Image: Sasha Freemind
I think about thinking a lot.
It’s such a fundamental part of both being human and being good at being human. So much so that people assume it’s easy. It has to be right? I mean, people think constantly. All-day. Every day. And, unless you’re a monk or have succeeded in monk-like stillness, it’s like that from birthday to last day.
But it’s not easy. At least, quality thinking is not easy. Rather, it’s one of the hardest things that a person can do. There are so many competing forces: facts versus feelings, context versus limited information, and popularity versus truth.
It’s not easy to think because we don’t live in a word that promotes thinking. If someone questions something that seems righteous, they are cancelled by the social media commission of know-it-alls. If someone points out facts, they are vilified by arguments that have nothing to do with the issue at hand. And if someone says something controversial online, there are very serious ramifications in the real world.
Even institutions that are meant to revere objectivity have started to take popular narratives into account. While I do not, by any means, agree with this approach, I can understand it. It’s hard to condemn something fairly when the consequences can be catastrophic.
It’s very dangerous, this path we’re on.
A society that punishes people for standing up to popular narratives is a society that is doomed to implode. Note that it doesn’t even matter if the stance is right or not, it matters how that opposition is handled. If the popular narrative has any weight, it will stand up to scrutiny. But if the process of determining that weight is actively undermined, we will never know what can stand up to scrutiny.
The tactics that are employed are as opaque as they are effective. It’s akin to documentaries like Zeitgeist or shows like Ancient Aliens; start with key ideas that are easy to agree with, and build an argument on top of them. The argument, however, is almost always good. Sometimes even sound. But the foundation is often untrue rendering the conclusions baseless.
If someone hasn’t learned to critically think, these ideas become internalised because they feel so right. It no longer matters if ideas are true or not. This is how conspiracy theories are propagated. Start with a false premise and use it to explain a lot of things that don’t make sense otherwise. That’s the thing though, a lot of things don’t make sense. The world is just too big for one individual to know it all. But that doesn’t mean it doesn’t make sense.
Critical thinking proves this. Take any topic that seems nonsensical and do some honest thorough research. Soon(ish), it’s going to make a hell of a lot of sense. I’ve found this to be true of every industry I’ve ever worked. First, the popular narrative seems to be on-point. Most “experts” agree so it must be true. Sure, there are a couple of nay-sayers and, apart from their qualifications and immense experience in their respective fields, they’re largely regarded as black sheep by those that control the narrative.
But, over time, as I learned more and more, less and less made sense. Then, after some kind of a tipping point, things start to weave together is a far more coherent story. All of sudden, the naysayers are the ones that knew what they were talking about. I’ve found this to be true in marketing, sales, publishing, advertising, economics, cryptocurrencies, and, most recently, politics.
I think that part of the reason this unfolds as it does is because of how things feel. Emotions are not rational. They use an entirely different part of the brain, and it’s not the part that handles reason. If one looks at the topics that are so polarised today, there is so much emotion woven into the narrative that there is no hope of getting to the truth. And if one does, by some small chance, there is even less hope of sharing it.
Which begs the question: is truth all it’s cracked up to be? It’s useful because it can be proven. But, apart from practical fields like engineering, what is the value of proof? Consensus, for one. If something can be proven, then something can be objectively agreed upon.
So what about a case where something isn’t true, but there is still a wide consensus? Well, this is part of why democracy has its flaws. And it does have flaws.
For me, the answer to this conundrum lies in time. Over time, these things work themselves out. Over time, the right ways of doing things replace the wrong ways. Over time, people adopt effective practices over those that aren’t.
Eventually, the scenarios play out and the popular narratives are exposed for the fallacies they are. Eventually, reason wins because it’s rooted in facts. Eventually, humans progress. But it requires time. Sometimes a lot of it.
I just hope we have enough.
Before you go
I’ve set a goal to grow to 1,000 subscribers before the end of August. I’d really appreciate it if you helped me get there. Share or subscribe, it all helps.
Thank you for reading.
RM