Scientifically Speaking - Can We Talk? - K.I.K; Get Into the Know2024-03-29T10:22:10Zhttps://knowledgeisking.ning.com/forum/feed/category/Scientifically+SpeakingKnow How You Work; Protect Your Subconscious Mindhttps://knowledgeisking.ning.com/forum/know-how-you-work-protect-your-subconscious-mind2019-01-26T06:52:55.000Z2019-01-26T06:52:55.000ZMark Wellshttps://knowledgeisking.ning.com/members/MarkWells<div><p style="text-align: center;"></p>
<p><a href="{{#staticFileLink}}128765762,original{{/staticFileLink}}" target="_self"><img src="{{#staticFileLink}}128765762,RESIZE_1024x1024{{/staticFileLink}}" width="750" class="align-center" />
<div class="sharethis-inline-share-buttons"></div>
<p>Whenever you think a thought, encounter an idea, react to outside stimulation, your subconscious mind says “Yes!”, and jots that down to your experience. If you watch a scary movie, watch a real competitive sporting event, read a tear-jerker book, empathize with a loved one, your inner mind claims that as your own experience and places your reaction into your inner emotional archives. If you have ever experienced trauma, then your subconscious attempts to hide that away so that it ceases to hurt, and at the same time it creates a protection mechanism within your inner beliefs that will keep you from ever coming close to re-experiencing that pain again. <iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/sJK7Z6ZchPM?autoplay=1&cc_load_policy=1&wmode=opaque" frameborder="0"></iframe><br /></p>
<p></p>
<p><img src="https://carpediemhypnosis.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Conscious-and-SubConscious.jpg" width="612" height="300" /></p>
<p>Let me explain this in another way. When you were born you created a body based on the DNA of your parents. Included in and around that body is an electro-magnetic field that resonates with the coding of the DNA you have inherited. You constantly add your own experiences to this electro-magnetic field, and as you do, your vibrational frequency shifts. Based on physics and the laws of resonance, when one thing vibrates at a certain frequency it automatically attracts other things vibrating at the same frequency.</p>
<p>We pick up frequencies from others. (Have you ever entered a room where someone is in a horrible mood? How did that affect your mood?)</p>
<p>And, we attract others who show up with the same frequencies as our own. (Do you ever feel that those closest to you are “mirrors” of you?)</p>
<p>We also attract cycles of events. (Example, people who have had multiple car accidents, who keep attracting the same kind of abusive relationships, who have lost multiple jobs, etc.)</p>
<p>So, here are some basic tips to remember…</p>
<p>Every time you say something your subconscious mind says, “Yes!”</p>
<p>Every time you react to something that you see, hear, touch, feel, your subconscious registers it, stores it, and believes it to be a true experience for you – even if you were merely an observer.</p>
<p>Every time you experience an emotional reaction you store it in your body, in your electro-magnetic field, and ultimately in your DNA. If all of your experiences can be passed to your offspring in the genetics that they inherit from you, imagine what you have inherited from your own ancestors.</p>
<p>Although you have inherited, experienced, reacted to many stimuli, you DO have a choice now to feed your subconscious only the information and experiences that vibrate at the frequency that you choose.</p>
<p></p>
</a></p>
<div class="fb-comments" data-href="https://knowledgeisking.ning.com/forum/know-how-you-work-protect-your-subconscious-mind" data-numposts="5"></div>
</div>Why Should You Secure Your Subconscious Mind?https://knowledgeisking.ning.com/forum/why-should-you-secure-your-subconscious-mind2019-01-25T23:18:33.000Z2019-01-25T23:18:33.000ZMark Wellshttps://knowledgeisking.ning.com/members/MarkWells<div><p style="text-align: center;"><br />
<img src="{{#staticFileLink}}128765456,RESIZE_1024x1024{{/staticFileLink}}" width="750" class="align-center" /></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"></p>
<div class="sharethis-inline-share-buttons"></div>
<p style="text-align: center;"></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/NOoq_KqwABs?autoplay=1&cc_load_policy=1&wmode=opaque" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<div class="addthis_native_toolbox"></div>
Whether you like it or not, YOUR MIND IS EXPLOITED BY OTHERS EVERYDAY. Most of the time its harmless, sometimes useful, but sometimes completely against your better judgement or wishes.
<p></p>
<p style="text-align: center;">The more self-aware you become, and the more you learn about automatic and subconscious processes – the more control you have. You can build up a strengthened “firewall” against people who might know how your mind works better than you do.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><span class="font-size-7">The Mind’s Power to Create and Destroy</span></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"></p>
<p style="text-align: center;">THE SUBCONSCIOUS MIND IS THE MOST POWERFUL RESOURCE YOU HAVE. The power to steer an incredible life, achieve great feats, create a masterpiece, execute the most ambitious ideas.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Every human feat and achievement, every building, every business and every moment of genius can be attributed to the subconscious mind’s ability to create an idea and pursue it (or program an idea and execute it).</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"></p>
<p style="text-align: center;">But achieving that optimum state of “flow” is challenging; our programmed subconscious minds gather plenty of “MALWARE” along the way: EXPECTATIONS, FALSE BELIEFS, BAD ASSOCIATIONS, EMOTIONAL INSECURITIES AND NEGATIVE RESISTANCES. The same huge resource of life-changing power can instead be used to drive a life into the ground (whether the same life or someone elses), DISTRACT PEOPLE AWAY FROM THEIR TRUE GOALS, CREATE ADDICTIONS, FEARS AND INSECURITIES THAT BECOME LIFE-LONG BARRIERS TO PERSONAL FREEDOM. A person can easily become trapped by the power of their own subconscious mind.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><span class="font-size-7">Ignorance is Vulnerability</span></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"></p>
<p style="text-align: center;">If the subconscious mind is our most powerful resource, you’d have thought that we would spend more time getting to know it, to understand it. To become aware of its tendencies, to avoid irrational thought patterns, to recognize when we’re being led astray by subconscious issues.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">You’d have thought that we spend time learning how to program it more successfully, setting goals, learning to visualize and to recognize our emotions, to protect ourselves against unwanted influences.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">But the vast majority don’t.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"></p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Our subconscious minds are wide open to NEGATIVE EXPERIENCES, FALSE LEARNINGS, ASSOCIATIVE EMOTIONAL CONDITIONING, THE PRESSURES AND EXPECTATIONS OF SOCIETY, AND BEING EXPLOITED BY SALESMAN, CON ARTISTS, THE MEDIA ADVERTISING AND EVERYONE ELSE AROUND US.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">It’s no wonder that depression is on the increase.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"></p>
<p style="text-align: center;">You may have noticed fear and confusion also seem to be blossoming; something that governments have long recognized to be a very useful way of rendering a person more open to subconscious influence.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><span class="font-size-7">Knowledge is Power</span></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"></p>
<p style="text-align: center;">The good news is that the Subconscious is quite predictable – it has some strong instinctive tendencies which fall into predictable patterns. The tendencies of the subconscious mind can be used for benefit – if you know how; to set successful goals, overcome inner conflicts, and gain greater control over seemingly automatic responses, thoughts and feelings.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><span class="font-size-7">The Dark Side</span></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"></p>
<p style="text-align: center;">But there’s a flip side. Those same tendencies can be used against you. Every system has its exploits and weaknesses – and they can easily be used against you. Con men, manipulators, psychopaths, advertisers, salesman, cult leaders, jealous partners, bad managers, hypnotists and plenty of others – knowingly or unknowingly – can influence your subconscious mind against your best interests.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><span class="font-size-7">Subconscious Security</span></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"></p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Subconscious security is therefore about:</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Becoming more aware of your subconscious mind, its strengths and weaknesses<br />
Becoming more aware about how the subconscious mind can be manipulated (either positively or negatively)<br />
Learning to condition yourself for more useful responses, and break existing responses that aren’t useful<br />
Using your awarenesses and conditioning to protect yourself against subconscious breaches.</p>
<div class="fb-comments" data-href="https://knowledgeisking.ning.com/forum/why-should-you-secure-your-subconscious-mind" data-numposts="5"></div>
</div>Critical Thinking and Emotional Intelligencehttps://knowledgeisking.ning.com/forum/critical-thinking-and-emotional-intelligence2018-11-12T13:59:47.000Z2018-11-12T13:59:47.000ZMark Wellshttps://knowledgeisking.ning.com/members/MarkWells<div><div class="content pad editable"><span style="color: #99cc00;"><strong><span class="font-size-7" style="font-family: helvetica;"><a href="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/128767272?profile=original" target="_self"><img class="align-full" src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/128767272?profile=RESIZE_1024x1024" width="750" /></a></span></strong></span></div>
<div class="content pad editable"> </div>
