What is the difference between associative thinking and creative thinking? Associative Thinking and Memory.

What is the difference between associative thinking and creative thinking?

Well, children can think of many ways to use an object in kindergarten and yet lose this by the time they are in the third grade. By the third grade, children have been exposed to more information. They have more ideas, beliefs and opinions about things. Hence, there is a separation between what they have as a memory as experience and what was a more objective ability towards their environment. Their memory begins to dominate their influence of the environment. This  leads to placing ideas of their experience onto their environment. Not a bad thing, yet if the memory has value judgements, then their perspective becomes polarized, slowing down assessment of the practical. 

This means that one can have a pretty broad vocabulary, or a smaller vocabulary and still be caught in value judgements, causing resistance to being practical. Being practical is having critical and creative thinking skills. After all, that kindergartener is being practical when coming up with many ways to use a paper clip, for example. They assess what is more real to them, because their memory is not yet overriding that from which they build their memory, which is their experience. This is such an obvious thing, it is difficult to realize that it has been missed.

We all have friends that focus on a lack, on an idea about themselves. No matter how hard we try to tell them to walk the practical steps necessary, it appears impossible. Yet, this reveals how strong an idea about something can overtake what is an innate ability to assess the practical. 

This is why words are so important. It is important to make sure we have the same meaning to words. The value of a word is the measure of a word. It can have no imaginative values placed onto it. This leads to associative thinking that lacks objective reference. This leads to a lack of practical application. A balance between the two builds a more grounded presence. 

We use language to paint abstractions about reality. We do not allow our children access to higher education unless they show an ability to abstract information. Building an abstraction of reality and communicating it  means that as humans we need a clearly formed vocabulary. And, we need enough exposure to words to move information fast enough to realize patterns and to see practical consequential outflows.  We have to know our words so well, that we can not only retain our natural ability to objectively assess and also subjectively evaluate.  This is the means of critical and creative thinking.

In music education, one must practically apply and abstract. Yet, with information in many academics, we learn through theory, which is abstracting information only. In this scenario, how well we know the words determines our achievement, And, in this case, information can easily be manipulated because one abstracts within the information given, with no real application opportunity. 

When a person practices something, like in music, eventually that movement becomes easy, as the physical memorizes the moves and then does not have to think about them so much. This also  means that the information we are exposed to, becomes what we are. If a child is told they are stupid again and again, this becomes their information. This is then what they associate to because this is what informs them. 

Teaching through theoretical means, as abstracting information demands word recognition skills. A lack of this causes self judgements in many ways, which are emotional values that slow down learning and absorbing because it is a distraction that also warps reality.

It also is very slow, and removes self discovery.. Unless, someone really knows the words so well they do not have to think about them. Also, when this is done from a text book, bought with the intention of being used for a few years, the information is not up to date in our present time of rapid innovation and change. Hence the information is already going to move against the real world. Overall, this means the word recognition is paramount in child development. The more words we know, and can use, builds the ability to change, because it is exposure to concept, and the development of changing the abstraction within that is memory. Meeting new information is then not so difficult.

If a child gets behind in knowing a certain set of words for a particular subject, and makes some mistakes, and then defines themselves as that mistake, they cannot see through the veil of this self judgement and catch up in knowing the words, because that association as a memory as that past information is slowing them down. And, as we know, our schools move in measured ways, limited in time to correct understanding in every child.

What begins to happen is a focus on a lack. In time and space, the combination of that emotional polarity and the consequence of having to sort through that and take in information causes a slowing down. The polarity as the value judgement that was information informing the child separates them from being focused on the practical. This is a practice, which becomes a habit, as associating on memorized information only, and the value judgements in relation to this means comes to define the child. This is a loss of critical and creative thinking skill. This is that state the kindergartener had before moving into a memory that is cluttered with ideas and beliefs and opinions that stagnate a natural ability towards practical assessment.

This is how we lose what is an innate natural ability to learn.

Who has the time, in the present design of our schools to sort out that abstraction of reality as memory in  a child? Who has the time to make sure that our children really know their words? Who has the time to restore the natural ability in a child to assess objectively the world around us, and their experience about that world and all the influences surrounding us today? Since our vocabulary is the means of our expression about things, and can at the same time order our abstraction capacity so we can see clearly and retain our ability to assess the form of the world around us,  does it not make sense that knowing our words so well we do not have to think about them is of utmost importance? And is this not a simple solution? Would this not empower any parent and most important the child. Would this not allow that child to reach their full potential.

What if you has a tool to do just that? 

