Sunday, 5 of February of 2012

A Prepared Mind — can reason

No Gravatar

ATTENTION! ATTENTION PLEASE!

Please excuse me while I get up on my metaphorical soapbox and have a short rant.

We are becoming intellectually lazy and losing our ability to reason!! 50% of American households buy a newspaper today while over 100% bought a newspaper in 1950! (Over 100% because we had morning and evening editions then.)

OK, I’m down from the soapbox and I have a question for you. Is the above conclusion a good conclusion? Or am I simply A CRABBY OLD MAN ranting about the “younger generation?”

Not sure? Here, try this one instead. “People who drink green tea show a lower incidence of heart disease. Therefore, drinking green tea reduces the risk of heart disease.”

OK, maybe I am a crabby old man, but both examples show bad reasoning.

In the first instance I used emotion (bold type and double exclamation points) and then gave you an unrelated fact to “back up” my statement. Hmmm, do you ever see that kind of “reasoning” coming from our politicians, or talk-show hosts? Maybe in the current healthcare “debate?” In the second example I gave you a conclusion based on a related fact – but a fact that only showed correlation, not a cause.

If you want to be prepared for the future you have to reason well and good reasoning requires that we challenge the “facts” and assumptions that underlie our thinking. Good reasoning is informed through ongoing learning; and new data comes through the skill of observing. Finally, we test our reasoning and the results of our decisions when we reflect.

But let’s get back to the rant of intellectual laziness. (I like ranting, it comes with age.) Good thinking requires that we use evidence to support our conclusions. So here is my Prepared Mind question of the day: Where do you get your evidence for the decisions and actions that guide you and your daily life? Do you take the time to educate your thinking process? Are you willing to plow though a fifteen page article in Atlantic Monthly magazine or do you pick-up your “factoids” from USA Today? By the way, newspaper readership is down significantly, so where are we getting “the news.” And, for that matter, how much of the news on TV or the web or radio is really important news?

Reasoning is hard work and it takes time; so, sometimes, we get a bit lazy and let others do our reasoning for us. Or, we let opinions substitute for reasoning. And, more often than not, we form our opinions based on “received knowledge.” That is, we let others tell us what to think. We see this all the time in people who are devoted to a political or religious ideology. (Does Rush Limbaugh or (now Senator) Al Franken do your thinking for you?) When this happens we fall into the traps of never looking for disconfirming information or not considering other points of view.

Going back to my opening rant, I really do believe that we are becoming intellectually lazy. And I mean ALL of us, not just the younger generation. That’s my opinion and I’m sticking to it. Now it’s your job to prove me wrong. You can give me your opinion (which I’ll ignore because it does not support my opinion.) Or you can reason with me. It’s your choice.

Come on – REASON with me!!!!!


Leave a Comment

  • CommentLuv badge

Comments RSS TrackBack 5 comments

Brad ShorrNo Gravatar

in August 5th, 2009 @ 06:42

HI Bill, I’ll take up a contrary point of view and see if it helps the reasoning process at all. Although it would seem that sound bite media, TV, video games, et al., diminish our capacity for sustained rational thought, could it be that things are not really so different today? The Roman citizens wanted bread and circuses. In medieval times, can you picture serfs sitting at table with a drumstick in one hand and pointing out the logical flaws of Aquinas with the other? Today, the average person does seem woefully uninformed and more disturbingly, unconcerned about it. Yet, I’m not sure things were any different if I look back 10 or 20 years. On the other hand, a difference I do see clearly today is greater specialization. College students have a choice among literally thousands of majors. There are more job categories today than styles of running shoes. If scientists used to split hairs, today they split subatomic particles. The generalist, the Renaissance Man (let’s make that Renaissance Person), the jack of all trades – these are all on the way out. So I wonder if all this deep knowledge people are acquiring is actually a sign of deeper, rather than shallower, reasoning. Are we at a point where dabbling in rational thought is no longer an option?
.-= Brad Shorr´s last blog ..Content Optimization Checklist for Human Readers and SEO =-.


Bill WelterNo Gravatar

in August 5th, 2009 @ 07:34

Brad,
Great observation and challenge — it seems you have a knack for making me think from a different point of view. But here’s a contary observation (without goin gback to the serfs). Think back to the “game shows” from the 1950s (or read about it in books if your memory doesn’t go back that far.) I recall the 64 Thousand Dollar Question show as being prime time and popular. The questions asked dealt with history, art, geography, etc. — AND it held the audience’s attention. Now think about today’s prime time audience and “reality” TV. See a difference?
Bill


Fred H SchlegelNo Gravatar

in August 5th, 2009 @ 09:27

Hi Bill, As a species I think we are wired to make quick, intuitive decisions. This worked well in cave man days (Bear jumped at me from bush, Avoid all bushes). As decisions become more complex and we are dealing with more information this tendency is still in force to see patterns and apply causality. (Causality vs Correlation problems) I don’t know if we are worse today than before, but we certainly do have more examples of correlation being presented to us than ever before. Which could very well exhaust our ability to think clearly or at least exhaust our attention span. I wonder if one could harness the desire for quick intuitive leaps by breaking issues down that you are looking at according to personal importance. Things that are critical and have high personal importance get forced into a more scientific, rational thought mode while others are allowed to slip by — (knock on wood :) )
.-= Fred H Schlegel´s last blog ..Are You A Business Uncertainty Explorer? =-.


Brad ShorrNo Gravatar

in August 6th, 2009 @ 07:55

Bill, You have a good point about the game shows – I can remember relatively cerebral and popular shows, like Concentration. But let me continue with my contrarian position and make a few observations.

1. Jeopardy! remains popular and is certainly no cakewalk.

2. Could it be that shows in the early days of TV catered to an elite audience, as TVs were an expensive novelty item? Would early TV programming have been different were there TVs in every household?

3. Those early days – the 60s, anyway – also gave us such programs as The Newlywed Game, The Price Is Right, and The Dating Game. I don’t recall any rocket scientists participating. :)

Fred’s point about our preference for quick decision making rings true, which makes you wonder if following our instincts is always such a good idea. Do we need to fight our instincts on this one? For instance … as parents, if we ban TV from the household, are we helping our children by developing keen reasoning skills, or hurting them by making them complete social oddballs?

I don’t have a whole lot of answers, but these are certainly questions we grapple with daily.
.-= Brad Shorr´s last blog ..8 Things I Learned about Sales from the Plant World =-.


Bill WelterNo Gravatar

in August 6th, 2009 @ 10:00

Fred,
Quick, intuitive decisions are most certainly needed and we should “triage” the situations we come across. My concern is when people confuse intuition with opinion.

Brad,
You’re right — not all of the old shows required great thinking ability and the gap between today and the “smart old days” is probably not as great as I made it out to be. That said, I look at our Congress and wish a bit more critical thinking was taking place. I see lots of ideology and posturing and not enough real debate.