<div class="sharethis-inline-share-buttons"> </div>
<div class="sharethis-inline-share-buttons"> </div>
<div class="sharethis-inline-share-buttons"> </div>
<div class="content pad editable"><span style="color: #99cc00;"><strong><span class="font-size-7" style="font-family: helvetica;">This article as originally published in <em>Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines</em>, Winter 1996. Vol. XVI, No. 2.</span></strong></span></div>
<div class="content pad editable"> </div>
<div class="content pad editable"><br />
<table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td colspan="2" rowspan="4" valign="top">
<table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td colspan="2" rowspan="4" valign="top"> </td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p> </p>
<br />
<p><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Emotional intelligence is a topic that is attracting a considerable amount of popular attention. Some of the discussion is, in my view, superficial and misleading. In this paper, I shall focus on the problems inherent in the manner in which the idea of emotional intelligence is being conceptualized and presented. The main questions I am concerned with are: Does it make sense to speak of emotions as being intelligent or not? If so, is there such a thing as "emotional intelligence?" And if so, how does it relate to critical thinking?</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I shall argue that it does make sense to speak of emotions as being, in some given context or other, "intelligent" or not, and, consequently, that it does make sense to speak of emotional intelligence. However, I will also suggest that the way the concept of emotional intelligence is now being popularized — by psychologist Daniel Goleman (1995), in his book Emotional Intelligence — is fundamentally flawed.</span></span></p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Once some preliminary distinctions are set out, I will focus on a conceptualization of the mind, its functions, and primary motivators, including a brief analysis of the relationship between thoughts, emotions and desires.<br />
I will then develop a critical analysis of the primary theoretical views of Goleman.</span></span></p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><strong><span style="color: #0044aa;"><span class="font-size-7"><span style="color: #000099;">Some Preliminary Distinctions</span></span><br /></span></strong><br />
What is intelligence? In Standard English usage ’intelligence’ is understood as "the ability to learn or understand from experience or to respond successfully to new experiences"; "the ability to acquire and retain knowledge (Webster’s New World Dictionary)." Its possession implies the use of reason or intellect in solving problems and directing conduct.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">What is emotion or feeling? In standard usage, the term ’emotion’ is used to designate "a state of consciousness having to do with the arousal of feelings (Webster’s New World Dictionary)." It is "distinguished from other mental states, from cognition, volition, and awareness of physical sensation." Feeling refers to "any of the subjective reactions, pleasant or unpleasant" that one may experience in a situation.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Given these understandings, how might "emotional intelligence" be provisionally conceptualized? Most simply, emotional intelligence can reasonably be conceived as a measure of the degree to which a person successfully (or unsuccessfully) applies sound judgment and reasoning to situations in the process of determining emotional or feeling responses to those situations. It would entail, then, the bringing of (cognitive) intelligence to bear upon emotions. It would encompass both positive and negative emotions. It would be a measure of the extent to which our affective responses were "rationally" based. A person with a high degree of emotional intelligence would be one who responded to situations with feeling states that "made good sense," given what was going on in those situations. Appropriately generated feeling states would serve as a motivation to pursue reasonable behavior or action. Emerging naturally out of "rational" emotions would be "rational" desires and "rational" behavior.<br />
<br /></span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Now let us consider how critical thinking fits into this picture. What is critical thinking and how might it relate to "the bringing of intelligence to bear on emotions?" If we provisionally understand critical thinking as Robert Ennis defines it, namely, as "rational reflective thinking concerned with what to do or believe," then it clearly implicitly implies the capacity to bring reason to bear on emotions, if for no other reason than that our emotions and feelings are deeply inter involved with our beliefs and actions. For example, if I FEEL fear, it is because I BELIEVE that I am being threatened. Therefore I am likely to attack or flee. More on this point later.</span></span></p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I shall argue that critical thinking cannot successfully direct our beliefs and actions unless it continually assesses not simply our cognitive abilities, but also our feeling or emotion states, as well as our implicit and explicit drives and agendas.</span></span></p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I shall argue, in other words, that critical thinking provides the crucial link between intelligence and emotions in the "emotionally intelligent" person. Critical thinking, I believe, is the only plausible vehicle by means of which we could bring intelligence to bear upon our emotional life. It is critical thinking I shall argue, and critical thinking alone, which enables us to take active command of not only our thoughts, but our feelings, emotions, and desires as well. It is critical thinking which provides us with the mental tools needed to explicitly understand how reasoning works, and how those tools can be used to take command of what we think, feel, desire, and do.</span></span></p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Through critical thinking, as I understand it, we acquire a means of assessing and upgrading our ability to judge well. In enables us to go into virtually any situation and to figure out the logic of whatever is happening in that situation. It provides a way for us to learn from new experiences through the process of continual self-assessment. Critical thinking, then, enables us to form sound beliefs and judgments, and in doing so, provides us with a basis for a "rational and reasonable" emotional life.</span></span></p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">When searching for the ingredients necessary for a highly rational life, it is therefore crucial not to underestimate the role of the affective dimension of mind. To engage in high quality reasoning, one must have not only the cognitive ability to do so, but the drive to do so as well. One must feel the importance of doing so, and thus be driven to acquire command of the art of high quality reasoning. What is more, it is evident that to learn to solve problems effectively, one must have the desire to do so. One must be committed to it. Thus the affective dimension, comprised of feelings and volition, is a necessary condition and component of high quality reasoning and problem solving. Every "defect" in emotion and drive creates a "defect" in thought and reason. Intelligence on this view, then, presupposes and requires command of the affective dimension of mind. In short, the truly intelligent person is not a disembodied intellect functioning in an emotional wasteland, but a deeply committed mindful person, full of passion and high values, engaged in effective reasoning, sound judgment, and wise conduct.</span></span></p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><strong><span style="color: #0044aa;"><span class="font-size-7"><span style="color: #000099;">A Practical Theory of Mind</span></span><br /></span></strong><br />
Given these foundational understandings, I will now provide a brief outline of my understanding of the mind and its functions. Before I do so, I want to point out that this theory of mind, as I conceive it, is an intellectual one, serving an intellectual agenda, and is not intended to compete with a psychological theory of mind serving a psychological agenda or with any other theory of mind serving some alternative agenda. I am ultimately concerned with developing a theory of mind that enables "ordinary" persons to effectively take charge of their thinking, intellectually speaking, and by that means to take charge of the quality of their lives.</span></span></p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The human mind, as I understand it, is comprised, at minimum, of three basic functions: cognition, feelings, and volition. The cognitive component of the mind includes mental actions we traditionally link with "thinking" such as analyzing, comparing, assuming, inferring, questioning, contrasting, evaluating, etc. The cognitive function is concerned with conceptualizing, reasoning, and figuring things out.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The feeling (or emotional) function is that part of the mind which is our internal monitor, which informs us of how we are doing in any given situation or set of circumstances. It is our gauge for telling us whether we are doing well or poorly. Because we are emotionally complex, humans experience a broad array of emotions from happiness to sadness, from enthusiasm to depression, from joy to sorrow, from satisfaction to frustration, and so on.</span></span></p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The third function of the mind, our ultimate driving force, is the formation of volition or will. Within this function lie our agendas, purposes, goals, values, desires, drives, motivations and commitments. This is the mind’s engine, which revs us up and moves us forward toward some action, slows us down, or leads us to back away from some action. As our driving force, desires, volition, and play a key role in determining our behavior.