Limits of Thinking

[FreeChile]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Limits of Thinking

I understand what you said, and do not interpret as a backlash.

Consider this exploring this question...
brought up by someone in the JREF forum.

"When does knowledge become a belief?"

You can find my response on this somewhere in the forum.
But I'm interested to see if you arrive at the same conclusion as me.

Thank you for this reference. I will look it up as soon as I get a chance.

"When does knowledge become a belief?" This would depend on what you mean by knowledge, by belief, and by becoming. I would also start by re-structuring the question because the form there presents certain logical problems. For example, the word "become" implies there is a fading, a transition, whereas "when" implies there is a specific time. Also, do you mean "become" in the way that a caterpillar becomes a butterfly? Once this happens, there is no longer a caterpillar. I don't see how this is the same between knowledge and belief. Knowledge does not go away just because you believe something; in fact, the knowledge is pretty much there. If anything, it is the lack of knowledge that may cause the belief, just to contrast it; or even perhaps the interpretation (or misinterpretation) of knowledge.

What I am trying to say is that it seems you are trying to communicate the existence of a connection between knowledge and belief. But language is not helping us say what we mean.

I do have a rough idea of what you mean to say. But I would have to look at the thread to get a better feeling of what that means, unless you clarify it or summarize for me in this thread.

 

[FreeChile]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Limits of Thinking

I understand what you said, and do not interpret as a backlash.

Consider this exploring this question...
brought up by someone in the JREF forum.

"When does knowledge becomes a belief?"

You can find my response on this somewhere in the forum.
But I'm interested to see if you arrive at the same conclusion as me.

I hope you don't mind. I have brought the link you mentioned and your post here for analysis. The question there seems to be the reverse from what you quoted. Also, the context was quite different. That thread was mostly concerned about the difference between knowledge and belief.

What Does it Mean to Know?

Originally posted by Yahweh

At what point is a "belief" rightfully called "knowledge"?

Posted by Jyera in above thread:

I offer this...

A "belief" is rightfully called "knowledge", when it is no longer able to settle contradiction and confusion.

Elaboration:
- Knowledge can also settle contradiction and confusion, but unlike belief, it need not always work.
- A belief is often personal, and settles contradiction and confusion within that single person.
- For a group with common or shared belief, it is so, only when it settles contradiction and confusion for the group.

 

[FreeChile]

Not at all.

That was simply the meaning I interpreted from what seayakin had said--especially given the example of the energy problem he showed.

Costs and benefits are both inherent in any proposed solution (including as a special degenerate case the "null solution" of not doing anything at all).

The "cost" of a solution isn't the same as a "problem" with the solution, although if the cost is unacceptably high, that may create another problem in need of solution. But the "cost" is
simply an acknowledgement that if you do one thing, it may prevent you from doing something else.

I'll get back to this later.

 

[FreeChile]

Posted by Jyera in another thread:

A "belief" is rightfully called "knowledge", when it is no longer able to settle contradiction and confusion.

Elaboration:
- Knowledge can also settle contradiction and confusion, but unlike belief, it need not always work.
- A belief is often personal, and settles contradiction and confusion within that single person.
- For a group with common or shared belief, it is so, only when it settles contradiction and confusion for the group

If belief or knowledge can settle contradiction and confusion, then why is there irrationality, addiction, habit, etc.?

In what way are you using knowledge here? Is it absolute knowledge, present knowledge, or something else?

 

[FreeChile]

Of course, this kind of analysis would have to be done by a third party.

In the context of our discussion, I don't see how a third party helps the situation. Wouldn't the third party need to do the thinking also?

Beacuse, as you say, if you begin an analysis you begin to think and are no longer acting on instinct. I would define instinct as preprogrammed behavior or behavior that is a specific required response to a given stimuli. Whereas, thinking implies there is a set of solutions wherein one can to select. (Of course, determinists argue this is not possible but would require a different thread.)

How does thinking imply a set of solutions? If as I said, thinking creates the problem and the solution?

I would argue it is an overall solution to lifes challenges.

Isn't challenges just another way of saying problems?

Someone can go through life without thinking simply meeting there immediate needs. Isn't there a saying the unexamined life is not worth examining. Therefore, thinking in the generic sense can be applied as solution that defines a pattern of behavior for dealing with life's problems. However, I would agree that thinking is not a solution to a specific problem.

In what sense is the examined life worth examining? Not sure what you mean by this. To what degree can thinking examine life? This I guess is the main question in this thread. When does thinking assist life and when does it harm life?

