Why To Think

Not, "What to think."

Art by Cedar Sanderson

Critical thinking is the primary defence against all sorts of unpleasantness. As an amateur student of history I am well aware that dissuasion of critical thinking is the first step on the path to fanaticism, and then onto horrors that garner their own chapters in history books.

This is why I reacted with such revulsion when the Legacy Media decided to chide Americans for thinking critically during the Recent Unpleasantness:

It took me almost two hours of searching on four different search engines to find this image, by the way.

While I am concerned about the Legacy Media’s on-going attempts to re-make Society as Our Betters Would Wish (Not a new phenomenon, by the by, that sort of bushwa has been going on since the second day the first newsreader stepped up on a podium in the market square), I am rather more concerned by the fact that the latest generation not only doesn’t want to think critically, the ones I’ve come across actively dislike the very idea of Critical Thinking and debate.

Thanks — I suspect — to social media, the kids seem to believe that the way to win a debate is not through facts, but through emotion: that the winner of a debate or discussion is the one who is the most passionate about the subject at hand — the side that can scream the loudest, tug the most heartstrings, misbehave the most egregiously in the service of said subject.

And while I do lay the majority of the blame for this attitude at the feet of social media, I would be remiss if I didn’t note that putative leaders engage in the very same “emotions over facts” — to some version of success — thus perpetuating the idea in young minds that This Is The Way.

If you don’t believe me, take a look at the political sphere when something doesn’t go one political party’s way. When was the last time you saw a politician of any bent step up to the podium and give a reasoned, dispassionate argument for why something should have happened?

Now think of all the times that you saw a politician get up on a microphone and give a spittle-flecked diatribe declaiming the evils of everyone who might have Had Thoughts counter to the issue at hand.

This is a terrible example for young people to soak up everyday. This is a terrible thing to do to the social fabric as a whole.

“Ian,” I hear you ask, “But what is the answer?”

Don’t get me wrong: Passion and emotion kind of make the world go ‘round, but important decisions made at the height of passion, or in the heat of emotions tend to be … suboptimal in the historical long run.

What is the balance between passion and logic? I don’t know. I really don’t, but we’ve got to start showing the upcoming generations how to think critically, and how to debate civilly, or we’re going to wind up all crammed into the basket.

Personally, I’m a big fan of every time a politician uses a Logical Fallacy in a speech it triggers a button that opens the kennel of a retired military K9, and Fido gets to indulge in a little Corrective Savaging of the politician.

But I tend to be a bit of a Neandertal.

Ian