</span></span></p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">These three basic mental functions, albeit theoretically distinct, operate in a dynamic relationship to each other, ever influencing one another in mutual and reciprocal ways. Thus, although they serve different roles, they are concomitant. They function so intimately in our experience that it is only theoretically that we can regard them distinctively. Wherever there is thinking, some related drive and feeling exist. Wherever there is feeling, some related thinking and drive can be found. Wherever there is drive, thinking and feeling are present in some form.</span></span></p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Despite the fact that cognition, feeling and volition are equally important functions of the mind, it is cognition, or thinking, which is the key to the other two. If we want to change a feeling, we must identify the thinking that ultimately leads to the feeling. If we want to change a desire, again it is the thinking underlying the drive that must be identified and altered--if our behavior is to alter.</span></span></p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">It is our thinking that, in the last analysis, leads us toward or away from some action, and in the last analysis sets us up for some given emotional evaluation of the situation. For example, if I THINK that the class structure I have designed for my students will enable them to thoroughly grasp the key concepts in the course, I will then experience an emotional evaluation of some kind when I try the structure out on my students. If it works, I will FEEL satisfied. If it doesn’t I may feel disappointed. Furthermore, I will be MOTIVATED toward or away from some action based on the thinking that I do in the situation. If my classroom structure fails to lead to the thinking that I want students to be doing, I may be MOTIVATED to improve the structure so that it works better to achieve my original purpose. Such motivation is based on my THINKING that classroom structures can always be improved and that to develop as a teacher involves continually reevaluating my class plans.</span></span></p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">On the other hand, if I THINK that students are generally lazy, and that nothing I can do will improve their ability to learn, I will be content with my old classroom structures (and not be MOTIVATED to improve them), and I will FEEL satisfied with my teaching methods.<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="color: #0044aa;"><span class="font-size-7"><span style="color: #000099;">Two Contrary Tendencies of the Human Mind</span></span><br /></span></strong><br />
While the human mind inherently includes cognition, feelings, and drives as basic inter-influencing functions, the triad itself can be under the sway of two contrary tendencies of the human mind, the tendency of the mind to gravitate toward egocentrism, or the tendency of the mind to take into account a more comprehensive, and more "rational" view. What do I mean by this? Let me explain.<br />
Every human being enters the world with an initial motivation to have its way and to get what it wants, and thus "naturally" sees the world as designed to cater to its desires. This fact is apparent when we observe the behavior of young children. Their unfailing motto: "It’s mine!" As we grow older, we learn methods for getting our way, which are much less blatant and thus less obvious to the untrained eye. These methods can be quite sophisticated, but are often still fundamentally egocentric or self-serving. Throughout our lives, our own desires and narrow interests are typically in the foreground of our thinking.<br />
<br />
As we mature, we learn multiple ways to manipulate others, to influence or control others to get what we want. We even learn how to deceive ourselves as to the egocentrism of our behavior. We have no difficulty coming to conceptualize ourselves as fair-minded, empathetic, kind, generous, thoughtful, and considerate, as concerned, in short, with other persons. We recognize that it is socially unacceptable to be blatantly egocentric. Nevertheless, that outward appearance of concern for others is often just that, an outward posture that enables us to think well of ourselves as we, in fact, pursue narrow selfish interests.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Nevertheless, however egocentric we may in fact become, we have, in addition, a capacity to go beyond it. For example, we unfailingly recognize the destructiveness of the egocentrism of others when in their selfish pursuits they violate our rights or needs. We can all therefore conceive of the considerate, the fair-minded, the "rational" person. We all approve of non-egocentric thinking in others.</span></span></p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The result is a kind of dualism in us: our selfish, egocentric side, on the one hand, and our capacity to recognize higher values on the other. These two sides each can have a role in influencing our thoughts, feelings, and desires. What is more, because we become facile self-deceivers, it is often not clear to us when we are acting in an egocentric manner.</span></span></p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Think of the husband who controls his wife through threat of physical force, and who deceives himself into believing that such physical punishment is "for her own good." Think of the wife who manipulates her husband to get what she wants, while deceiving herself into believing that "what he doesn’t know won’t hurt him." Think of the politician who claims to believe in one thing, but after being elected, behaves according to an opposing belief (who in the first instance deceives himself into believing that whatever half-truths he tells during the election campaign are of no consequence, that they are simply necessary evils for getting elected). Think of the student more interested in “getting an A” than in learning, who deceives herself into believing that getting A’s in her courses is more important than learning. All of these are examples of egocentric thinking, thinking which is fundamentally driven by our selfish, self-validating desires.</span></span></p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In the pursuit of self-preservation and self-interest, egocentric thinking has certain identifiable hallmarks. It is often marked by rigid, inflexible habits of thought. Moreover, seeing the world in a self-serving way, it routinely distorts information and ignores relevant information when working through a problem or issue. In other words it relates to the world according to an inherently self-validating structure, recognizing that which it wants to recognize and ignoring that which it finds "uncomfortable."</span></span></p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Certain predictable emotional reactions are typically a product of egocentric thinking. Emotions that are commonly egocentric include defensiveness, irritability, arrogance, anger, apathy, indifference, alienation, resentment, and depression. Of course, to determine whether a particular emotion is irrational or rational, one must look closely at the thinking that ultimately drives that emotion, not at the emotion in-and-of itself.</span></span></p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span class="font-size-7"><strong><span style="color: #0044aa;"><span style="color: #000099;">Tendencies Toward Rationality</span><br /></span></strong></span><br />
Although we often approach the world through irrational, egocentric tendencies, we are also capable, as I have suggested, of developing a "higher" sense of identity. We are capable of becoming non-egocentric people, both intellectually and "morally." Science itself exists only because of the capacity of humans thinking in a non-egocentric fashion--intellectually speaking. Moral concepts, in turn, exist, only because of the human capacity to conceive of responsibilities that by their very nature presuppose a transcendence of a narrow moral egocentrism.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">At a minimum, then, I envision the human mind as utilizing its three basic functions (thought, feeling, and desire) as tools of either egocentric or non-egocentric tendencies, both intellectually and morally. If I am correct, then, the human mind is easily "split" into contrary drives. However, the contrary drives that exist in people are not best understood as social stereotype often has it, between the "emotional" and the "intellectual." Rather, the contrary drives occur between egocentric and non-egocentric tendencies of mind.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><strong><span style="color: #0044aa;"><span class="font-size-7"><span style="color: #000099;">Contradicting the Standard Stereotypes</span> </span><br /></span></strong><br />
As you can see, the theory of mind I have been focused on is inconsistent with certain stereotypes and common misconceptions about the relationship between cognition and affect. For example, it is common for people to say things that imply:</span></span></p>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">that their emotions and reason are often in conflict with each other,</span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">that emotion and reason function independently of each other,</span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">that it is possible to be an emotional person (and hence do little reasoning),</span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">that it is possible to be a rational person (and hence experience little emotion)</span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">that rational persons are cold, mechanical, and lack such desirable traits as compassion and sympathy,</span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">that emotional persons are lively, energetic, and colorful (though they are poor reasoners or do not follow their reasoning when making decisions),</span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In this view one must give up the possibility of a rich emotional life if one decides to become a rational person,</span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Likewise, one must give up rationality if one is to live life as a passionate, highly motivated person would.</span></span></li>
</ul>
