Whan You Can't Think

Most of us have experienced times when the action was too fast to take time to think. The child running out from between two cars right into the path of our vehicle, or the command from a sergeant (or chief petty officer) that required an instant response, or the insult hurled at us by someone. Oh, wait. That insult. Better take time to think before responding.

In fact, thinking ahead is is required. Not many driving instructors work with their students on planning for an emergency. My flight instructor did. He used to reach up and turn the engine off, maybe throwing the stick forward or sideways at the same time and lean back to see what I would do. He helped me plan for emergencies as did my father when I was learning to drive. Think ahead and train -- it helps when you don't have time to think.

That's why soldiers, marines, sailors and others in the military are trained and trained and trained. When the fecal matter hits the air mover someone has thought ahead and helped them respond the best possible way.

In the '60's and 70's we were taught to not think ahead. Just be in the moment. There is a place for that. But thinking based on data, thinking ahead based on data, is more useful most of the time.

What do you think?

Feeling and Thinking -- a short slideshow

Thinking Well And Feeling Strongly

I consider myself duly warned.  Thinking is not enough, I’m told.  You have to feel.  In fact, feeling motivates more action than does thinking.

I agree with the last sentence.  It’s a damned shame, but it’s true.  For me as for most human animals.  I suspect that it is also true that feeling negatively (hating, condemning, being angry, and the like) is easier than feeling positively (approving, enjoying, and feeling happy, for instance).  If a speaker can get me to hate someone or something (pretty easy to do unless I THINK carefully) that speaker can turn me into an “againster”.  I will be against whatever I might otherwise approve of, approve part of.  And, being in a negative emotional state, I will fail to think.  

Oh, darn.  Failing to think means I will probably act unwisely and support (or fail to support) foolishly. 

Purpose

Unless you expect a response, why would you speak?
Unless you expect a response, why would you give a speech?
Unless you expect a response, why would you write?
Unless you expect a response, why would you email?
Unless you expect a response, why would you communicate in any way?

Garry Trudeau and Data

On Sunday, Feb. 13, the Doonebury comic noted the following:

• on 9/11 3,000 people died in an attack
• the US started two long, bloody ward
• the US built a vast homeland security apparatus
• all cost in the trillions
• during that nine years 270,000 Americans were killed by gunfire at home
• we responded by weakening our gun laws

What does a person do with that kind of data?

Does the data speak for itself?

Is there other data that needs to be examined and included?

Mr. Trudeau did not make note of the curtailing of civil rights, of due process and other freedoms previous generations fought and died for.

Mr. Trudeau did not draw any conclusions except that an alien from another planet might not comprehend.

Editorial Thinking

Paul Krugman wrote an editorial that was in The Denver Post yesterday inside the Business section.  He entitled it, GOP gapes longingly at 1850s.  As a one-time Republican (now unaffiliated) I found it scary.  The thinking it reveals is worthy of analysis, of course. 
First, we remember it is an editorial.  An opinion piece.  Not careful research.  He is making points, and it behooves the reader (as with all commentary) to do as much research of the data as possible.  It doesn't matter who the author of an opinion piece is, including anything I write, the reader is responsible for researching the data for herself or himself.  Except in an election, nobody's opinion really matters very much.
Second, we explore the thinking he reports.  He notes that the modern-day Republican party does not choose to be the party of Lincoln who was the first president to introduce the income tax, who freed the slaves (mostly black) and who issued paper money.  It seems the conservative wing of the Republican party wants to be more conservative than most -- they want to go back before the time of President Lincoln. 
Again, thinking about that suggests that maybe electricity, indoor plumbing and women's rights (and participation in politics and business) should all be revisited and done away with. 
Think.  Think carefully about the good old days.  One of my friends, then an older person, said, "The good thing about the good old days is that they are gone!"  What do you think?

What Do We Use Thinking For?

"The purpose of thinking, paradoxically, is to arrive at a state where thinking is no more necessary at all. In other words, thinking starts with a problem and ends in a solution."  So writes Ajan Raghunathan.  In other words, good thinking could lead a thinker to relax and not have to think.

I believe there could be other reasons.  The person who climbs a mountain may climb it to see what is on the other side.  When she has seen it, that's enough.  No more mountain climbing for her. 

But here in Colorado thousands of people climb mountains because they enjoy all or some part of mountain climbing.  They don't stop once they have achieved.  Some climb the same mountain different ways, again and again. 

Thinking can be like that, too.  Once a person has thought through an issue, or solved a puzzle, he or she might want to approach it from a different angle.  Or from the same angle with different assumptions.  Thinking might be to help us think!  Wouldn't that be a hoot?

Deliberate Thinking

When during the day, or during the week, do you deliberately think?  That is, you tackle a subject, you work to put things together in a sequence, you use your brain to solve a problem?  Do you do it "as needed" or do you set a time aside for deliberate thinking?  Perhaps you don't even know what you will think about, but you do know that you will think.

Many of us have jobs or projects that require a lot of thinking.  We don't set aside a time for deliberate thinking, but only think to plan out the next step of our job or project.  I wonder if that is enough. 

I wonder if we would use our minds better if we had a set time to think.  To stretch our thinking capacity.  To wonder and work out the implications of what we wonder. 

I believe it would require turning the TV off (for awhile), setting the book aside, withdrawing from conversation, and possible being alone.  I'm not sure.  What do you think?

When Should We Let Other People Think For Us?

My initial response (reaction?) to this question is, "Never!!"  I want to do my own thinking, thank you  very much.  I believe I am pretty good at it.  But. . .

The wealth of data that human persons know, or have collected, is simply too rich.  Eric Schmidt said, at the Techonomy conference in Lake Tahoe, CA that 'Every two days now we create as much information as we did from the dawn of civilization up until  2003, according to Schmidt. That’s something like five exabytes of data, he says.'
I'm fairly smart.  You are fairly smart.  But that is simply too much data to absorb, correlate, and draw conclusions from.  So what thinking people tend to do is to specialize.  Jane might specialize in Information Technology, Brianna might specialize in internal medicine, and Ahmed might specialize in military history.  

But wait! as they say in infomercials.  Even in a specialty such as Information Technology one human brain cannot know it all.  Cannot know all the data, and cannot correlate even what it knows fast enough.  When I was an active IT professional I read 400 pages or more per week, and even then had to stay within a small slice of the field.  I stayed roughly within the slice that affected my professional duties.  Even with that limitation I believe I missed great hunks of information that could have helped me and my employers.
By reading extensively, attending a few conferences, what I was doing was paring down the input into what could be absorbed and relying on the thoughts and experiences of others.  Yes, I let others think for me.
I did, however, test their conclusions if something seemed to apply to our situation.  That's when thinking for myself kicked in. 

Was it enough?  No. 

I then passed it by various "stakeholders" in the employing for their thinking.  Well, not everybody actually thought.  There were knee-jerk reactions.  Prejudices played a part.  It was up to me to filter the responses as well as ask others to filter mine.  Eventually we made decisions that had some thought behind them.
Yes, others helped think for me.  I am not immune to knee-jerk reactions or prejudice or emotional dismissal of data.  No person is, in my experience.
We need others to help us think, and to help us think well.