I'll pose the minor philosophical question: Should he, and to what effect?

Yes he should. He can make good on all of his critical, self actualized thinking.

How does an accomplished tennis player recognize a neophyte tennis player?

Yes

No. That doesn't answer the question at all. An accomplished tennis player may be able to reach conclusions about another individual 'neophyte' tennis player, indeed may even be able to reach conclusions about a group of neophyte players. An accomplished tennis player has no way of reaching a conclusion about all other tennis players without that the conclusion is deeply flawed.

So...you are an accomplished thinker, and we are all mere neophytes are we? May I ask, with the greatest of respect that you go fuck yourself sideways with a broken oar?

On reflection, perhaps that last comment was a tad harsh. I find my hackles raise whenever someone claims to have superior knowledge and/or faculties to the rest of the community based on a fleeting glimpse of who we are and their own evangelism.

coberst, that was a good start. Lot's of people have said "yes". How do I know you weren't just quoting one of them?

For instance, I make DanaC quite mad at me when I draw from something I've studied and she hasn't. I wouldn't say I'm gentle about it, but still, a wide-reaching grasp of knowledge is a good thing.

lol. You keep telling yourself that, honey:)

Hey, it's the naked truth. Philosophy's a good place in which to undress it.:browhappy

Read the question, as stated, with the emphasis on EVERYONE. You aren't qualified to make a statement about everyone.

You are working with a limited data set, on which you have performed limited experimentation; yet you are stating a definitive conclusion. The only arena where your assumption about the cognitive processes of EVERYONE carries any weight, is inside your own mind.

If, as you say, EVERYONE is a *** thinker, then one might conclude that is a hard-wired trait in the human mind. This is if you have used "everyone" in its literal meaning of 100% of all people. However, to go out on a very short, very sturdy limb, I might surmise that your intended meaning was "everyone [except I, coberst]." In which case the plausibility of your statement sinks to new, uncharted depths.