<p><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">These ways of talking do not, in my view, make sense of who and what we are. Rather they support a myth that is an albatross on all our thinking about who and what we are. They lead us away from realizing that there is thinking that underlies our emotions and the emotions that drive our thinking. They lead us to think of thought and emotion as if they were oil and water, rather than inseparable constituents of human cognition. They lead us to think that there is nothing we can do to control our emotional life, when in fact there is much we can do. I shall spell out my conception of that "control" as I critique Emotional Intelligence, by Daniel Goleman.<br />
<br /></span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><strong><span style="color: #0044aa;"><span class="font-size-7"><span style="color: #000099;">Critical Analysis of </span></span><em><span class="font-size-7"><span style="color: #000099;">Emotional Intelligence</span></span><br /></em></span></strong><br />
At this point let us turn to Daniel Goleman’s book, Emotional Intelligence. My overview of the book is that it provides a useful reminder of the importance of emotions in human life and of the fact that our emotions are intimately connected with cognitive matters, with thinking, in short. However, it is also my view that in his rush to make sense of the results of the data of brain research, Goleman inadvertently often becomes the unwitting perpetuator of social stereotypes about the relationship between emotion and reason.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">To begin, Goleman’s book is that of the popularizer, not that of the theoretician. He writes in a style that is zippy, catchy, and appealing. His book is written in the style of an experience journalist. On a casual first read, one might come away with the impression that it is well integrated and internally consistent. Unfortunately, however, it is not.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Despite his frequent appeal to "brain research," the bulk of his book is interpretative rather than "factual." Or to put it another way, he blends his own interpretations so much with data from empirical research that one is apt to think that his interpretations of the data implicit in the studies he quotes are equivalent to data themselves. Nowhere does he call to our attention that he is doing much more than simply reporting. Nowhere does he call attention to the fact that he is continually construing what he is reporting in a direction.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Before I go further, however, let me emphasize that there are genuine insights in his work. First, he is keenly sensitive to the important role that emotions play in our lives. Secondly, he recognizes, and rightly so, that there is an "emotional" dimension to intelligence. Thirdly, he articulates a number of useful strategies for improving our emotional lives, suggestions gleaned from the research he has canvassed.</span></span></p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><strong><span style="color: #000099;"><span class="font-size-7">The Problem of Translating From Brain to Mind</span><br /></span></strong><br />
Goleman is concerned to help us achieve insights into human emotions and their relationship to the intellectual dimension of human functioning. He is concerned to give us insights into our minds. However, the basis for his conclusions about how the human functions is almost entirely that of a variety of studies that could loosely be called "brain" research. At the outset, we should question the move from data and interpretations based on research into the brain to conclusions about the mind. </span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
In the first place, we have almost an unlimited source of data about the human mind available to us--from the multiple products that the human mind has produced.</span></span></p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">What am I thinking of? For one, all the human disciplines are constructs of human minds: biology, chemistry, geology, physics, mathematics, history, anthropology, linguistics, etc. Anything we can say about the human mind must be consistent with its being able to create such monumental constructs.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Secondly, the human mind creates such diverse things as poems, novels, plays, dances, paintings, religions, social systems, families, cultures, and traditions--a truly amazing array of constructs.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Thirdly, human minds routinely interpret, experience, plan, question, formulate agendas, laugh, argue, guess, assess, assume, clarify, make inferences, judge, project, create models, form theories--to mention a few of the myriad things that human minds routinely do. Furthermore, the role of the affective dimension, of feelings and desires, in forming these mental constructs cannot be underestimated.<br />
Fourthly, insights into the relationship between cognition and affect can be gleaned from intellectual fields such as sociology, anthropology and psychology, as well as from fields such as literature, through the great works of authors such as Jane Austin, William Shakespeare and Charles Dickens, to name but a few.</span></span></p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Recognizing something of this full range of things that human minds can do is essential before we come to conclusions about the human mind based on data from brain research alone. Or, to put the point another way, we should remember that however we translate from brain research data to functioning of the mind, the interpretation we come to must be consistent with everything we already know about the mind and its multiple modes of functioning and creating. This is precisely where Goleman fails. He talks about the mind as if brain research were somehow our best source of information about it. In fact, he states “the place of feeling in mental life has been surprisingly slighted by research over the years…now science is finally able to speak with authority...to map with some precision the human heart (p. xi).” Goleman shows no awareness of the massive quantity of information and knowledge already existing that is implicit in the existent products of minds.</span></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<div class="sectionblockrendered">
<h2 id="major-problems-inherent-in-golemans-work"><span class="font-size-7" style="font-family: helvetica;">Major Problems Inherent in Goleman’s Work</span></h2>
<div>
<p><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><br />
In addition to Goleman’s lack of sensitivity to the brain-to-mind translation problem, and his failure to acknowledge that we already know much about the mind through its works and constructs, Goleman’s work is often inconsistent and sometimes incoherent. Let us look at some cases.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><br />
<strong><span class="font-size-7">Two Brains Equals Two Minds</span><br /></strong><br />
Because Goleman’s “theory” of mind is based strictly on his interpretations of data from brain research, he comes to some questionable conclusions about the mind. For example, he states, “sensory signals from eye or ear travel first in the brain to the thalamus and then — across a single synapse — to the amygdala; a second signal from the thalamus is routed to the neocortex — the thinking brain. This branching allows the amygdala to begin to respond before the neocortex, which mulls information through several levels of brain circuits before it fully perceives and finally initiates its more finely tailored response (p. 17).”</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Based on this description of brain activity (and other similar descriptions), he concludes " . . . we have two minds, one that thinks and one that feels . . . These two fundamentally different ways of knowing interact to construct our mental life (p. 8).”  Or again: “In a sense we have two brains, two minds — and two different kinds of intelligence: rational and emotional (p. 28).” We want to “find the intelligent balance between the two, to harmonize head and heart (p. 29).”</span></p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Suppose we grant that "signals" to the brain proceed to the amygdala before they reach the neo-cortex, and that this fact allows the amygdala to begin to respond before the neo-cortex, it nevertheless does not follow that we should then interpret the brain to have "two minds — and two different kinds of intelligence; rational and emotional (p. 28)."</span></p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="font-family: helvetica;">For either we grant that the amygdala has some cognitive capacity, or that it has none. If we believe it to have some, we should not conclude that the neo-cortex is the exclusive seat of "cognition" and "rationality." If we believe that the amygdala lacks all cognitive capacity, there would be no reason to believe the amygdala capable of generating specific emotions — all of which presuppose specific cognitive definition.</span></p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="font-family: helvetica;">For example, if the amygdala generated "fear," it must of necessity have the cognitive capacity to interpret something to be a "threat," for fear as a human emotion presupposes some cognitive interpretation of "threat." Presumably, Goleman is not assuming the amygdala to be randomly generating emotions unrelated to the person’s interpretation of their experience. Or again, if the amygdala generated "anger," it must of necessity have the cognitive wherewithal to interpret something in experience to be a "wrong to oneself," for anger as a distinctive emotion — rather than just a mass of undifferentiated energy--presupposes a sense of being wronged. To put it another way, it is unintelligible to make sense of an act of mind that fears without sensing threat or to feel angry without a sense of being wronged.</span></p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="font-family: helvetica;">A similar analysis could be given for any other emotion (e.g., feeling rage, jealousy, shame, humiliation, fulfillment, excitement, boredom, apathy, etc . . . ). Furthermore, how could the neo-cortex (Goleman’s "thinking" or "rational" brain) think or pursue a rational line of thought if it were not pervasively in touch with our goals, values, desires, fears, etc? In other words, if the neo-cortex is to be a kind of mind unto itself, then it is going to have to be informed with some of the affective structures of mind. Pure intellect (cognition without affect) is unintelligible, since as such it would have no motivation (which is affective).