For instance, I want children (and lets say i'm 17). I have a number of choices, I can act virtually on instinct and knocku p some girl. I can think about it which would involve identifying further problems like how I would support this children (assuming I intended to that) and developing multiple solutions or plans that this chain of events would created once I successfully procreated.

The moment you say I want children, you're thinking. How would the person be acting on instinct?

This might be identified as a subset of thinking if you identify thinking in a hierarchy such as

-Thinking
--Data gathering
--Analysis
--Testing
--etc.

 

[FreeChile]

Not at all.

Costs and benefits are both inherent in any proposed solution (including as a special degenerate case the "null solution" of not doing anything at all).

What is this "null solution" you have in mind? Not doing anything at all in the sense that one decides not to act or in the sense that one is not there to do anyhing or in the sense that the solution was chosen by someone else? Also, in the context of costs and benetifs and their being inherent in a proposed solution, what of unintended costs and benefits, or those we are unable to predict for whatever reason?

The "cost" of a solution isn't the same as a "problem" with the solution, although if the cost is unacceptably high, that may create another problem in need of solution. But the "cost" is simply an acknowledgement that if you do one thing, it may prevent you from doing something else.

Taking this definition of cost, of what value is it?

 

[seayakin]

I think I can concede to most of our differences (and I admit I haven't used the best examples). In talking about cost benefit analysis, I would not deny that a cost is not a problem. However, any solution to a problem has both problems (costs) and benefits.

Your question below; however, is a significant question. This I have to mul a bit more.

This I guess is the main question in this thread. When does thinking assist life and when does it harm life?

 

[epepke]

What is at the root of this vicious cycle and is there a way we can escape it? Is this a topic for critical thinking, or even for thinking? Or have we simply reached the limits of thinking when we tackle something like this?

Thinking up solutions is fine and pretty easy.

The problem is that the majority of people aren't going to behave according to though-up solutions. They're going to do what they want to do.

Most of the problems that face humanity are a result of the fact that people with enough power to make things like that want things to be that way. We don't like to think about this, because it's unflattering, but every proposed solution that fails to take that into account is guaranteed to fail.

 

[RandFan]

Originally posted by FreeChile
This I guess is the main question in this thread. When does thinking assist life and when does it harm life?

Reading through the thread has left me a bit confused. Have you abandoned the notion that the world is in a tragic state or is the premise even important any more? If it is can you define "tragic state"? Please define "harm"?

Does the problem lie with "thinking" or simply with the inevitable conflicts that arise when state, goals and desires conflict?

If we look at the world around us we are tempted to believe that the world outside of human contact is in stasis. This simply is not true. It never has been true. The ant wants what the tree provides and the tree wants to protect itself from the ant. Both are in an evolutionary arms race. As soon as one overcomes the mechanism of the other new defenses or offenses evolve.

Utopia does not exist because,

1.) humans are diverse and have competing goals, definitions and meaning as to what is "tragic", "success", "quality of life", etc..

2.) There is no such thing as stasis.

Our thinking is simply a product of our evolution. It has served us well in that we have become successful as a species in the anthropological sense of the word.

I would reject the notion that we go back to where we began. Where thought has been allowed to solve problems we are measurably better than our forbearers. It does not follow that because one solution brings other problems that nothing has been solved. Of course, again, it depends on one's definition of better off.

I don't think the discussion can advance without defining your terms.

 

[Roboramma]

For those who believe this to be the case, the world is in a tragic state. It is corrupted and possibly beyond repair.

I'd have to agree that the world is pretty bad off at the moment. Here are a few things that I don't much like about the state of the planet earth:
-In the past 6-8,000 years the world's forest cover has declined by about half. And these days it's being cut at a much accelerated rate. Somewhere from 0.5% - 2% of tropical rainforest is lost every year.*
-Global Warming seems to be a reality whose impact we may be able to lessen, but certainly not stop entirely. At least the way things are going. The it's economic and environmental inpact will be catastrophic is of course not certain.
-Somewhat more than 1 billion people live in absolute poverty, uncertain of getting enough to eat from one day to the next.**
-extinction seems to be happening at a rate much larger than has been the case for the past 65 million years. I'm not sure how good the evidence for some of the figures I've heard is, however.
-clean fresh water is becomnig increasingly scarce.
-people can be generally bastards - child abuse, rape, murder, torture, these things all still happen, and from the looks of things, will go on happening for a while.
-wars still happen
-there exists a nuclear arsenal (both in the US and Russia) large enough to bring on armaggedon.
-nuclear proliferation is happening, albiet slowly.
-science is little understood by most people in the world today, as are the root causes of many of these problems.

