Article Content
To me, every proposition that would entail a commitment or impact of/to more than a few minutes, or a few cents, should be met with a single, simple question: "Why?"
That probably doesn't sound like a controversial statement. If you say that to anybody, unprovoked, most will say, "yeah, sure". To refute such a claim would be to insult your own autonomy.
But it is controversial. Very.
I'm a techie, so I like to put things into techy metaphors and analogies. You'll see that a lot on this blog. The "why", to me, is one of the bits of middleware that sits between an idea, and a decision. It's like the Nginx ingress controller of the brain. Or the Node/Express middleware module, if you will. The "idea bouncer" of the "being a successful and socially-adapted human" club.
What I'm trying to portray is that there are obviously processes your brain goes through to take an idea/thought/musing and turn it into a calculated decision, and resultant action. If there weren't, those intrusive thoughts you have about kicking your dog down the stairs would probably result in a lot of dead dogs, rather than a quiet, "crikey, why do I think of these things", under your breath.
The reason I prefer to liken this to a technical concept though, is that unlike the bouncer, who might decide with some (human) caprice that your mate Steve is unfit to pass because his grin is a little wobbly for someone below .15% BAC, a computer will protocolise the decision. The point therefore being that there is some mental training required to apply a "filter", consistently and automatically, to your thoughts. Humans aren't naturally very capable when "consistently" and "automatically" are both found within the same sentence, which is why as much as we might like to believe that we always ask "why", we don't.
"Why do you say that?", you might ask. Let's say you're about to cross a busy road. What do you do? You look both ways. But you don't consciously think about looking both ways. You don't ask yourself why you're looking both ways. And that's perfectly sensible — that's a crystallised piece of wisdom that you've abstracted away and take at face value because you (or someone else) has already done the fluid reasoning bits for you. And has maybe also been hit by a car.
But common sense isn't always good for you. For instance, during an earthquake, you might feel compelled to run out of the building you're in, out of a fear that it might collapse over your head. But that's usually not a good idea — that's often how you do get caught beneath falling masonry and power lines. Instead, it's better to stay inside, and take cover underneath a table or desk. Granted, if you live somewhere in which earthquakes are frequent, you may feel that "common sense" would be the latter. But that's because your mind has been trained. I live in the tectonically-cushy realm that is England — many would not be similarly inclined.
This is why I would go as far as to say that common sense is the antithesis of critical thinking.
Antithesis, not enemy, I'd emphasise. These cognitive facets can — and should — coexist peacefully and productively. But they often don't. Too much critical thinking, and you inefficiently — perhaps dangerously — neglect basic realities in your decision-making. I personally have a bit of a soft spot for these sorts of folks, since often it makes them a bit eccentric — but that doesn't make it a good thing. Too much common sense, and you fail — perhaps dangerously — to question convention, tradition, and authority. Were we never to think critically, we would never have progressed. And if we had never progressed, we would never have modern luxuries, or even safety — we wouldn't even have the most basic of agriculture.
Forgive my opinionation, but I do believe "overshooting" on common sense is to blame for much of the pushback we see today, and have seen throughout history. As an example, I often make a firm case for the viability of home/hybrid-working (something which I may write about in future). I'm more than happy to listen to (and have been known to agree with) well-reasoned arguments for working in an office, but an upsettingly common trend I see is one of, "but that's the way it's always been". Not just in this particular topic, but in many, where progress is suggested.
That's the way it's always been.
There are few phrases that frustrate me more.
That is the where common sense becomes not the antithesis of critical thinking, but the enemy.
And that is why your mental middleware matters.
Because it's not that people neglect to consider "why" — truly why — out of malice. We all fail to do it, all the time. If we always asked "why", we'd never get anything done. But in order for anything to change; in order for anything to progress — it's the most important habit you can have.
This post took me more than a few minutes. I sincerely hope someone, somewhere, sees beyond my idle musings and gives their inner Nginx/middleware/idea bouncer some recognition.
And that's why I'm posting this.