</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: helvetica;">All Goleman could do to resolve this problem, as far as I can see, is to postulate that the neo-cortex has nothing but higher motivation, desires, and values and the amygdala nothing but lower modes of cognition. But one way or another, for the neo-cortex to formulate thoughts, and the amygdala to generate emotions, they each must have, respectively, an emotional component and a cognitive component built into them.</span></p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="font-family: helvetica;">The best Goleman can do here is to come up with the metaphor of "balancing" the rationality of the neo-cortex with the emotionality of the amygdala. But this makes no sense. One does not "balance" thoughts with emotions, one rather determines whether some given emotion is rationally justified or some given thought will lead to rational emotions. Hence, if I experience fear when there is nothing objectively or legitimately to fear, then I need my more (rational) thoughts to drive away my (irrational) fear. If on the other hand, I experience a fear which is well-founded and I notice that some part of my thinking is distracting me from dealing with the threat that underlies the fear, then I had better follow my (rationally-based) fear and use it to drive away my (irrationally-based) sense of security.</span></p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="font-family: helvetica;">In other words, once one recognizes that thoughts, feelings, and desires function as inseparable reciprocal sets in human life, then no theory of brain that separates them off into compartments will adequately account for the mind, as we know it. Of course, we can make sense of "balancing" two different lines of thought constructed by the mind looking at something from two different points of view. This "balancing" is the product of one cognitive-affective construct against another one. It is not a balancing of the cognitive (conceived as a thing in itself) with the affective (conceived as a different thing in itself).</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Furthermore, once we recognize that any reciprocal set of thought--feeling--desire may be either rational or irrational, we recognize that there is no reason to locate rationality in thoughts in themselves, nor emotions in non-cognitive structures in themselves. To use traditional metaphors, our heads have a heart and our hearts have a head. Thus, since thoughts and feelings are inseparable it seems illogical to think of them as needing to balance one another.</span></p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="font-family: helvetica;">If there is a good reason to think of the human mind having "two brains" or "two minds," then it is to delineate the difference between our egocentric drives (with accompanying egocentric thoughts and emotions) and our rational drives (with accompanying rational thoughts and emotions).</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: helvetica;">In short, Goleman’s underlying idea is fundamentally flawed: that since there are two brains, there are two minds, the thinking (or rational) and the emotional. To come to such conclusions about the human mind is to understand the human mind/brain in far too simplified a manner. The truth is that a complex, intricate relationship exists between thinking and emotions, that for every thought we have, there is a reciprocal feeling. Furthermore some of our thought/feeling combinations are rational while others are irrational. The mere presence of a thought need not imply that the thought be rational. The mere presence of an emotion does not imply the absence of embedded rational thought.<br />
<br /></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><strong><span class="font-size-7">Feelings Prior to Thought</span><br /></strong><br />
Goleman asserts that feelings can, and often do, come before thought. He says “the emotional mind is far quicker that the rational mind, springing into action without pausing even a moment to consider what it is doing. Its quickness precludes the deliberate, analytic reflection that is the hallmark of the thinking mind (p. 291).” Furthermore, he quotes from Ledoux (1986, 1992), who says, “emotional mistakes are often the result of feeling prior to thought (p. 24).” Yet, as I have argued, it is unintelligible to think of emotions occurring prior to some cognition. For example, I will not feel joy without thinking that something in my life is going well. Every emotion has a cognitive component that distinguishes it from other emotions.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Otherwise all emotions would be identical. I worry when I think that there is some problem I will not be able to solve. I feel jealous when I think someone is trying to take or has taken something that is properly mine. Thus the feeling state comes about because of the cognition that creates it. It follows then that it is impossible for feeling states to logically occur prior to some cognition.</span></p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Goleman says that the emotional mind is quicker than the rational, or thinking mind, springing into action without pausing even a moment to consider what it is doing. Moreover he states, “the more intense the feeling, to more dominant the emotional mind becomes - and the more ineffectual the rational mind (p. 9). This seems to imply that all intense emotions are irrational. Is it not possible to be rationally passionate about something, to think it through rationally and to have strong emotions about it? If the “thinking mind” involves “deliberate, analytic reflection,” can such thinking not also involve a highly intense emotional component?</span></p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span class="font-size-7"><strong>Equating the “Thinking Mind” with the “Rational Mind”</strong></span><br />
<br />
Because of Goleman’s initial distinction between the “Thinking Mind” and the “Emotional Mind,” he is led into a number of problems, as I have suggested. Based on this distinction, Goleman erroneously equates the “thinking mind” with the “rational mind.” Are we to conclude, then, that all thinking is to be considered rational? How do we account for cognition that is irrational, or unreasonable? How are we to account for mistakes in thinking? Are they to be considered rational as well?</span></p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Goleman states that “the beliefs of the rational mind are tentative; new evidence can disconfirm one belief and replace it with a new one - it reasons by objective evidence. The emotional mind, however, takes its beliefs to be absolutely true, and so discounts any evidence to the contrary (p. 295).” Furthermore, he states, “actions that spring from the emotional mind carry a particularly strong sense of certainty, a by-product of a streamlined, simplified way of looking at things that can be absolutely bewildering to the rational mind (p. 291).”</span></p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="font-family: helvetica;">It seems to me that Goleman, in both of these statements, is referring to emotional states and motivations that are driven by the irrational mind, or by irrational tendencies in the mind. Thus the fault for such problems falls not on the shoulders of the “emotional mind,” but result from logically unsound, somehow irrational thinking. A more realistic theory of mind would thus delineate not the “emotional mind” from the “rational mind,” but the “rational mind” (with its related emotional component) and the “irrational mind” (with its related emotional component).</span></p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><strong><span class="font-size-7">Do Emotions Have a Mind of Their Own?</span><br /></strong><br />
One of the significant problems in Goleman’s writing is his lack of consistency. He contradicts himself, for example, in the major points he makes about the thinking that occurs in the “emotional mind.” On one hand he states “The amygdala’s extensive web of neural connections allows it, during an emotional emergency, to capture and drive much of the rest of the brain - including the rational mind (p. 17).” This seems to imply that the emotional mind uses the “thinking mind” to achieve its agendas at times.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: helvetica;">On the other hand, Goleman states, “Our emotions have a mind of their own, one which can hold views quite independently of our rational mind (p. 20).” This statement seems to mean that emotions can somehow think for themselves, rather than that the emotional mind uses the thinking mind (which, remember Goleman equates with the “rational mind”) to serve its purposes. Therefore, although he quotes Damasio (1994) as asserting, “the emotional brain is as involved in reasoning as is the thinking brain (p. 28),” we are unclear as to whether, in Goleman’s view, the emotional mind thinks for itself, or whether it uses the thinking mind to think for it.<br />
<br /></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><strong><span class="font-size-7">The Problem with “Emotional Hijackings”</span><br /></strong><br />
