Sunday, January 29, 2017

Dinner of Discussion

Think about the way we think. There's different ways to go about thinking whether it be visual, analytical, or any other way. The dinner table seats 3 different types of thinkers, ready for discussion about how they view the world around them. Jill Bolte Taylor, Oliver Burkeman and Noah Charney all sit along a decorated table. Although unique, they can think of the same understandings of things, but in their own way. As they walk in, they may see the vegetables sorted in a certain way. They might sort them by color, or by the shape of the bowl they are in. This may be their first discussion. Taylor might bring up the fact that there are several ways to assort things using the left brain, as she discussed in her video. Whereas Charney might disagree and say that the vegetables don't necessarily need to be assorted, and that the idea of the vegetables and their placement is all for show. Burkeman might agree on the overthinking, but may bring up that Charney's discussion is bringing down Taylor's in the sense that imagination is helpful in day-to-day thinking. They all agree to disagree because they all know their brains function in their own ways, but they continue discussing the tastes of certain things and how vegetables can help your visual senses. They are open to discussion about the world and how they think of it, although they might counter argument themselves to make discussion more worldly and from each of their point of views.

1 comment:

  1. I agree with the scenario you've presented. Each of these authors have their own way they think and perceive the world. Jill Bolte Taylor uses her right side of her brain because she experienced the loss of the left side of her brain which deals with logic. On the other hand you've got Noah Charney who makes observations through logic and what he can see. He deducts that it's all for show because of his thinking outside of the box nature. Also Olivia Burkeman being the third party would stay relatively neutral talking about the difference of the two arguments and how one lacks imagination. If i had to take a side I'd be with Noah Charney, as I myself am more of an observational thinker.

    ReplyDelete