According to psychologist and philosopher Ken Wilbur, there are three kinds of (human) knowledge: sensory, intellectual (logical/rational), and experiential. These types of knowledge are very separate, although we tend to mix them up, and use one type to study another.


Sensory knowledge includes knowledge of ideas like hot, cold, spicy, etc. This is information that our senses provide. We can of course describe these (using our intellect), or even try to explain what chemicals make spicy foods taste 'spicy.' But in the end, it is not about reasoning. It is just something we feel through our senses.


Intellectual knowledge is what we can learn through reading books, through language, and through study and use of logical thinking and science. It is the main focus of education today in developed countries (and in most or all developing countries.)


Experiential knowledge is knowledge that can only be 'experienced' through the mind, like the idea of love or God. You cannot tell it to someone else. You may try to describe it, but there is no way you could be sure that another person understands what you are saying. With love, for example, we all have a different idea of what it is, based on our experiences with love. The same goes for God.


Using our intellect to analyze other types of knowledge is causing heaps of problems in the world. For example, language or reason has often been used to prove or disprove God. And while it may be possible to make an airtight argument for AND against love or God, it really doesn't matter. Intellectual knowledge just DOESN'T APPLY. I mention this example because rational arguments regarding religion are probably the most common and the most dangerous. It is not surprising this occurs, because we are mostly taught to think using reason and intellect. I think the fact that many choose to reason about religion or love indicates that they have quite an interest in those ideas. Finally, however, it is only through our experiences with love, or with God (through individual meditation - which can't be communicated) that we can really know them.

▼▽▼▼【講師】Sandy先生のバックナンバー━━━━━━━━
・【The Fifth Season】2010.06.02 (Wed)

Those of you who've taken my classes know that I like to focus on the critical thinking aspects of the SAT, since critical thinking skills are important in every day life as well as in your ongoing education. As I usually tell my students the first day of Writing Section class, the multiple choice portion of the SAT writing section is the least critical thinking oriented part of the test. The test makers focus almost exclusively on about 15 common errors that we tend to make in written and spoken English. Students who know how to look for and spot those errors can make huge improvements in speed and accuracy on the SAT's two multiple-choice writing sections. In class, I talk about "red flag" words and issues that you should always look out for and check when you see them. Here are three of the big ones, and I'll have more in later blogs:


Always check pronouns: Pronouns (words like "he, she, we, him," etc.) are often incorrect for one or more reasons. Remember that a pronoun must refer clearly to only one unambiguous entity or group. If there could reasonably be any doubt as to who "he" or "she" is, the pronoun's ambiguous and therefore incorrect.


Also, pronouns must be in the correct case, subjective case for subjects (like "I, we, he, they," etc.) and objective case for objects of prepositions or verbs (like "him, her, me, us"). At least one or two sentences will probably try to nail you with "Andre and I" where "Andre and me" is correct. The easy way to test this out in your head is to eliminate Andre from the sentence. You wouldn't say "Me went horseback riding." Likewise, you don't say "Andre and me went horseback riding."


Eliminate prepositional phrases and comma clauses from the sentence to help you spot subject-verb errors: Prepositions are words that describe the relationship between two things ("on the table, in the bedroom, from my mom," etc.). The SAT typically uses prepositional phrases to separate a noun from its predicate verb, thus making modification errors harder to spot. Consider the following sentence:


"The intrepid Spartans, having shown such bravery in the face of insurmountable odds, ultimately dies before the onslaught of Xerxes' minions."


The reason I boldface those three words are because they're the only ones that really matter in this sentence. But they should read "The Spartans died." By separating "Spartans" and "dies" with a comma clause and a prepositional phrase, I hide an error that you would have easily spotted if the sentence only had three words. The SAT does this all the time!
▼▽▼▼【講師】Douglas先生のバックナンバー━━━━━━━━ ・【Faulty Logic; It's the Author, not You】

 I suppose every blog entry should have a purpose. To teach something new, for example. This puts me in the precarious position of having to know something that I think other people may also want to know. The thing is, I don't really know anything. Maybe this is part of my 'motto' or something.