On of the most often used metaphors in Goleman’s book is what he calls an “emotional hijacking (see Chapter Two).” In some places he refers to this as an “emotional emergency.” He contends that emotional hijackings occur when “a center in the limbic brain proclaims an emergency, recruiting the rest of the brain to its urgent agenda. The hijacking occurs an instant before the neocortex, the thinking brain, has had a chance to fully glimpse what is happening...this happens to us fairly frequently (p. 14).”</span></p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="font-family: helvetica;">He uses an example of the seasoned burglar Richard Robles out on parole after having served a three year sentence for more than 100 break-ins he has pulled to support a heroin habit. Robles, according to the story, decides to break into, and rob just one more home (because he “desperately needed money for his girlfriend and their three-year-old daughter [p. 13].)”</span></p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="font-family: helvetica;">He breaks into an apartment of two young women. While he is tying one of them up, she says she will remember his face and help the police track him down. In a frenzy he grabs a soda bottle and clubs both girls to the point of unconsciousness, then awash in rage and fear, he stabs them over and over with a kitchen knife. Looking back at that moment some twenty years later he says, "I just went bananas. My head just exploded (p. 14)."</span></p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Goleman states that this sort of behavior results from “neural takeovers (p. 14).” He contends that “the design of the brain means that we very often have little or no control over when we are swept by an emotion, nor over what emotion it will be (p. 57).” This statement, and the very idea of an “emotional hijacking” or “neural takeover,” seem to imply that there are times when we have little or no control over what our emotions might drive us to do.</span></p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="font-family: helvetica;">If we have little or no control over when we are swept by an emotion or what that emotion might be, how then can we take command of our emotions? Furthermore, how can we fully take responsibility for the behavior that leads from that emotion? It seems to me that Goleman’s concept of “emotional hijacking” implies that when we experience highly intense emotions, those emotions drive our thinking (or lead us to action prior to thinking). If our emotions are driving our thinking and, by implication, our behavior; how then can we be responsible for the actions we engage in? Can’t we simply argue that we are experiencing an “emotional hijacking” when we engage in inappropriate emotion-driven behavior, that we cannot really do anything to stop such a “neural hijacking?”</span></p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="font-family: helvetica;">It seems to me that the case of Richard Robles is not best understood as an “emotional hijacking.” Rather Robles represents a paradigm case of a person engaged in egocentric, self-serving thinking, completely unconcerned with the rights of others. He used his cognition to rationalize his actions, leading him to believe that killing was necessary to avoid being caught. Therefore his decision to murder was an unjustifiable self-serving act, an act for which, in the final analysis, he ought to take full responsibility.</span></p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><strong><span class="font-size-7">Garden Variety Emotions</span><br /></strong><br />
Goleman doesn’t concern himself with what he calls “garden-variety” emotions such as “sadness, worry, and anger.” He says, “normally such moods pass with time and patience...(p. 57).” Yet it is precisely these everyday emotions that diminish the quality of most people’s lives. There is no reason why everyday emotions cannot be understood, for they are inevitably the product of thinking that is ultimately under our control. Whenever I feel any emotion, I can analyze it. I can ask myself: what is the thinking leading to this feeling? How can I alter my thinking so as to alter this feeling?</span></p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="font-family: helvetica;">What is more, Goleman’s viewpoint inadvertently supports the "reason-versus-emotion" stereotypes. To him, “garden-variety” emotions are not emotions we need be actively in charge of. This seems to imply that we should simply allow them to run their course, to do what they will, to control our thinking and behavior until they fade away.</span></p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span class="font-size-7"><em><strong>Conclusion</strong><br /></em></span><br />
If we are concerned with developing our rationality in order to improve our lives, we must understand the powerful role that both emotions and thoughts play in our minds. We must understand the ways in which affect and cognition influence one another in determining both our outlook on life and our behavior. Most importantly, we must come to terms with those truths about the human mind that enable us to begin the process of taking charge of our minds: that thoughts and emotions are inextricably bound, that we have both egocentric and rational tendencies, that our inner conflicts are never best understood as a simple matter between emotion and reason, that self-command of mind takes both extended education and self-discipline, that our fullest rational development is dependent on the development of rational affect, that to bring intelligence to bear upon emotions we must take charge of the thinking underlying those emotions.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: helvetica;">These important insights are more obscured than illuminated by analyses of the mind such as that offered by Goleman.</span></p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="font-family: helvetica;">To develop our awareness of the nature of the human mind and how it functions we must be careful not to over-emphasize the importance of "brain" research. Our most important knowledge of the human mind will always be, ultimately, knowledge drawn from the multiple constructs of the mind.</span></p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Any theory which we develop of the human mind must make intelligible how it is that minds could create such multiply complex phenomena as poems, novels, plays, dances, paintings, religions, social systems, families, cultures, traditions--and do such diverse things as interpret, experience, plan, question, formulate agendas, laugh, argue, guess, assess, assume, clarify, make inferences, judge, project, model, dramatize, fantasize, and theorize. All of these creations and all of these activities of minds are closely inter-involved with our emotional lives. We are far, very far, from accounting for these products, or their "emotional" connections, by the use of the data of brain research. I doubt we ever will.</span></p>
<p> </p>
<p><span class="font-size-7"><strong><em>References</em></strong></span><br />
<br />
Goleman, D. (1995). <em>Emotional Intelligence,</em> New York: Bantam Books.</p>
<p>The following references were referenced by Goleman in his book, <em>Emotional Intelligence</em>:</p>
<p>Damasio, A. ((1994). <em>Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human, Brain</em>,<br />
New York: Grosset/Putnam.</p>
<p>LeDoux, J. (1986). <em>Sensory Systems and Emotions</em>, <em>Integrative Psychiatry</em>, Vol. 4.</p>
<p>LeDoux, J. (1992). <em>Emotions and the Limbic System Concept</em>, <em>Concepts in <br />
Neuroscience, Vol. 2</em>.</p>
<a href="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/134196099?profile=original" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><img class="align-center" src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/134196099?profile=RESIZE_710x" width="710" /></a>
<div class="fb-comments" data-href="https://knowledgeisking.ning.com/forum/critical-thinking-and-emotional-intelligence?edited=1" data-numposts="5"> </div>
<p>.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p> </p>
</div>The Magnetic Mindhttps://knowledgeisking.ning.com/forum/the-magnetic-mind2018-11-12T13:19:33.000Z2018-11-12T13:19:33.000ZMark Wellshttps://knowledgeisking.ning.com/members/MarkWells<div><p style="text-align: center;"></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/128767440?profile=original" target="_self"><img width="750" class="align-center" src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/128767440?profile=RESIZE_1024x1024" /></a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><br /></p>
<div class="sharethis-inline-share-buttons"></div>
<br />
The power of the mind draws certain events, circumstances and people into our lives and repels others. In this respect, it resembles a magnet.
<p></p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Watch the people around you. Some of them pass through certain events and circumstances, while others pass through different experiences. Some accomplish certain things easily, and others accomplish these same things with great difficulty, or not at all. Sometimes, they attract positive events, and sometimes negative events.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><iframe width="853" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/R4jUVp8Hi2s?autoplay=1&cc_load_policy=1&wmode=opaque" frameborder="0"></iframe><br />
Your mind is composed of the thoughts you think. These thoughts are like magnetic currents. If you think positively about some event or action, you get positive results. If you harbor negative thoughts, this negativity is drawn into your life.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">You attract into your life what you think about frequently. It does not mean that every thought gets materialized. Most of the thoughts are weak and are not repeated long enough to gain sufficient strength. Weak thoughts, like a weak magnet, hardly have any attractive power.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">You have seen how a magnet draws metal objects. A strong and big magnet draws bigger objects than a small and weak one. Magnets have another peculiar characteristic. One side of the magnet draws, and the other side repels.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/128768182?profile=original" target="_self"><img width="750" class="align-center" src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/128768182?profile=RESIZE_1024x1024" /></a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;">The magnet draws to itself everything made of iron, no matter whether it is a useful object or junk. The mind acts in the same way. It attracts into your life positive and negative situations and events, according to the thoughts that you think.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Like the magnet the mind does not only attract, but also repels. If you do not believe that you can get or accomplish something, then you repel it. Thoughts of incompetence, weakness, fear and inferiority create a repellant force. It is as if you are creating a wind that blows away and prevents certain things to reach you.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">There are several ways to charge your mind and thoughts with magnetic power. Strong desire, concentration and faith are a few of the important ingredients for infusing power into thoughts.