Sometimes I wonder…
Is there a limit to how systematic we were ever meant to be in our thinking?
I have been taught so well not to take things at face value
That now nothing can be taken at face value.
There are no instincts, no internal judgements, no “doing it because you want to”
because “why do you want to?” and do you really want to? and will it always be what you want? and should that matter?
Anyway—
Critical, scientific thinking is now a large focus of our education. You need to ask yourself, when you survey information, where did it come from? How does it fit into everything else I know? Are there circumstances under which it is likely to be contradicted? Is it applicable? Is there bias?
Is it possible to think too critically of other people? One doesn’t want to be overly critical. But,
then again,
Maybe they’re saying that because they want to be polite (vested interest) or because they want something from you (personal interest) or because they think it’s what you want to hear (interesting possibility). Maybe they’re wrong (random error) about what the reality is (random error) or what it is you want (random error) or what it is they want (random error), or wrong about all of it because they were lied to (systemic error—sabotage?). Maybe they really plan to do it or really believe that’s what will happen but that doesn’t mean it will (fallibility of scientific predictions). Maybe that’s just their personal take (bias) or what makes sense based on their experience (anecdotal evidence). Maybe they’re stupid—genetic error?
Anyway—
Statistics are important. It’s beneficial for us, especially in medical or political contexts, to understand whether a sample properly represents the whole population and whether a change in sample is likely to affect the experimental results and whether the effects that were studied effected change in the experimental results and were those changes correlated or caused. But just once, it would be nice to read an inspiring story
without wondering
how many people were there in a similar situation who got a wildly different result? Or is he the only one that ever tried this? And if he is, does that mean anyone who tries it can do it? Or is there something about this person that makes them likely-to-get-into-that-situation that also makes them likely-to-get-that-result? And if there is, is that a something he was born with? Or a talent that can be acquired? Or,
was it all largely based on luck? Are people often that lucky? Was it a self-fulfilling prophecy and can the prophecy be fulfilled by anyone willing to speak it? Does the emotional backstory presented first to set the sympathetic mood actually have anything to do with the inspiring events presented later? Does the result actually indicate what they’re implying? How did it affect them after the end of the episode—if we could go back and write a “10 Years Later,” would it still be so inspiring?
On another note,
You do sometimes need to question your own motives. You might make a choice in the emotional heat of the moment that is at odds with your true feelings for the person—or for a different person, who you ought to be keeping in mind. Maybe at face value it’s convenient for everyone, but at brain value it’s convenient for you, and it’s not your turn to be selfish. Maybe the important thing here is what you’ll want later, even though you’d rather go with the thing you want right now. Maybe you aren’t even considering what you want. After all, the heart is deceitful above all things. But,
if your heart is deceiving you,
should you ignore what it says? Or deliberately do the opposite, countering it like an enemy agent, because it’s telling lies? And is it deceiving you about what you want right now or about what you’ll want later? Or both? What if the two are contradictory and it can’t possibly be wrong about both? Is it what you want because you really want it? Or because you want the prestige? Or you think you’re supposed to want it? Do you really want the day-to-day of it? Or just the reward? And if you knew you really wanted it,
will you want it forever? Or do you only want it right now because you had a bad night, or a bad fight, or a bad lunch? And do you want it enough for the cost to be worth it? And is it wrong to want it? Are you being selfish? Is it ever possible not to be selfish? Is everything you want actually a bad idea?
Moving on—
Sometimes, especially in external contexts, such as relate to history, chemistry, politics, etc., the matter at hand is more one of factors to consider than questions to be asked. You may have read one thing here that suggests some result, which, based on what you read there, suggests a second result, which, according to what you’re reading now, may be the same as the first result. Scholars have competing theories. The study by Mayo suggested the study by Cleveland was only valid under unusual circumstances. “Pundits unsure if Cleveland Browns cursed by management or by God.”
Sometimes there’s a moment where you’ve asked me a question like “[who, what, why, where] does [subject] and [further clauses]?” and I go speechless and you think I’ve short-circuited or you’ve offended me or I don’t understand but really I’m caught in a looping program with no exit command because I have to ask myself—
Was it due to geography? Except if so, you’d expect it to have happened more than once. Contemporary sources suggest vitriol, though modern sources class him as a forward thinker, and artistic sources suggest he was a product of the times. Is there ever a good reason to drink baking soda? Perhaps they’d planned for (A), then (B) occurred, so they resorted to (C), although (D) is a possibility, and therefore also (E), (F), (G), …., (X), (Y), (Z), (A), (B)--
exit();
and when I’ve shaken it off and you’re still standing there, I could try and list all of that, but the better answer is probably just to say “I don’t know.”
Sorry about that.
Rationality is to some extent what has driven our transition into the modern world. The Age of Reason, etc. We trust what we observe frequently more than what we’ve observed once. But we don’t count out what we’ve observed once. We are fair to all parties. Authority is not the final arbiter of truth. The age of rationality is what has brought us to such a prosperous position that one may abandon the profession of his forefathers and take up something new. Such abundance of resources has brought us boldness, freedom of choice and creative expression. To be a poet without royal patronage. Rationality is what makes it possible for the peasant to follow his passion and become a chocolatier. But if we’re going to be rational,
don’t we have to remember that
a chocolatier may not remain an in-demand position? Even if not, perhaps there will be always at least one chocolatier. But if so, will that one be you? Can you ensure that it is you through hard work? Or will that be decided by luck? or nepotism? If it can be you, do you deserve for it to be? If only one of us can follow our passions, should it not be someone else? If the last chocolatier is not to be you, are those skills translatable?
Prior to the collapse of the chocolate industry, what was your plan to achieve expertise? Did you really believe you were the one to become a grand master? You’ve read a lot of stories of those who worked for fifteen years and finally conquered the chocolatey challenge, but how many more attempted it and failed, remaining chocolate apprentices, their stories never written down? Or maybe there aren’t that many. Or maybe there are that many, but there was some distinguishing factor between those who succeeded and those who didn’t—ambition, support, education, time. But is it possible for you to tell which type you are? Can you make yourself the first type by wanting it badly enough? Maybe it all came down to charisma. Are you charismatic? And if not,
Is it bad to become a chocolate apprentice when you could have been a master in Soups? What if you end up becoming a burden on someone else? Is it moral to risk their interests as well as your own? Is it embarrassing? What if you’ve already sunk resources into something else? Should you try to be Soup master instead? Can you be a Soup master if you don’t want to? Is it possible to make yourself want to? How long is it rational to try? How do you measure your success in soup?
… … … …
[thought-terminating cliché].
Maybe chocolate was just a passing fancy, anyway.
But if not for the handy cliché, would that loop have lasted forever? And that’s what I’m wondering—
Is there a level of rationality which we were never meant to attain? Far be it from me to recommend impulsivity, but can the human brain handle that amount of systematic processing interfering with decisions? Or is human emotion the weakness? Can the brain and the emotion be separated by an act of will? “Question everything,” they say—is it possible to question everything? Is that what will keep you from an untimely death? Or will you kill yourself in trying? Is that the final act of human hubris, the new Tower of Babel, to try to process away mistakes by systematic thinking? Do statistics discount the power of human ambition?
But let’s not start that again.
So when you ask me,
“Why did the industry collapse?” or
“Which team do you think will win?” or
“What do you want for breakfast?”
I’d just like to say,
“Listen, my guy… I’ll tell you as soon as I know.”
Tell me what you hate about the article! --PB