If you are interested in such a tool, I am here to share. It is time to end the suffering in our children and to give them the gift that keeps on giving! 

Thank you for taking the time to read m blog!

Losing the innate ability of divergent thinking.

There is the famous TED talk done by Ken Robinson, where a group is given the task of thinking up ways a simple object can be used, and the group comes up with many possibilities. A similar example is called the candle and the box. A candle is placed on a table with a box. One is required to figure out how to get that candle on the wall without the wax dripping all over the floor when lit. Many would rub their heads and see only a box and a candle, others would see the box, the tacks holding the box in form and the candle, and take out the tacks, un-fold the box, reshape it, use the tacks to hold and tack a shape onto the wall that would hold the candle and catch the wax. Some call this divergent thinking, some might call this critical thinking skills.

The group that excelled at divergent thinking were Kindergartners. The majority of this group were, as far as divergent thinking, geniuses.

But, this ability was lost by the time these children were in the third grade. 

There are other studies where workers are given tasks to do. When a measure of cognitive skill is needed and a reward given for completing the task, do not do the job as well as when they do the cognition for the joy of figuring out the task.  This shows that the placement of a positive reinforcement diverts full direct  focus and limits cognitive skill. It is the carrot and the stick placed, as a gain, that motivates yet limits at the same time.  And to note, on another front, this suggests that humans innately enjoy solving problems, but when placed in survival do-or-die/win-lose situations their natural  ability to use  divergent thinking becomes limited. 

In studies of child performance, children that come from lower economic levels, tend to have a smaller vocabulary and more negative reprimand impulsed, because  a lack of vocabulary creates a lack of clarity of description of form and purpose, thus more frustrated behaviors, which is the inner map unequal to the other physical world.This is limitation to form and function and as such vocabulary/structure and instead accumulation of values as good and bad that inhibit the child. From such a state how can a child process knowledge and information presented as words in school, and how can a teacher process and correct what parents built as a cognitive map that model  limitations. And is it the responsibility of a teacher to correct what is essentially a lack of self responsibility? Obviously, a teacher cannot do this, no one alone can do this, it is the parents and the teachers and the community that as all one, paying attention and being responsible, that does this.

In both instances impulsed values inhibit/suppress that innate divergent thinking skill of a human because they distract attention. Impulsed accumulation of negative reinforcements from lack, and/or positive reinforcements as motivation divide a child from a natural common sense. Both become the cognizance within, slowing down divergent thinking, because the child is caught up in impulsed values as a cognitive map instead of direct seeing. And if we think about our class structures, this varies by degree, and yet it shows the division of men through suppression via punishment and reward instead of common sense understanding of practical reality.

What if a child could retain that divergent thinking skill and build a strong and varied vocabulary? And what if that vocabulary were of clear, absolute meanings? Would the foundation of the child be a cognitive map that was clear, able to process knowledge and information unfettered by limiting values?

Would this carry that innate human ability of divergent thinking up into the third grade and beyond? Would this create stable children that had what it takes to be a success in this world and as this members of the community that because they were stable and able to think critically possibly create a body of humans that lived the full potential of the human as a group? Would this not create self directive, self responsible human beings?

ADHD and ADD: Confusion Within as a Limited GPS.

So a child learns to crawl, to walk, to talk and eventually to think in the home environment picking up all of its surroundings, building a memory/picture of the world as the movement of the space-time within and without as the parents and the physical, to enable self direction in a physical world.  A GPS system. Thus, what has gone into the child, in totality, is what comes out of the child. And so our children become copies of the adult, as the first seven years build the “ concrete mind”, a blue print “ platform” that is a map of what they have experienced,  all physical tensions, all word combination, all reprimand, all positive reinforcement as values. 

When the child reaches seven naturally their ability to take in the world slows down because they divide their self directive capacity between the outside world and the use of their memory as a guide/reference.

School begins at this age, this point of some experience of the world being mapped and used as the memory, as the mind.

Imagine a child that came from a home of limited vocabulary? That child enters the schools system with limited structure as vocabulary. They already have a lesser communication ability. Do they get caught up in this lack, this becoming greater as their focus than being directive in developing a greater vocabulary as the real solution to the lack? Do our schools as the very design of them, have the money and thus the time to balance this out in all children? No, and to do so would cost taxpayers a lot more than what is being given to the schools. Here, some parents pay for school to ensure attention is given within this state of lack, that is really a lack of clarity.

