Let's Close the Gaps in our Thinking

You can't judge whether or not conventional thinking is appropriate or new Ideas better, until you explore the reasons why certain actions are claimed to have particular results.

Often, I hear someone say that a government policy idea is “bad.” When I try to keep the conversation going, they either respond that this is something everyone knows, or that it’s complicated (meaning we aren’t going to get anywhere by discussing it).

If I ask them to explain why it’s bad, they are likely to answer “that’s socialism.” Since “socialism” is not a very clear idea for most people, it ends up with one really just saying again, “it’s bad.” And when asked why socialism is bad, a person is apt to come up with another synonym for “bad,” like it’s “big government” or “un-American.” Holding hands and going around in circles wasn’t much fun, as I recall, even in kindergarten.

There are two problems here. The first is our dependence on conventional thinking and the second is our belief that the issue is too complicated for people like us.

Both contribute to the fact that many conversations are ended by “it’s bad.

Conventional thinking does hold society together, but at the cost of holding society in place.  We all tend to stand in place, and consider ourselves safe, as long as the “sky” is falling on someone else. 

We need to have conversations with each other that don’t defer to “what serious people think.”

Conventional thinking shouldn’t make further discussion unnecessary. It is often just the danger of such conventional thinking that requires making the argument much clearer and more complete.

Tax policy (effects for the following reasons …) Inflation (which is …) and is bad (because it causes …).

That’s a serious discussion.

Or take the argument that weakening NATO --- leads to less American influence in the world --- which is bad because ---. Again major “gaps” to fill.

We need to take the job of citizenship seriously and realize that it takes time and attention and complete thoughts.

But now I hear the other objection. When we abandon conventional wisdom and think for ourselves, we are forced to choose between the complicated and the simple.

I used to say when teaching at Heidelberg that “simple” is not where we are going in this class. (Maybe I didn’t, but I wish I had.) H. L. Mencken famously said “for every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple and wrong.”

No, I agree that many serious issues are not simple and that we need to avoid that form of deception. But neither are they “complicated,” in the sense that they are “out of their league.” I often fear that people make things sound complicated so they can either sound like an authority or keep people out of the discussion.

It’s the central idea of democracy that citizens can understand and discuss important public issues. This is exactly what our forbearers, who didn’t have cell phones, and only got into town on weekends, talked about at the store, or over a drink, or after Church. It’s our birthright.

Simplicity and complication (confusion) are false directions. They are both ways in which people manipulate us.

There is an alternative to either introducing extraneous material to a discussion that makes it seem “complicated” or leaving out important considerations that makes it seem simple.

We can seek clarity. If the situation is complex, it can still be made clear. Not simple but understandable. As clear as possible. And it should stay complex.

We are able in really serious conversations to work together and work things out, a conversation where we help each other make things clear, so we can see “eye-to-eye.”

Then our disagreements, and disagree we may, will be based on differences that we can understand…and respect.