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Many activate the magnetic power of their mind unconsciously, without knowing what they are doing. When you know the rules, you become able to activate the magnetic power of your mind consciously, positively and effectively.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Repeated visualization and focused thinking, desire and faith, unleash powerful energy. This energy influence the minds of other people, and attracts to you people who think along the same lines as you do, and who can help you with your plans.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">This process heightens your awareness and perceptiveness of opportunities related to what you are visualizing, filling you with motivation and initiative.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Strive to be aware of your thoughts, choosing beneficial thoughts, and consciously utilize the power of attraction.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">You can attract people, circumstances, events, possessions, or a certain life style, with the magnetic power of attraction of your mind.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Remember, what you think about intently, with attention and feeling is attracted to you. It can be material and it can be spiritual.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">The power of attraction is a universal power, manifesting everywhere and in everything. It is the power that holds the Universe together. It is the power that brings thoughts into manifestation.</p>
<a href="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/128768476?profile=original" target="_self"><img width="750" class="align-center" src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/128768476?profile=RESIZE_1024x1024" /></a>
<div class="fb-comments" data-href="https://knowledgeisking.ning.com/forum/the-magnetic-mind" data-numposts="5"></div>
</div>Debunking Eratosthenes's Earth's Circumference Theory by Shahzwar Bugtihttps://knowledgeisking.ning.com/forum/debunking-eratosthenes-s-earth-s-circumference-theory-by-shahzwar2018-09-29T23:54:49.000Z2018-09-29T23:54:49.000ZMark Wellshttps://knowledgeisking.ning.com/members/MarkWells<div><p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/128768100?profile=original" target="_self"><img class="align-center" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/128768100?profile=original" width="618" height="348"></a></p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<div class="sharethis-inline-share-buttons">
</div>
<p>60 years ago, we launched satellites into space which helped us in determining the exact circumference of <a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/128768875?profile=original" target="_self"><img class="align-left" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/128768875?profile=RESIZE_180x180" width="127"></a>the Earth: 40,030 km. But over 2,000 years ago, a man in Ancient Greece came up with nearly the exact same figure by putting a stick in the ground.</p>
<p> </p>
<div class="sharethis-inline-follow-buttons">
</div>
<p>This Greek's name was Eratosthenes and he was a mathematician and the head of the library of Alexandria. <span style="font-size: 18pt;">He measured and calculated the Earth's <a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/128769027?profile=original" target="_self"><img class="align-right" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/128769027?profile=original" width="256" height="165"></a>circumference using only a stick and his brains, and proved that the Earth was a sphere and not flat.</span></p>
<p> </p>
<p><br> <span style="font-size: 14pt;">THIS is the fairy tale they teach us.</span> I've seen countless people repeat and share this fairy tale over the years thinking they have poked a big hole in the Flat Earth Truth. Today I'll show you just how ridiculous this story is, and how foolish all those individuals are who just parrot this fairy tale without even thinking or realizing for a moment what they're saying...</p>
<p><br> <span style="font-size: 18pt;">So, let's get started...</span></p>
<p><br> You see, "smart" people always knew that the Earth was a sphere. Starting with Pythagoras, who assumed, around 500 B.C. that the Earth is round because ships disappeared over the horizon, 200 years later (around 340 B.C.) it was Aristotle, who claimed a bunch of stuff (like the Earth's component pieces, falling naturally towards the center, would press into a round form), stuff that only 2,000 years later were barely starting to be theorized.</p>
<p><br> There were some other guys, like Aristarchus, or Anaxagoras, who also claimed a bunch of stuff that no human mind was able to comprehend. Now, they were probably smarter than most of the other ancients who lived at those times. But the problem is that there is barely any document that supports most of those guys' claims. But this doesn't mean that they didn't make those claims.<br> (Assuming all these men even existed and are not just some made-up characters...)<br> Before starting with the Eratosthenes hoax, try to imagine yourself in the ancient world, 2,500 years ago. Your life will center around surviving. The world in those times was a permanent war, between different tribes, clans, cities, nations.<br> Starving was a daily basis reality. Being killed or eaten by an animal was again a daily basis reality. Diseases were rampant.</p>
<p><br> In one word, your entire life would be centered around feeding yourself and avoiding being killed. Most people those days were slaves. The average life expectancy was like 28. If you were lucky enough, your life might have had some sex in it, before you'd be impaled on a battlefield by the spear of some guy on the opposite side. (And there was a "library" for people to gain knowledge? Cool story)<br> (This is what the System teaches us about history, ancient times, people of the past and how they lived their lives... assuming it's all true, let's continue...)<br> But let's say that those guys that I mentioned were so smart, that they were able to avoid being killed and avoid starvation and slavery, being part of the royal circles or whatever, and all their adult life were sleeping and thinking how to make the world a better place.</p>
<p><br> This Eratosthenes guy lived between 276-195/194 B.C. He managed to live for 80 years or so, in a time <a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/128770213?profile=original" target="_self"><img class="align-right" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/128770213?profile=original" width="167"></a>where the average life expectancy was 28. Good for him, I say. Anyway, basically, this guy wanted to measure the Earth, he already "knew" that the Earth was a sphere... or we were told that this was the case. To date, there is no document that was written by Eratosthenes regarding the experiment. Only documents mentioning it.</p>
<p><br> When Eratosthenes was 30 years old, he moved to Alexandria, in Egypt, where he lived for the rest of his life. We all know the story of how Eratosthenes did his "experiment". He knew about a well in Syene, that during the Summer Solstice, when the Sun was at noon, there was no shadow presented at the bottom of the well. So, he wanted to measure the shadow of a pillar (some said it was a tower) in Alexandria during the same Summer Solstice.</p>
<p><br> First, let's start with the "fact" that he knew that there was no shadow at noon, at the bottom of that well in Syene. Basically, he was so bored of thinking about how to make the world better, that he decided to stare down a well, for months, to see how much of the bottom of that well was in shade. Or maybe it was a slave, taking a break from slavery, for a couple a months, who looked into the well and told Eratosthenes. Or maybe it was a soldier, taking a break from dying.</p>
<p><br> For Eratosthenes to be able to measure the Earth's circumference, even assuming that he knew that the Earth was a sphere, he MUST also have known the size of the Sun and the distance between the Sun and the Earth. And I am sorry to say, but nobody knew that. Nobody even today knows that. First, he had to assume that the Sun was bigger than the Earth. Well, he had absolutely no reason to assume this, no matter how imaginative he was, and no matter what someone assumed before him, because that someone could have been wrong. Science is based on assuming that what you know is wrong.<br> (Just think about it again, even today, why would/should anyone "assume" that the Sun is bigger than the Earth...? When we look up at the Sun in the sky, we find no visual proof or empirical evidence of a distant-gigantic Sun... Nothing we see, feel or observe about the Sun hints towards it being larger than the Earth. Even the Sun's light and heat appear to be localized. There is absolutely no reason to assume something when direct observation is telling us something else. The only reason most people today "believe" the Sun to be a gigantic ball of fire millions of miles away is because of NASA and their fake space pictures, cartoons and computer generated images... Besides that, there is no reason to think so. What most of these people "believe" is not based on personal experience, but rather just someone else telling them something, something taken on "faith", which they cannot verify or confirm themselves, ever. Now I wonder, what reason did Mr. Eratosthenes have to assume anything at all in the first place? And you know what... he also assumed that the Earth is a perfect sphere and that the Sun rays are parallel when they reach the Earth... amazing isn't it?)</p>