In essence the schools are meant to direct the children into understanding more structures. The schools are dependent on the parents “ filling in the missing links.” Our public schools function when the parents are intimately involved with the development of the child. In all, this is how the public schools were formed, to supplement parents, the  public schools were never designed to be the sole educators of children. And as we all know, parents that realize they cannot monitor their child’s development as much as they might want to, pay to have their children attend very expensive schools to ensure that the child is up to speed with vocabulary and math skills. There are even those who spend a lot on tutors to fill in the gaps. A real education is a process that either takes a parent very closely monitoring the child in tandem with the schooling process, or a parent paying someone else to do this. This is a process of building a sound character that can face reality with clear understanding.

If we look at how children learn their first seven years, as a kind of absorbent sponge, the variations in what has been taken in are so great, no public school scenario can possible even out what has been learned in each child. This is why close parental involvement is absolutely essential.

That being said, imagine a child that has learned a relatively broad vocabulary, as the sounds as the words, as the structures moving in front of the child as the spoken word, organizing the world - which is to say that words give order to our world, in that they enable us to communicate and thus, organize ourselves within.  I mean, look at numbers, they organize a way of understanding a certain level of spatial division, words are the same, they describe space and movement. The more words we know the greater our ability to clarify our perceptions of physical reality and to realize whether our understanding of reality is clear.  Greater vocabulary- more ease in physical conceptual development.  

Within all of this, if a child has picked up uncertainty as the movement in reality of parents as their state of being, then some of the words a child learns in those first seven years have added emotional values that are not direct and clear, thus every time the child uses a word, the memory comes up with the word as the blueprint is referenced. This additional added value has to then be processed and so the child is slowed down, or is caught up in the emotional value and the ability to process with clarity no longer exists because the words are essentially unstable. The memory is not clear, it does not have a clear direct meaning as the words in relation to actual, practical physical reality.

Most of us have experienced this. Just think of returning to a childhood place, or imagine returning to where one went to college, or imagine returning to your parents home after a long absence. Do memories come up, do sentimental values come up? Is there a whole memory structure that comes up of that distant time? Does it overwhelm you? Does it bring up a whole slew of emotional values? Many of them you wish you had never had? Now, imagine a child. They have many such emotional and feeling values attached to their words, so when they go to school and deal with words all the emotional values come up. Thus a concrete mind - which I am defining as memory that is “ big “ enough to be a directive that happens at about the age of seven, this point where the system believes a child is ready for school, that we all have experienced, is really a map of the past, and according to what has been placed within as that guidance system, must be filtered through as a child begins to process new information presented at school.

We also realize, if we look back at elementary school that the judgements between the children, as peer groups is brutal. This is children moving as values instead of being direct in understanding here as the physical world. So, if a child is inundated with values attached to words, this catches them up and they have a hard time processing new information because the values slow them down. And this is why  parents with money spend a lot of money on education, because they know they do not have the time to clear all of this up and ensure that the children understand words and numbers clearly, because they know that a clear understanding of structure leads to success.

Within this, is Attention Deficit Disorder the inner GPS in disorder? A combination of a lack of structure as words and words that are a clear direct meaning with reality?

Is it possible to refocus a child from their natural learning ability and build a vocabulary that is direct in meaning allowing a child to be equal within, to the without? Can the character of the child be built as a foundation of clear, solid, direct meanings to words, to structure the child’s natural learning ability into a clear understanding as words , no values of good and bad attached? Meaning “ a cup is a cup”?

If we look closely, children have, initially, tolerance for others, but by the third grade, comparison and gossip become their behavior: they are moving as a system of values or “what is more” and “what is less”, instead of being directive with a practical understanding, as a direct seeing, of physical reality. So, if the attention is more on values as ideas, how can a conceptual development of reality grow? In essence it can’t, although, and this varies by degree, some learn to understand some of physical reality. What would happen if a child learned a direct understanding of physical reality from the beginning? Would they be less reactive and more directive? Would they be here, instead of in confusion, as not being able to attend to here? Which begs the question: with our present information and consumerist age, will this process of value judgement begin at an earlier age? By this I mean, the input in space-time is moving faster, compounding, thus what may have happened at 8 years of age, may now begin a 5 or 6 years of age.

Attention Deficit Disorder and its variations are really a product of our society. We are all to blame, individually and collectively. The way out is for each to become responsible. As this would then lead to a collective responsibility. We, as parents, must become responsible for the process of building the character, as the inner GPS, of our children. This simply means ensuring that the  meaning of the words our children know are clear and direct, and that the words, as the vocabulary, are numerous.