Abstract thinking

[ElizaG]

I've been thinking somewhat abstractly about abstract thinking.   :001_smile:  At this point, I've got no big ideas or resources to share -- just wanted to post a few topics, in case anyone wants to discuss them.    Or you can add your own!

 

1)  Whether this is a general ability, or more domain-specific.   Most of what I've read seems to assume the former, but I've known some people who are capable of thinking abstractly about, say, math or politics, but are stuck in concrete thinking about literature -- or vice versa.    I did come across one article (which I can't find now) that said that it's somewhat domain-specific.  This makes sense to me, but if it's true, what are the implications for education?

 

2)  Is abstract thinking an innate ability, or is it created through cultural experience?  (Media scholar Fr. Walter Ong thought the latter -- specifically, he linked it to alphabetic literacy.) 

 

If it's based on cultural experience, is there a limited developmental window, or can it be acquired later in life?   (Reuven Feuerstein thought the latter, and he developed a system of enrichment exercises that are fairly widely used to help underachieving children.  It sounds great.  But I just read a review of his work that suggested that it didn't really achieve these goals.)

 

3) The early development of abstract thinking is supposed to be a characteristic of "gifted children."    From what I've observed, I'm not so sure that's true.  Some of them actually seem to take longer to shift out of concrete thinking.  Again, maybe this has to do with different domains.

 

4)  Some older writers on education and child-rearing -- say, before, 1930 -- believed that it wasn't a good idea to encourage abstraction in young children, because it caused too much strain on the developing nervous system (or something along those lines).   I haven't seen this belief expressed in more recent sources, except in Waldorf circles.   Why did they think this?  Is there something to it? 

 

5)  The connection between learning to think abstractly, and learning to write -- which is sort of the epitome of classical education.   It seems as if they must be related, but what do we know about how this works?

 

 

Okay, now I'm tired just reading over all that.  It might be time for a concrete nap.   :001_smile:

 

ETA: fixed typos

Edited December 6, 2015 by ElizaG

[kbutton]

bump

[Bluegoat]

I've been thinking somewhat abstractly about abstract thinking.   :001_smile:  At this point, I've got no big ideas or resources to share -- just wanted to post a few topics, in case anyone wants to discuss them.    Or you can add your own!

 

1)  Whether this is a general ability, or more domain-specific.   Most of what I've read seems to assume the former, but I've known some people who are capable of thinking abstractly about, say, math or politics, but are stuck in concrete thinking about literature -- or vice versa.    I did come across one article (which I can't find now) that said that it's somewhat domain-specific.  This makes sense to me, but if it's true, what are the implications for education?

 

2)  Is abstract thinking an innate ability, or is it created through cultural experience?  (Media scholar Fr. Walter Ong thought the latter -- specifically, he linked it to alphabetic literacy.) 

 

If it's based on cultural experience, is there a limited developmental window, or can it be acquired later in life?   (Reuven Feuerstein thought the latter, and he developed a system of enrichment exercises that are fairly widely used to help underachieving children.  It sounds great.  But I just read a review of his work that suggested that it didn't really achieve these goals.)

 

3) The early development of abstract thinking is supposed to be a characteristic of "gifted children."    From what I've observed, I'm not so sure that's true.  Some of them actually seem to take longer to shift out of concrete thinking.  Again, maybe this has to do with different domains.

 

4)  Some older writers on education and child-rearing -- say, before, 1930 -- believed that it wasn't a good idea to encourage abstraction in young children, because it caused too much strain on the developing nervous system (or something along those lines).   I haven't seen this belief expressed in more recent sources, except in Waldorf circles.   Why did they think this?  Is there something to it? 

 

5)  The connection between learning to think abstractly, and learning to write -- which is sort of the epitome of classical education.   It seems as if they must be related, but what do we know about how this works?

 

 

Okay, now I'm tired just reading over all that.  It might be time for a concrete nap.   :001_smile:

 

ETA: fixed typos

 

So many interesting questions.

 

The first thing that strikes me is what do we mean by abstract - I think it might affect, for example, the answer to #3.  I tend to think of it as higher dimensional rational thinking.  So - instead of simply being linear rational thinking, it starts to add layers and parallel lines of thinking.  More like a web than a line, and not even a flat web.  There are, IMO, levels of abstraction.

 

1) General or domain specific - I suspect that that the answer here is both, to some extent.  But IME often people who are strong in one area but poor in another may have had an unbalanced education.  So, perhaps the ability for the math person to abstract literature is there, but hasn't been developed - this seems to be a particular problem in public education at this time.  For most people, I think the time to reach the very highest levels of abstract thinking in an area mean that others are unlikely to be as highly developed.

 

2) Innate ability or cultural experience - both I think.  I know higher levels of rationality in itself has been connected to the development of language.  I think in the same way that the ability to symbolize can probably open up doors to abstraction, so something like a mathematical symbol may actually enable abstraction in that area.  However - I don't think those are the only kinds of symbols.  I think for example that although we have a society which has a high level of symbology like writing or math, we tend to be rather poor in terms of more poetic types of symbology and abstraction.  Pre-literate societies often seem much more able to enter a sort of mythic mind which is another kind of symbology.

 

I think it likely can be acquired later, to some extent. 

 

3) I think maybe your intuition about domains is correct.  I wonder if some children that shift late are more inclined to particular type of abstraction.  I also wonder if this could be related to the question about not pushing abstract thinking.  I do think its a mistake to think precociousness is always related to giftedness. 

 

4) I would say this idea also exists in CM circles, at least.  And perhaps it also relates to the later school-starting in some European countries. I would tend to relate it to the idea that an abstraction needs to be related to reality - to know something just as an abstraction isn't real knowledge, and perhaps can even impede it.  If we have learned, abstractly, about a frog, it will define our experience of actual frogs, and not the other way round as it should be.  I don't know if that is what they are getting at with the nervous system - perhaps that is more about a child needing time to develop physically rather than spending it trying to learn formal grammar, which is I think very true.

 

We are off to piano lesson, so I will leave it there !

[ElizaG]

Some interesting discussion here:

 

Teenagers and Abstract Thinking:  Unclear on the Concept?