I'm not sure how well I can defend all of this, I can only say, if anyone sees something included in this list that isn't the case, please point it out.

Now, from the list above I will say I agree that things are pretty ◊◊◊◊◊◊ in many ways.

So, why?
Well, there's alot on that list, I don't think I can give a quick answer to that question. I will say though, that alot of it comes down to human nature. We may be kind and selfless alot of the time(especially toward close family members), but we're also greedy, thoughtless, and prone to self-deception.

But here's a question, what's the best solution? I think the only possible solution (whether it works or not) to any of these problems is to first understand their root cause. If we can't allow ourselves to examine why something is happening, we have no chance of stopping it.
Now, whatever the solutions are, they will have costs, but we can weight those costs against the benefits, and decide if it seems better to try the solution than to do nothing at all, or to try a different solution.
But the first step is to know what the problem is, and where it is coming from.

I'd also like to point out that while things seem pretty bad now, they've been pretty bad for a long time.
These days life for alot of us is much better than our ancestors ever could have dreamed. Indoor plumbing, central heating, antibiotics, efficient transportation, public education, the internet.
All of these things make life alot easier/more comfortable/longer/more well informed for a large number of people. It's just that there are so many of us even modern technology has a hard time keeping up. Of course, without modern technology there wouldn't be so many of us, but there would still be starvation, poverty, war, etc.
The average life expectancy is somewhere around 80. For most of human history it was more like 25-30 (IIRC).

What's the solution to the problems of today? Being honest with ourselves, discovering causes and dealing with them rationally.
Here's one example:
The birth rate in the philipines is amoung the highest in the world. They are also heavily impoverished. The natural environment there has been ravished by dynamiting coral reefs and over harvesting of forests. Now, I know correlation is not causation, but in this case there does seem to be at least some connection.
The Catholic Church is very powerful in the philipines, and frowns on birth control. But even beyond that, recently I saw in Time a statistic (take with a grain of salt, I suppose):
30% of Filipinos couples do not know the relationship between sexual intercourse and having children.

So here is one instance of people not thinking (at all) about the possible partial cause of a problem. Doesn't seem to be doing them much good.

*from E.O. Wilson's "The Future of Life" ** From E.O. Wilson's "Concilence"

 

[RandFan]

Re: Re: Limits of Thinking

-In the past 6-8,000 years the world's forest cover has declined by about half. And these days it's being cut at a much accelerated rate. Somewhere from 0.5% - 2% of tropical rainforest is lost every year.*
-Global Warming seems to be a reality whose impact we may be able to lessen, but certainly not stop entirely. At least the way things are going. The it's economic and environmental inpact will be catastrophic is of course not certain.
-Somewhat more than 1 billion people live in absolute poverty, uncertain of getting enough to eat from one day to the next.**
-extinction seems to be happening at a rate much larger than has been the case for the past 65 million years. I'm not sure how good the evidence for some of the figures I've heard is, however.
-clean fresh water is becomnig increasingly scarce.
-people can be generally bastards - child abuse, rape, murder, torture, these things all still happen, and from the looks of things, will go on happening for a while.
-wars still happen
-there exists a nuclear arsenal (both in the US and Russia) large enough to bring on armaggedon.
-nuclear proliferation is happening, albiet slowly.
-science is little understood by most people in the world today, as are the root causes of many of these problems.

Hmmmm....

I don't want to dismiss your points out of hand. However I find this a bit like Henny Penny's notion about a fragile sky. Please don't get me wrong. The problems you mention are very real. However let's look take a look at a past proclimation.

Julian Simon Remembered: It’s a Wonderful Life

The Club of Rome had just released its primal scream, Limits to Growth, which reported that the earth was rapidly running out of everything. The most famous declinist of the era, biologist Paul Ehrlich, had appeared on the Tonight Show with Johnny Carson to fill Americans with fear of impending world famine and make gloomy prognostications, such as, "If I were a gambler, I would bet even money that England will not exist in the year 2000."

The Carter administration published in 1980 its multiagency assessment of the earth’s future, titled Global 2000. Its famous doom-and-gloom forecast that "the world in 2000 will be more crowded, more polluted, less stable ecologically. . . . and the world’s people will be poorer in many ways than they are today" received headlines across the nation. Malthusianism was now the official position of the U.S. government.

