I like the idea of being an independent thinker, a free agent in the world of ideas. I want to be the kind of person who figures out things, finds other people who figure out things, and discovers what kind of consensus that brings. From there we can (if we chose) work together to improve our understanding of the world and our place in it, to take on tasks that better the quality of life for ourselves and the generations to follow.
But I realize it is mostly illusion. We can be independent thinkers to a degree, but that latitude is restricted by things we barely understand. Our individual thoughts ride on our personal and corporate history, are framed by the society in which we live, are largely passed onto us by our parents, and are deeply influenced by anyone we consider to be smarter or better informed that we are ourselves. It also seems likely that much of what we think we are thinking rides on a subconscious mind, that many of our decisions are made at a level deeper than we know and are passed to our conscious selves only after the fact. We may be "just along for the ride" in ways we can't possibly imagine.
So one should approach independent thinking with a large dollop of humility. Even best efforts are likely akin to a child's first attempt at the stairs. Recognizing our limits is a necessary part of the task.
We should also admit that it is likely many people don't care for independent thinking, particularly those who consider themselves in positions of leadership. Not just government types (though they are certainly guilty) but business owners (particularly small business owners), religious leaders (that one is kind of obvious), husbands (at least in a good portion of the world including a big chunk of our society), fathers (ditto) and mothers. We all start out as completely dependent children. Gaining even a little independence is not always easy or natural, and many don't care for the responsibility. Independent thinking is not valued by all, perhaps not by most, and maybe only by the few.
In our consumer driven society advertisers are among those who have no interest in independent thinking. This might seem a minor thing but the advertisers pay for virtually everything on the airwaves, be it TV, radio, or satellite. Most of the input we get on any give day is driven by people who are absolutely dead set against you and I thinking for ourselves. They want to do our thinking for us and, we would be wise to admit, they are very good at making that happen. They are so good at it that, even when we know what they are doing, we can't fend them off completely. Look around the house. How much of that stuff, that brand, that size, did you really set out to buy?
Since advertisers are in the business of maximizing profits for themselves and their clients, they are quite willing to sell their expertize to political and religious power. At some level we all know that our political system has been utterly corrupted by advertising dollars. (You can call the providers of those dollars "special interests" and the dollars "bribes" and be pretty close to the truth.) Campaigns are nothing but political ads...think about what that really means. Our political system is now run on the exact same principles used to sell bubble-gum; and for the exact same reason...to make someone rich. America in particular sees the same kind of thing in religion. We call them "mega-churches", the leaders of which are usually living very, very well indeed. Do those who put money in the plates think they are buying the preacher a mansion and a jet? Or does someone have them thinking they are serving the kingdom of god?
Ouch. Against that unrelenting bedlam independent thinking is a tall order. The first step is to turn it off, literally. Flip the switch. We don't have commercial TV in our house. We don't really have a radio either. It is a good way to live, particularly in an election year. When I do run across a political add playing on a TV in a lobby or bar somewhere, it comes near to making me physically ill. It will also, almost certainly, offend me deeply. I will admit the same of TV preachers though, sitting on golden thrones or grimacing over some carefully worded prayer, their huckstery is a bit more blatant and thus often slightly amusing.
We do watch some movies. Music we get from an Internet station that lets us program the kinds of music we want. It isn't always free, but I will pay a modest fee to avoid those trying to do my thinking for me.
Hitting the "OFF" switch is the easy part. Being informed without being misinformed is a real challenge. Mass media sources are always suspect. (Remember, they live and die first and foremost on advertising.) The Internet is a true revolution in the free flow of information, but it is also nothing short of the wild, wild, west. Any nutcase can put anything up on the web and yes, I love the irony of posting that on a blog. Still, winnowing out the bat-shit crazy isn't that hard. Evolution works against the easily suckered and we are all descendants of those wise enough not to follow the mad-man off the cliff.
Admittedly using caution, we really should look to an expert for accurate information. For some reason we listen to actors when it comes to vaccinations for our children, athletes for guidance on pleasing a god, religious leaders for astrophysics and biology, scientists for political policy, and politicians for history. We should also remember that the talking heads on TV are chosen mostly for their looks and those on the radio for how they sound. For the most part they really have no clue about what they are saying; more good reasons for turning them off. To be an independent thinker is to look things up, read about them, balance the facts, contemplate the relationships, and draw considered conclusions.
Maybe we should devalue "opinion" a little. Most of us wouldn't bet our lives on an opinion even when it is our own. When it comes to making decisions we work pretty hard on understanding the facts of the matter to the best our our ability, and we expect the same from others. Imagine being on an airplane with the pilot making the following announcement,
"Welcome aboard Flight 292 to Detroit. I was in Detroit yesterday and the weather was okay, it should be good today as well. The last crew told me this airplane had an engine problem on the flight in. My copilot looked at it during his pre-flight. He isn't a mechanic but didn't see any oil leaking out or big parts missing. He is sure it will be fine. The fueler pumped some gas in the tanks and thinks we have enough. The dispatcher told me we have some really heavy cargo in the hold, a bunch of people on board, tonnes of baggage, but he believes we are below the max take-off weight of the airplane. We have a long runway for departure, I suspect the ice and snow you see on the wings will blow off before we reach flying speed. In my opinion you should enjoy the flight."
An opinion you would probably not appreciate. Yet listen close the next time you have a 24 hour news station playing in your face. Don't they sound a bit like our imagined pilot? Though, in the case of the TV news, they are crying out,
"You are all going to die!" (They sell more bubble-gum that way.)
Opinions do have value. Sharing them can help us balance out the facts and fit our thoughts into context with those of others. But the usefulness of opinions is severely limited and some are, it must be admitted, completely useless and often destructive. Opinions need to be offered carefully by those who hold them, handled gingerly by those who hear them, and discarded easily by all concerned.
For me one of the most difficult pieces of independent thinking is to not dismiss facts as some one's opinion. This is particularly difficult when the person sharing a fact is someone whose ideas I usually find unsavory. I am not a religious person but religious faith helps many a person live their life. I can't just dismiss that as an opinion. That their faith has had a real impact on their life is a fact I must accept. That I can understand that impact as real faith in a god that isn't real, is a fact I wish they would accept.
Another difficulty comes in balancing morality with thinking and coming to conclusions. There is a movement in our country to re-evaluate slavery, to teach it as something that must be understood in the context of history. So far so good. Several of those who founded the US of A were both slave owners and the very cutting edge of society's progressive thinkers. To dismiss their contributions to moving human kind forward because they owned slaves would be hubris. We didn't live when they lived. To accept slavery as a moral human condition because of their efforts in ending political tyranny would be evil. Those who insist that we do either one are trying to do our thinking for us.
Key to being an independent thinker is allowing others to be independent as well. Only the self-deluded or psychotic deny facts easily verified, but even when facts are accepted as is, conclusion will often vary. Ideas of how to make things work better will vary as well. Tolerance becomes an integral part of valuing independent thinking, particularly when we all remember that we are still pretty new at this.
Even at that it seems likely that independent thinkers will agree more than disagree. Seeking to face the sun the sighted will turn to the light and the blind to the warmth. If we are not trying to force an agenda on anyone else, and if we don't accept the dictates of those who are trying to force an agenda on us, it wouldn't seem odd that most of us end up facing roughly the same way.
No comments:
Post a Comment