<p><br> Third, he had to know the distance, in a straight line, between the tower or the pillar in Alexandria (make up your mind, globetards, what was it : a tower or a pillar, or a stick maybe) and the well in Syene. In those times, the distances were measured in hours, days, weeks or months, and in some cases, years. He <a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/128770661?profile=original" target="_self"><img class="align-left" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/128770661?profile=original" width="275"></a>knew (how the hell he knew) that the distance between the tower/pillar/stick and the well was 5,000 stadia. Now, a stadia, in those times, had like 4 sizes, ranging from 100 meters to 400 meters.<br> Who measured the distance, in a straight line, in those times, between Alexandria and Syene? The logical answer is : NOBODY did it. Try today, to go in a straight line, for 10 miles, without even a compass. You need to use a lot of rope and a lot of sticks, stopping every 100 feet to check if the rope is as straight as possible. You walk, slowly, for 100 feet, as straight as possible, then stop and put a freaking stick in the ground. This will take you like 5 minutes. 10 miles = 52,800 feet. Which basically means 528 sticks times 5 minutes... you will need at least 44 hours. Let's say you are speedy enough, and do every 100 feet and stick in 3 minutes. You will still need like 26 hours.<br> Well, do this for 500 miles. This will take you AT LEAST 50 times more time. Which means, assuming 30 hours for every 10 miles, about 1,500 hours to do it. That is like 62 days, if you do it without stopping. Assuming you can do it for 12 hours per day, using the 12 hours left to sleep, eat and rest... you are looking at 124 days.<br> Now, spend those 124 days ALONE, in the middle of a DESERT, because according to the freaking legend, Eratosthenes asked one freaking guy (a friend or whoever) to measure the distance between Alexandria and Syene. (And, uh, gee, him and his "buddy" must've had "cell phones" or internet, or some form of instant communications, eh?) Add in the equation various tribes that wanted to kill everyone who wasn't a part of their tribe, add the thieves and murderers along the way, who also wanted to kill you.<br> Back in those times, to be able to measure a 500 miles distance in a straight line, in the middle of a desert filled with enemy tribes, thieves and murderers... you would need a freaking army, 500 miles of rope and over 5000 sticks. Only the rope and the sticks would need like 20 carriages, with horses. And even if you had an army, heading South, the Pharaoh would need to make peace with all the enemies on the path. Imagine the Pharaoh sending envoys to the enemies in the South, telling them, "I will send an army down South, but not to invade you. The army will stop at Syene, and turn back home, because some librarian wants to measure the Earth's circumference!". GIVE ME A FREAKING BREAK!!</p>
<p><br> Do you start to see how this entire Eratosthenes experiment is nothing but a fairy tale? A well designed hoax, for the weak minds?</p>
<p><br> Even assuming that the Pharaoh gave him an army, and even assuming that the army measured the distance between the freaking tower/pillar/stick and the well, Eratosthenes did not know the size of the Sun and the distance to the Sun. He could not have assumed that the Sun rays are parallel, without knowing the Sun's size and the distance between the Sun and the Earth. He also did not know that the atmosphere is a massive convex lens, converging the Sun rays, making them non parallel.<br> There is so much he did not know, that his experiment, even assuming it took place, the measurements were dead wrong. But we are still being taught in schools about it, and we are told that it was a real experiment, and if you don't want to be considered an idiot, you must accept that you are at least as smart as some guy who lived over 2,000 years ago.</p>
<p><br> So this is what the globetards' THEORY rests on - a man from B.C. and a BS experiment.<br> The educational system is used to dumb us down, but at the same time making us believe we are freaking geniuses. This Eratosthenes hoax was part of this. I mean, if you don't want to be considered stupider than a guy who lived over 2,000 years ago, don't ever question the "fact" that he measured the Earth.<br> It's ironic how globetards mock and make fun of Flat-Earthers when they are shown evidence of all past cultures and civilizations having a Flat Earth cosmology, and ridicule us by saying, "oh you believe ignorant ancients and jungle men who didn't know anything!" Yet, at the same time, when the globetards have to impose a lie upon the masses, they take the support of fake names and stories from ancient times to build a foundation for their idiotic and baseless claims. Globetards can't seem to make up their minds. When it suits them, the ancients are ignorant folks who knew nothing... and when they want, suddenly the same ancients become the smartest men that ever existed! Amazing, isn't it...</p>
<p> </p>
<div class="fb-comments">
</div>
<p> </p></div>Fake World Reality by Shahzwar Bugtihttps://knowledgeisking.ning.com/forum/fake-world-reality-by-shahzwar-bugti2018-09-29T23:43:12.000Z2018-09-29T23:43:12.000ZMark Wellshttps://knowledgeisking.ning.com/members/MarkWells<div><p style="text-align: center;"> </p>
<blockquote class="imgur-embed-pub" lang="en" xml:lang="en" data-id="UCMTkQy">
<a href="//imgur.com/UCMTkQy">Cool Flat Earth Animation. Whether you believe it or not.</a>
</blockquote>
<script charset="utf-8" src="//s.imgur.com/min/embed.js"></script>
<div class="sharethis-inline-share-buttons">
</div>
<p style="text-align: center;">The horizon always appears perfectly flat 360 degrees around the observer regardless <a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/128766577?profile=original" target="_self"><img class="align-left" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/128766577?profile=original" width="160"></a>of altitude. All amateur balloon, rocket, plane and drone footage show a completely flat horizon over 20+ miles high. Only NASA and other government “space agencies” show curvature in their fake CGI photos/videos. The horizon always rises to the eye level of the observer as altitude is gained, so you never have to look down to see it. If Earth were in fact a globe, no matter how large, as you ascended the horizon would stay fixed and the observer / camera would have to tilt looking down further and further to see it. The natural physics of water is to find and maintain its level. If Earth were a giant sphere tilted, wobbling and hurdling through infinite space then truly flat, consistently level surfaces would not exist here. But since Earth is in fact an extended flat plane, this fundamental physical property of fluids finding and remaining level is consistent with experience and common sense. Rivers run down to sea-level finding the easiest course, North, South, East, West and all other intermediary directions over the Earth at the same time. If Earth were truly a spinning ball then many of these rivers would be impossibly flowing uphill, for example the Mississippi in its 3000 miles would have to ascend 11 miles before reaching the Gulf of Mexico. One portion of the Nile River flows for a thousand miles with a fall of only one foot. Parts of the West African Congo, according to the supposed inclination and movement of the ball-Earth, would be sometimes running uphill and sometimes down.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"> </p>
<p> </p>
<p><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/videoseries?list=PLWRFasmi9bwENz1BqLowzK3hEYjjUuBON&autoplay=1&wmode=opaque" width="640" height="360" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p><br> This would also be the case for the Parana, Paraguay and other long rivers. If Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference as NASA and modern astronomy claim, spherical trigonometry dictates the surface of all standing water must curve downward an easily measurable 8 inches per mile multiplied by the square of the distance. This means along a 6 mile channel of standing water, the Earth would dip 6 feet on either end from the central peak. Every time such experiments have been conducted, however, standing water has proven to be perfectly level. Surveyors, engineers and architects are never required to factor the supposed curvature of the Earth into their projects. Canals, railways, bridges and tunnels for example are always cut and laid horizontally, often over hundreds of miles without any allowance for curvature. The Suez Canal connecting the Mediterranean with the Red Sea is 100 miles long without any locks making the water an uninterrupted continuation of the two seas. When constructed, the Earth’s supposed curvature was not taken into account, it was dug along a horizontal datum line 26 feet below sea-level, passing through several lakes from one sea to the other, with the datum line and water’s surface running perfectly parallel over the 100 miles. A surveyor and engineer of thirty years published in the Birmingham Weekly Mercury stated, “I am thoroughly acquainted with the theory and practice of civil engineering. However bigoted some of our professors may be in the theory of surveying according to the prescribed rules, yet it is well known amongst us that such theoretical measurements are INCAPABLE OF ANY PRACTICAL ILLUSTRATION. All our locomotives are designed to run on what may be regarded as TRUE LEVELS or FLATS. There are, of course, partial inclines or gradients here and there, but they are always accurately defined and must be carefully traversed. But anything approaching to eight inches in the mile, increasing as the square of the distance, COULD NOT BE WORKED BY ANY ENGINE THAT WAS EVER YET CONSTRUCTED. Taking one station with another all over England and Scotland, it may be stated that all the platforms are ON THE SAME RELATIVE LEVEL. The distance between Eastern and Western coasts of England may be set down as 300 miles.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/128767057?profile=original" target="_self"><img class="align-center" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/128767057?profile=RESIZE_1024x1024" width="750"></a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"> </p>
<p style="text-align: center;">If the prescribed curvature was indeed as represented, the central stations at Rugby or Warwick ought to be close upon three miles higher than a chord drawn from the two extremities. If such was the case there is not a driver or stoker within the Kingdom that would be found to take charge of the train. We can only laugh at those of your readers who seriously give us credit for such venturesome exploits, as running trains round spherical curves. Horizontal curves on levels are dangerous enough, vertical curves would be a thousand times worse, and with our rolling stock constructed as at present physically impossible.”</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"> </p>
<p style="text-align: center;"> </p>
<p><br></p>
<div class="fb-comments">
</div></div>