So, a quarter of a century ago it was predicted that the world was going down the drain. But Malthusianism wasn't universally accepted.

It was all so damned depressing. And, thanks to iconoclast Julian Simon, we now know that it was all so wrong.

...

Simon’s central premise was that people are the ultimate resource. "Human beings," he wrote, "are not just more mouths to feed, but are productive and inventive minds that help find creative solutions to man’s problems, thus leaving us better off over the long run." As Ben Wattenberg of the American Enterprise Institute explained in his brilliant tribute to Simon in the Wall Street Journal, "Simon’s central point was that natural resources are not finite in any serious way; they are created by the intellect of man, an always renewable resource." Julian often wondered why most governmental economic and social statistics treat people as if they are liabilities not assets. "Every time a calf is born," he observed, "the per capita GDP of a nation rises. Every time a human baby is born, the per capita GDP falls." Go figure!

What's that? Humans are good? Say it ain't so?

The ultimate embarrassment for the Malthusians was when Paul Ehrlich bet Simon $1,000 in 1980 that five resources (of Ehrlich’s choosing) would be more expensive in 10 years. Ehrlich lost: 10 years later every one of the resources had declined in price by an average of 40 percent.

Julian Simon loved good news. And the good news of his life is that, today, the great bogeyman of our time, Malthusianism, has, like communism, been relegated to the dustbin of history with the only remaining believers to be found on the faculties of American universities. The tragedy is that it is the Paul Ehrlichs of the world who still write the textbooks that mislead our children with wrongheaded ideas. And it was Paul Ehrlich, not Julian Simon, who won the MacArthur Foundation’s "genius award."

Objective evidence that the world is not going down the toilet. Humans can solve problems.

The two trends that Simon believed best captured the long-term improvement in the human condition over the past 200 years were the increase in life expectancy and the decline in infant mortality (see figures). Those trends, Simon maintained, were the ultimate sign of man’s victory over death.

 

[Jyera]

Re: Re: Limits of Thinking

Thinking up solutions is fine and pretty easy.

The problem is that the majority of people aren't going to behave according to though-up solutions. They're going to do what they want to do.

Most of the problems that face humanity are a result of the fact that people with enough power to make things like that want things to be that way. We don't like to think about this, because it's unflattering, but every proposed solution that fails to take that into account is guaranteed to fail.

I agree with what epepke said.

In particular, the fact that people aren't going to behave according to though-up solutions.

 

[Jyera]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Jyera in another thread:

A "belief" is rightfully called "knowledge", when it is no longer able to settle contradiction and confusion.

Elaboration:
- Knowledge can also settle contradiction and confusion, but unlike belief, it need not always work.
- A belief is often personal, and settles contradiction and confusion within that single person.
- For a group with common or shared belief, it is so, only when it settles contradiction and confusion for the group
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If belief or knowledge can settle contradiction and confusion, then why is there irrationality, addiction, habit, etc.?

In what way are you using knowledge here? Is it absolute knowledge, present knowledge, or something else?

Within an individual, a piece of info/fact/knowledge may alternate between "a belief" or "a knowledge".

In an individual, settling contradiction and confusion, means to reach a comfortable state of mind, at a particular instance, with respect to the contradiction.

(Eg. Am I good or evil? ... Yes! I am a good boy! )

It need NOT mean settling which fact is right and which fact is wrong. ( Doesn't matter am I really good or evil.)

With additional knowledge we might be able to prove one fact/knowledge to be right and the other fact/knowledge to be wrong.

(Eg. I saved a bird, therefore... I'm good.)

But the additional fact/knowledge might be useless to resolve the contradiction.

(Eg. But I also killed a cat to save the bird... Evil? or good?)

Belief has no need for logic/reason, thus will definitely settle contradiction.

(Eg. ... What ever it is ! I'm good!)

But when we have doubt about our belief.
That turns the belief into mere knowledge.

(Eg. thinking.... "Am I, a cat killer, really good person?" while tellin friend.. "I am a good person, according to my past record of saving birds.")

With regard to your question :
"If belief or knowledge can settle contradiction and confusion, then why is there irrationality, addiction, habit, etc.?"

They are there because belief and knowledge can help you settle contradiction and confusion. For the better or for the worse the choice is yours. You may believe in your RIGHT to be irrational despite knowledge that a product do not work.
Knowing that a bad habit is harmful isn't impactful if you believe you won't die from it.

