>I’ve noticed there’s been a trend of people capitalizing on teaching others about “thinking how to think”, more or less. But does it really work, or does this stuff just make you better at winning an argument?
Depends. There's stuff you learn by experience, and there's stuff that you learn by studying.
Thinking how to think is somewhere in between - you learn a lot of it by experience (e.g. when you get duped in a certain way, you learn to recognize the pattern and avoid it), but you miss a lot too. And even the things you learn, you might merely apply subconsciously or practically, without really understanding them.
So having some kind of teacher / book / course into it makes sense, as much and in the same way it makes sense for math or chemistry or driving.
Generally any subject in which someone can be much better at it than you, and the principles of which can be communicated, makes sense to be taught...
That said, there are all kind of crap teachers online, people who make those mental models into some rigid dogma (either teachers or students), people who discovered/came up with some thinking models / mental guidelines and think they're the next Aristotle, and so on. If they make money off of ads or selling courses, I'ld stay well away...
One particular pet peeve is how people discover the "logical fallacies" and force them upon any conversation, when part of mastering conversing with humans is to know when and how to apply or break strict logical consistency - and understand context and applicability.
When someone a friend tells you not to go with X's proposition because they're not trustworthy, they're a criminal, etc, their talk might be an "ad hominen" and the proposition might be great in itself.
But the result of trusting X might still be bad (e.g. they might use what's a great proposition to their advantage to dupe you), and that's the point your friend tries to convey.
Depends. There's stuff you learn by experience, and there's stuff that you learn by studying.
Thinking how to think is somewhere in between - you learn a lot of it by experience (e.g. when you get duped in a certain way, you learn to recognize the pattern and avoid it), but you miss a lot too. And even the things you learn, you might merely apply subconsciously or practically, without really understanding them.
So having some kind of teacher / book / course into it makes sense, as much and in the same way it makes sense for math or chemistry or driving.
Generally any subject in which someone can be much better at it than you, and the principles of which can be communicated, makes sense to be taught...
That said, there are all kind of crap teachers online, people who make those mental models into some rigid dogma (either teachers or students), people who discovered/came up with some thinking models / mental guidelines and think they're the next Aristotle, and so on. If they make money off of ads or selling courses, I'ld stay well away...
One particular pet peeve is how people discover the "logical fallacies" and force them upon any conversation, when part of mastering conversing with humans is to know when and how to apply or break strict logical consistency - and understand context and applicability.
When someone a friend tells you not to go with X's proposition because they're not trustworthy, they're a criminal, etc, their talk might be an "ad hominen" and the proposition might be great in itself.
But the result of trusting X might still be bad (e.g. they might use what's a great proposition to their advantage to dupe you), and that's the point your friend tries to convey.