

So analytical minds are important, but they are not the supreme peak of all life or anything.