Linear seems to be step by step, relying on explicit procedures and defined methods, conditional, and concrete.
Nonlinear is multidirectional, may be independent of steps and methods, multiconditional and abstract.
Both can be logic or logical.
An example might be programming a game, where in it the player tries to give a mushroom to a character, and the character reacts differently depending on if it is awake or asleep.
The linear method might be to write a bunch of if statements in order: if you give the mushroom, if the character is asleep, do blahblahblah, else if they are awake, do some other blah.
The nonlinear method doesn't require any conditionals, instead the event which causes the character to sleep sets a 'sleep' flag, whatever causes it to be awake sets an 'awake' flag, and the action of giving the mushroom simply triggers a crosscheck of nodes, or an array of responses. Moreover, one might have a function, object, or procedure premade that checks sleep/wake actions and be able to just call it from here, and any other character in the game. So if you had 100 characters you can give mushrooms to, it would be silly to make a separate code for all of them when you can define it once and just point to it within the action.
Logical thinking critically challenges the assumptions made by the structure by evaluating, analyzing and checking the integrity of data points. It is concerned with validity.
Linear thinking is ordered thinking. It categorizes and determines relationships between data in a single, progressive view. It is concerned with order. Linear thinking may be utilized in logical thinking, but it is not necessarily logical in nature.
If someone is calling you a linear thinker they're basically calling you an XSTJ. If someone is calling you a logical thinker they're calling you an INTX. Mind you much of human thinking is flawed and the pipe dream of being completely rational and logical can be fetishized by people, the latter of these types especially.
text (n.)
late 14c., "wording of anything written," from Old French texte, Old North French tixte (12c.), from Medieval Latin textus "the Scriptures, text, treatise," in Late Latin "written account, content, characters used in a document," from Latin textus "style or texture of a work," literally "thing woven," from past participle stem of texere "to weave," from PIE root *tek- "to weave, to fabricate, to make; make wicker or wattle framework" (see texture).
An ancient metaphor: thought is a thread, and the raconteur is a spinner of yarns -- but the true storyteller, the poet, is a weaver. The scribes made this old and audible abstraction into a new and visible fact. After long practice, their work took on such an even, flexible texture that they called the written page a textus, which means cloth. [Robert Bringhurst, "The Elements of Typographic Style"]
Broadly, any metalanguage is language or symbols used when language itself is being discussed or examined. In logic and linguistics, a metalanguage is a language used to make statements about statements in another language (the object language). Expressions in a metalanguage are often distinguished from those in an object language by the use of italics, quotation marks, or writing on a separate line.
ok, I think I understood what you said. Can you use an example that's not related to a video game, maybe a more practical example?
linear - one thing follows another in a deliberate way
logical - based on fact, reality etc
one is not necessarily in kahoots with the other tho
In especially state and stateoriented/owned corporations I`ve noticed linear thinking is the most favoured. Logic always get booted out if it doesn`t apply to the interests.
This is probably cause if you deal with things logically you may just be to effective, wich leads to your own unemployment eventually. Logic is always based on reality Imo, Linear is how you do things when you do to much strategy.
Ok that was my own idealistic nature shining through. My logic is telling me that you do linear thinking when you plan something versus logic thinking when you execute them plans.
The water jar test, first described in Abraham Luchins' 1942 classic experiment, is a commonly cited example of an Einstellung situation. The experiment's participants were given the following problem: you have 3 water jars, each with the capacity to hold a different, fixed amount of water; figure out how to measure a certain amount of water using these jars. It was found that subjects used methods that they had used previously to find the solution even though there were quicker and more efficient methods available. The experiment shines light on how mental sets can hinder the solving of novel problems.
In Luchins' experiment, subjects were divided into two groups. The experimental group was given five practice problems, followed by 4 critical test problems. The control group did not have the five practice problems. All of the practice problems and some of the critical problems had only one solution, which was "B minus A minus 2*C.” For example, one is given Jar A capable of holding 21 units of water, B capable of holding 127, and C capable of holding 3. If an amount of 100 units must be measured out, the solution is to fill up Jar B and pour out enough water to fill A once and C twice.
One of the critical problems was called the extinction problem. The extinction problem was a problem that could not be solved using the previous solution B-A-2C. In order to answer the extinction problem correctly, one had to solve the problem directly and generate a novel solution. An incorrect solution to the extinction problem indicated the presence of the Einstellung effect. The problems after the extinction problem again had two possible solutions. These post-extinction problems helped determine the recovery of the subjects from the Einstellung effect.
The critical problems could be solved using this solution (B-A-2C) or a shorter solution (A-C or A+C). For example, subjects were instructed to get 18 units of water from jars with capacities 15, 39, and 3. Despite the presence of a simpler solution (A+C), subjects in the experimental group tended to give the lengthier solution in lieu of the shorter one. Instead of simply filling up Jars A and C, most subjects from the experimental group preferred the previous method of B-A-2C, whereas virtually all of the control group used the simpler solution. Interestingly, when Luchins and Luchins gave experimental group subjects the warning, "Don't be blind," over half of them used the simplest solution to the remaining problems. Thus, this warning helped reduce the prevalence of the Einstellung effect among the experimental group.
The results of the water jars experiment illustrates the concept of Einstellung. The majority of the experimental subjects adopted a mechanized state of mind and relied on mental sets formed through previous experience. However, the experimental subjects would have been more efficient if they had employed the direct method of solving the problem rather than applying the same solution from previous examples.
No not an effect, a disease. Well anyways maybe your right sprinkles, but I`m sorry to say the cynic in me is have a really good day today. Many people dont seem to understand that our society is built on hard work taken out of our backs. State apparatus is just growing and the people that should be making somekind of product to contribute to us all is put at benches doing bogus work with no outcome other than that they took a bit of the hospitals and schools money, potentially making it harder for the ones making bacon. Doesnt anyone realise these kind of things?
About the effect :
Interesting and I can relate to it to, I work with forrestry and excavation-work. It`s interesting but ofcourse the machines often have small brakedowns and such.
These take a great effort to solve and many times there are new problems. In the beginning of my career, the Einstellung effect was very evident. Ofcourse your experience grows everyday and past problems help you solve the new ones but they are not solved in same ways necessary.