[LoganDark]

> Basic ability to think? What does that even mean? Is there a thinking course 101 that I missed?

I gave one example which is critical thinking, but I'd also say it includes things like self-awareness. Some people just are not. I don't know how else to describe it other than it seems like they literally just do not think before they act. There's a level one worse than "doesn't consider the consequences of their actions" and that's "doesn't consider their actions at all". Of course, any definition I use for this is going to be met with "but that can happen on its own in people who think perfectly fine". That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about when there's simply no sign that thinking happens. Like the only thing their brain does is habits and shortcuts. They're simply not an intellectual, curious, open-minded, or rational individual. I don't mean to be insulting to anyone, but when someone is simply none of these things and there is absolutely no openness or desire to improve, then I conclude that there may as well not be any thought. This isn't equivalent to a lack of intelligence, skill or talent. It's just wasted potential that most likely can no longer be realized.

I would say anyone who enjoys HN probably doesn't have a lack of thought. It's difficult for me to precisely define what thought even is, because I'm not talking about the subjective experience of thinking (internal monologue/dialogue or so on). I'm talking about whatever holds the fundamental ability for consideration of basically anything. You don't necessarily get that for free. Brains are generally extremely good at optimizing and especially neurotypical ones can indeed find a way to live without thought. (I would say autistic neurotypes could find it more difficult due to the detail-oriented thinking. It's more difficult to put smaller blocks together without developing the ability to think about them.)

> There's the meta of learning how to learn, but that is its own skill-set. Most people get by with instructors and classes.

See, how to learn can actually differ by neurotype. That's not really what I'm talking about, though. It's not people who are incapable of learning, I'm sure they can learn all sorts of things. It's that they're incapable of thinking about what they've learned. You can show them how to do something and they'll do it, they can have goals and executive function (even if they can't explain it), and they can probably still figure things out by trial and error. But ask them to explain any of these things and chances are they won't even know why they did them, just that they did and it got them what they wanted and that's all they care about.

[quartesixte]

>That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about when there's simply no sign that thinking happens.

I concur here, and it is (to me) terrifying how common this is. Just even basic first order cause-effect evaluation.

It isn’t popular to suggest this though, and I’ve learned to tread lightly with this observation of mine because 1) it gets me labeled as “fun at parties” or associated with worse 2) there are plenty of people with high paying jobs or powerful positions who are in this category who will not let it slide without some form of retribution.

It’s also really hard to explain without coming across as an arrogant jerk in normal company. But it’s there — like “head empty no thoughts” isn’t just a meme it’s a real thing. And you say some really basic, almost rudimentary critical thought in their company and you get met with “omg you’re so smart how did you think of that” and I’m like 1) that wasn’t worth any sort of praise 2) uhhh, I … did some thinking?

[LoganDark]

> there are plenty of people with high paying jobs or powerful positions who are in this category who will not let it slide without some form of retribution.

I don't think they're going to be particularly good at putting together that they're included in that group unless they're mentioned directly.

The thing is, intelligence is almost entirely separate from thinking ability. There are some extremely intelligent people who nonetheless have very low capacity for thought, because intelligence is defined as the ability to store and recall information. That's what's taught up to high school.

These intelligent people don't deserve to be considered any less of human beings, and it's very difficult to speak of not being able to think without implying some level of inferiority on their part or superiority on mine (ours?). I don't mean to imply that such people aren't conscious. They could pass any Turing test.

But there is somewhat of a difference between thinkers and non-thinkers. For example:

- Those without thought are given responsibility that they shouldn't necessarily be trusted with, for example settings that might break something if changed. Customer support representatives can probably tell you how common it is for someone to bypass any number of warnings or layers of obscurity to access things that they have no idea how to operate, then make it someone else's problem once it bites them later and they have no idea what might have happened.

- Due to the above, mainstream products are often designed with primarily non-thinkers in mind, leading to those with thought potentially feeling restricted or that they lack control thanks to the changes designed to limit how much mistake someone who doesn't think can make.

I wish there were some way to fix these problems, but it'd probably be too discriminatory for most of the non-thinkers to recognize the utility, and it seems impossible to classify people like this, since thinking ability isn't binary.