 

[Jyera]

Knowing that

"Belief is a quicker tool than knowledge to resolve contradicting facts." help some people limit excessive thinking.

FreeChile, in the case of the person who is pessimistic about the world, after many "vicious cycle", he may soon believe it is useless to think too deeply for a solution to save the world.

Belief saved him some headaches.

After that, may be he takes some concrete action.

 

[Roboramma]

Re: Re: Re: Limits of Thinking

Hmmmm....

I don't want to dismiss your points out of hand. However I find this a bit like Henny Penny's notion about a fragile sky. Please don't get me wrong. The problems you mention are very real. However let's look take a look at a past proclimation.

So, a quarter of a century ago it was predicted that the world was going down the drain. But Malthusianism wasn't universally accepted.

What's that? Humans are good? Say it ain't so?

Objective evidence that the world is not going down the toilet. Humans can solve problems.

I'm definitely one to agree that more people means more than just more mouths to feed. Certainly the more of us there are, the more quickly science and technology will advance. But every new person still is another mouth. And while technology can decrease the amount of resaurces each individual needs, I don't think it can do so indefinitely.
I'm certainly not suggesting that these problems are not solvable, but I do think they are problems. The strain on the planet's resaurces has increased over the past 25 years, and probably will for a while. At the same time, if it weren't for technological advances and human problem solving abilities that strain would have gone far beyond what it is today.
Here's an example of one thing that will help in the future: I think genetic engineering is a great new tool, and will help to improve per hectare crop yeilds over the next few decades dramatically. I'm relatively sure that we'll be able to feed most of the people, even though population is going to keep growing for a while.
But then again who can say for sure? Fresh water for irrigation is becoming an issue, as is new land for development - there's less and less of it.
There's alot of logging of old growth forests going on in the world, and while more people might mean more solutions to the problem of finding alternate cheep sources, and other solutions, it also means more people who want hardwood floors (or whatever). And more people who need to make a living farming that land.

Basically I'm saying that while people are a resource, they also tax other resources as well. And if there are enough people in a country, taxing it's resaurces to too great an extent, no one will be better off if more children are born.

But that wasn't the point of my original post. Just that understanding where the problems come from is the first step to solving them.

 

[FreeChile]

Re: Re: Re: Limits of Thinking

Hi FreeChile,

My last post was based on the context of Human as a Species.

As such, when I mentioned success, I meant success as a species, to have more humans on earth than other species, or to have a better chance to propagate the human genes in this world.
I do associate intelligence closely with thinking.
But let me rephrase to exclude intelligence.

ie. "We are a species which owe its success to being able to think better than other species."
I think this is the common presumption by many people.

It should also be clear to you that I meant to say ...

"As such, it would be suicidal for us (as a species) to stop thinking."

To elaborate, without our ability to out-think other species, we might be doomed as a species. We have neither bigger muscles, nor sharper teeth nor claws.

Survival, in the evolutionary sense, is a process of natural selection. The survival of any species depends on its fitness, not on its strength, nor on its ability to think.

If your meaning of success is in terms of numbers and the ability to reproduce, please consider that there are more germs, ants, and plants in this world than humans. Also, consider the fact that humans, from time to time, knowingly destroy a good number of their own species.

In saying, “out-think”, aren’t you implying that other species think, or try to think? You make it sound as if other species are out to get us. Please clarify me as I may be misinterpreting this. You may be referring to some other idea of survival.

The implication of this, to us individual humans, is that it is our responsibility to think and think and think, even if it is not easy.
I argue that we need to do lots of thinking, for the sake of the survival of our species.

Many of the objections I offered before continue to apply to this revised argument.

 

[FreeChile]

Epepke said:

Thinking up solutions is fine and pretty easy.

“Easy” would be a very subjective term to use. For example, it is taking humanity over 50 years to unify the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics, therefore unifying physics.

The problem is that the majority of people aren't going to behave according to thought-up solutions. They're going to do what they want to do.

Firstly, what can people do in the case of contradictory or conflicting solutions? If a solution is designed to make someone behave in a certain way, and it ends up not having its intended result, isn’t that a problem in the solution? This is not to say that individuals are not part of the problem, as well.

Most of the problems that face humanity are a result of the fact that people with enough power to make things like that want things to be that way. We don't like to think about this, because it's unflattering, but every proposed solution that fails to take that into account is guaranteed to fail.

