I myself joined around the time of the page turn.

skipbond wrote:Since scientists claim intelligence is hereditary,

They don't claim that, even if they did claim as a single monolithic group.
The idea in human psychology (and it is not exactly claimed as known absolute fact) is that to at least some significant extent intellectual capacity is inherited, or rather is a product of our genes (and early physical development). One grossly simplistic way I have seen it put (while still accepting that it is far from precise) is that we are born with an IQ range (for example 110-130), and our subsequent learning etc. refines that to what our measured IQ currently is. But like I said; grossly simplistic, to make the point that we are not born with a set IQ and there it remains forever more, that edjumacation ( ) always plays a part,

skipbond wrote:then how could one possibly posit that reading is the road to critical thinking.

Intelligence and ones ability at critical thinking are not one and the same. That is rather like asking why not everyone with an IQ over 150 is fluent in Welsh... Because no matter your intellectual capacity one still has to put the effort in to learn certain things.

skipbond wrote:Comprehending the contents and overall implications of it and how to apply the contents would have to be somewhat already present in the individual, or else the parroting would amount to indoctrination not "the critical insight" of what is read. Just my opinion.

Although there is some indication that intellects above some rough level (probably not some magical IQ score though) )have a greater 'natural' ability at critical thinking, that some people just tend to think more critically; that in no way means that they have nothing more to learn, far from it. They just have a natural acuity for it, and may be able to pick it up with greater ease.

I think practically everyone can improve their thinking processes by learning a little more critical thinking skills.

Intelligence is created by the person/environment and can be changed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroplasticity
However, the same process that improve your mental abilities could also take them away, if you don't use them for prolonged periods of time. Your intelligence is not fixed, you could either raise it or lower it depending on your actions. Never stop challenging yourself if you want to stay "in shape".

Zwaarddijk wrote:

psikeyhackr wrote:A lot of so called logic is semantic bullshit.

You need to filter out THE TYRANNY OF WORDS

THE TYRANNY OF WORDS by Stuart Chase
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... 06,00.html

But a brief grounding in semantics is a life work in itself. Modern semantics dates from 1923, when two English professors. C. K. Ogden and I. A. Richards, wrote a book called The Meaning QJ Meaning, followed by Ogden's invention of an 850-word vocabulary called Basic English. Indicative of the complexity of semantics is the fact that while Ogden is an orthologist and psychologist and Richards is an esthetician, important contributions have been made by a Polish mathematician, Count Alfred Korzybski, and a Harvard physicist, Percy Williams Bridgman. Semantics ranges from the equator of Basic English through the lush tropics of political bunkum to the North Pole of James Joyce's word-coining.

I struggled through most of Korzybski's Science and Sanity decades ago but I never heard of The Tyranny of Words until last year. So if this society really wanted most people to think straight why isn't the book common knowledge. The culture is designed to keep most people confused.

Sci-fi writers like Heinlein and A.E. van Vogt were into General Semantics in the 50s. It got incorporated into their works.

http://www.roger-russell.com/sffun/nulla.htm

psik

For everyone else, Korzybski's work is recognized as pseudo-science, and should be approached as the bullshit it is.

Meh. He has some good ideas and some less than good ideas. On the whole, a decent critical thinker can get some good ideas from S&S.

Eta: just realized the date on this post.