I find that the older I get, the less I really know about myself. I don't want to take anything for granted. And I wonder, how much of my identity is predetermined? Let's talk about Michael Jackson for a moment. He was born into a family of singing sensations. I doubt he had any memory of not being famous. People were always watching him. I'm sure this had a profound effect on his concept of self. No doubt he was quite self-conscious (who wouldn't be with millions of people following their every move?)

I'm not suggesting that everyone would make the same choices in his position. But thinking in this regard, our parents' financial situation, our home country, our appearance and our education go a long way in determining how we will act and react in our lives. More and more, I feel that these are only superficial aspects of our identity, of who we are.

Education, for example, is partly our choice. I chose my university because it was the best, and I could get in. But isn't that such the obvious choice. If you were in my position, you would have done the same. And if you had my set of strengths and weaknesses, you would have ended up in the same major. So how much does my education really say about who I am on a deeper level? I don't think it says much.

I think our true identity can be seen when we do very subtle things, like draw pictures, play music, help people we don't know, and sometimes, maybe, when we write blogs. Doing such things help divorce us just a little from our less choice-based conditions like education or appearance. A loss of face and identity to give us an opportunity to find it again. Without knowing the painter, or the musician, you can focus on their works and see a little more beyond the superficial.

▼▽▼▼【講師】Sandy先生のバックナンバー━━━━━━━━
・【The Fifth Season】2010.06.02 (Wed)

Since logic--especially informal logic--is at the root critical thinking, it makes sense that standardized tests like the LSAT, GRE, GMAT, and SAT--which focus on critical thinking skills--would test it extensively. Therefore, it's important that you be on the lookout for logical inconsistencies as you read the complex materials on those tests.

For LSAT, GRE, and GMAT students, learning to look for and identify (and sometimes repair) logical fallacies is often easier than it is for SAT students. This isn't difficult to understand; LSAT students are preparing for a career in law, an inherently adversarial vocation. GMAT takers are preparing to become managers who will have to cope with massive amounts of sometimes-contradictory information and sort the reliable from the unreliable. In those professions, being able to discern both rationally and intuitively who is telling the truth and who is lying is a necessity as much as an asset. Even those who don't plan on practicing in the more adversarial areas of law, business, and academia often have the advantage of at least being older and more experienced (i.e., cynical) about the ways of the world.

High school students studying for the SAT, on the other hand, have quite likely never been asked--at least in an academic setting--to evaluate whether the arguments they're examining are logically solid or not. In high school, had I ever questioned the reasoning of an assigned author, I probably would have been castigated, if not punished outright. I was expected to memorize what I was assigned to read, and to repeat it back if asked on a test or in class. Analysis did not figure into the equation.

That's why, in my SAT Critical Reading classes, I like to work slowly through the passages, asking students to concentrate less on what the authors are saying, and on how they construct their arguments. Often in those classes, students miss common logical flaws simply because those flaws have never been pointed out to them.

Remember that Kaplan's critical reading method--like most Kaplan methods--may slow you down the first few times you use it. But as you become more experienced with using the methods, your speed and accuracy begin to improve dramatically. The most fundamental piece of advice I can give is this: If something seems wrong with the argument, it probably is. Don't presume that you're not following the author's logic correctly; it's equally likely that the argument is illogical, and that you'll have to recognize its flaws in order to answer the questions.

▼▽▼▼【講師】Douglas先生のバックナンバー━━━━━━━━
・【Informal Logic】2010.05.19 (Wed)

水曜日更新担当の講師チーム"Zen and the Art of Aptitude"から
今日は講師・Kurt先生の更新です！
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's World Cup time again, and everybody's really supporting the Japanese team. One of the guys at Kaplan was telling me yesterday how sad he was that Japan had lost the Denmark match, but to be honest, I was unmoved.

I'm not hearing so much from home regarding the US team - while a lot of kids play soccer, it doesn't seem to appeal to Americans that much, at least as a professional sport. Few people follow the World Cup, and I'm not sure why this is so. Maybe we just like games with lots of breaks so we can hit the refrigerator, drink more beer, and go to the restroom without missing anything. It could be that the players are too small to impress us. Or perhaps we just have enough major sports of our own and don't need any more. After all, most Americans have never heard the term "American football". For us, there is no other kind!

▼▽▼▼【講師】Kurt先生のバックナンバー━━━━━━━━
・【Test Prep and Academic Success】2010.04.21 (Wed)