You have provided here a good example why some solutions fail.

 

[Jyera]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Limits of Thinking

Survival, in the evolutionary sense, is a process of natural selection. The survival of any species depends on its fitness, not on its strength, nor on its ability to think.

My point is that if all humans suddenly stop thinking like humans, and instead think like reptiles. To the effect that, we replace all human brain with relatively small, primitive, lizard-sized brains. We would have lost our well-tested competitive advantage.

Wielding our "better" brain like a weapon, worked for our species, so far, in this particular evolutionary scenario, in this world.

But past success do not guarantee future success. There may be better tools than brain and thinking.

As such I do support your discussion about the "limits of thinking".
Knowing the limit is the first step to know how to take a step beyond it.

If your meaning of success is in terms of numbers and the ability to reproduce, please consider that there are more germs, ants, and plants in this world than humans. Also, consider the fact that humans, from time to time, knowingly destroy a good number of their own species.

Consider the Genes.
To the genes, including the genes each of us carries, it is a simple number game. The more surviving genes, the merrier.

To think that humans are more successful than insects, is at best , an exercise to please our ego. Oh yes we are "more evolved", "more complicated" and bigger than the simple ant. But the game isn't over between two parties of genes until one is wiped out totally.

Your genes and my genes have a love hate relationship.
While we are both human genes, we ought to help each other.
On the other hand, our genes specimen really do want to dominate over the others.

The book "Self-genes" by Richard Dawkins, might give good insight.

In saying, “out-think”, aren’t you implying that other species think, or try to think? You make it sound as if other species are out to get us. Please clarify me as I may be misinterpreting this. You may be referring to some other idea of survival.Many of the objections I offered before continue to apply to this revised argument.

Humans used thinking as a key weapon, therefore we "out-think" other species. This is regardless of what tools other species uses. They may use thinking, or muscles or, or claws.

Yes, other species are constantly "awaiting" for chance to "get us".
Once again, this "getting us" is a gene-thing.

It isn't necessary for a lion to have evil thoughts to want to kill us. It is just hungry and we might be just standing in front of it. Since we are not its' off-spring, and do not carry it's gene, it made perfect sense for it to eliminate us.

I'm not implying lion can reason like a human. But the gene caused it indirectly to act in a seemingly "wise" way. (ie. eat a potential rival).

 

[Jyera]

....snipe...
If we have in fact reached the limits, is there a way we can know that we have so we can realize it and ultimately stop thinking and perhaps give something else a chance?

My child's language teacher said something like this...

"The world in the future belongs to those who can tell a good story."

She elaborates...
Today it is so easy to find intelligent thinkers to engineer a good way to make a product. Let say, the best way to produce eggs.
But it takes a good story teller to differentiate your eggs and egg-selling company from others.

Here ... I see, a statement about the limits of thinking.
And a proposal for "Story-Telling" as an alternatives to "thinking".

I understand the possibility to argue that "story-telling" involves thinking as well.
But then, my question is...
"Is there advantage to be a slightly better "story-teller" than a slightly better "thinker"?

 

[FreeChile]

Re: Re: Limits of Thinking

My child's language teacher said something like this...

"The world in the future belongs to those who can tell a good story."

She elaborates...
Today it is so easy to find intelligent thinkers to engineer a good way to make a product. Let say, the best way to produce eggs.
But it takes a good story teller to differentiate your eggs and egg-selling company from others.

Here ... I see, a statement about the limits of thinking.
And a proposal for "Story-Telling" as an alternatives to "thinking".

I understand the possibility to argue that "story-telling" involves thinking as well.
But then, my question is...
"Is there advantage to be a slightly better "story-teller" than a slightly better "thinker"?

Yes, telling stories is a form of thinking. You can find very effective storytellers in religion, marketing, Hollywood, business, fiction, prose, history, etc. Humans have been telling stories for quite a while now. So the idea that it is “The world in the future” does not make a lot of sense. Story telling is a tool used to sell ideas or belief systems, in most cases. There is always the involvement of the person or group who wants to tell the story.

The advantage lies in what the person wants to achieve from telling the story and how effectively he can convince others. To someone like Jimmy Baker, or Benny Hynn, this translates into money, business, and from the point of view of their clients, it translates into delusions. Grant it, many times the storyteller is as deluded as the individual who buys into the story.

Language is the expression of thought. This includes speech, gestures, writing, painting, and other forms of communication.