Yeah, the title sounds a bit complicated but it’s not. The premise is simple: People are capable of simple logic, but whenever it comes to the leap level of complication concerning logic, most people tend to fail, leaving most issues bogged down in simplistic thinking, and stupid generalizations. Think about it. How many times have you heard the start of a great argument on a subject you already know a lot about through daily exposure, like something new on immigration, but then before that new perspective can be explored, the argument gets bogged down in the old arguments with no attempt to look at the issue from the new direction? I know it happens to me all of the time. Years ago, I was watching a debate take place between two really good university debate teams from the USA and Ireland. The issue just so happened to be about immigration, and the US team looked like they were going to win by default alone (I mean, who knows more about immigration in the US than people from the US?), but then out of nowhere, the Irish team took a completely different perspective and pretty much wiped out the US team by analyzing the subject from a contributive perspective (how much immigration actually improves the economy rather than bogs it down), and it was obvious that the US team had never even considered such possibilities. In the end, after the debate (there was no real “they won” narrative after it as it was a friendly debate), one American student who was watching said: “Yeah, they had a good argument, but immigration is still bad. It takes away our jobs.”
Yes, a long story to get to the point that sometimes people just aren’t capable of handling a higher level construction of a conversation. In the end, people tend to bring things back to what they already know, so that newer breakthroughs of knowledge of rare, and quite unlikely to be achieved.
But let’s look at it from the simple method of probability. In the very beginning of the study of math, once you got past algebra. Um, we did all get past algebra, right? I hope so because there’s going to be a quiz after. Make sure you get out a pencil and some scratch paper….
Say you have a coin and decide to flip it. What are the possible outcomes? Heads or tails, right? So your probability is 50/50, or you have a 50 percent chance of achieving a head or tail on the flip of the coin. That’s pretty simple. The next step in cognitive probabilities is to use two coins. What are the outcomes with two coins, and what is the percentage chance of getting a heads twice?
The math: 1/2 x 1/2 = 1/4. Basically, the formula is pretty simple. You use the original probability of 1/2 and then factor it by whatever number of coin throws you intend to do. So, 3 coins would be 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 = 1/8. But here’s where it falls apart. If you know that your odds of getting 3 heads in a row are 1/8, and you throw the first two coins and get a head, what is the chance of getting a heads on the third throw? The mathematician will say 1/2, because that would be right, but depending upon someone’s faith, belief in karma, desire for justice and whatever, that last prediction can be quite interesting. If you went by math, you’d know your answer. But I tried an experiment where I told people I was flipping a coin, and asked them what were the odds I’d get a heads. Most answered 50 percent. But then I said that I had flipped that coin twice alredy and got a heads each time. So I asked them what was the percentage chance of a heads on the “third” try. Surprisingly, quite a few of them thought about it a bit and while some of them said 50 percent, there were a few who said that it was “bound to happen” that I’d end up with a tails on the third try, so they answered with different statistics and guesses. It was almost as if there was a belief that the next throw of the coin would end with a result that was necessary rather than logical.
It is this thinking that I am referring to today when I talk about second level analysis. Most people are capable of thinking of that first coin toss, but after the logic wears off, these same people start to think with other motivations, specifically faith and belief. I’m not talking about religion here, although it can go that way, but an inate tendency to push towards a sense of justice in the universe, so that if logic dictates a coin has a 50 percent chance of going on way or another, eventually it has to correct itself if it has been drawing too many heads. There is no logic to this, but there are people who believe this because it just seems like it SHOULD be that way. This isn’t belief in a higher being but in the basics of probabilities that people tend to believe right themselves after time.
Now, let’s bring this back to arguments of a higher level. Because people believe in these intrinsic values of logic, it becomes that much harder to argue towards a philosophical understanding of complex issues. The more math involved in the decision-making, and quite often logic involves a geometric processing of common sense (using proofs and situational constructs), the less likely someone is going to be willnig to change ones original foundation of thinking. I’ll demonstrate using a common argument that comes up in pretty much any nation, the burning of the country’s flag.
There are those who believe that it is sacrilegious to burn the flag, that is means complete disrespect for one’s country. Yet, at one point during the protests of the Gulf War, a group of former combat veterans burned the US flag to point out that they were part of a country so free that it could burn its own flag. This caused all sorts of right-wing commentators to condemn these veterans as traitors to the country, being completely incapable of seeing that there was a higher level argument being made here. In the end, very few people changed their minds over the issue. Today, if someone talks about burning a flag, there’s a good chance that person is going to be considered an enigma to the country, and in some cases there has been talk of charging such persons with a crime. The enlightened protests of such veterans meant little when it came to discerning higher level analysis over complex issues.
Which brings me to a couple of comments that I think are important to make. If most people are not capable of handling higher level analysis, we are in a bit of trouble when it comes to solving a lot of current problems, including the current economic state of affairs in the world. The solutions to our economic problems require higher level analysis and complex solutions, but unfortunately, the people who put forth such ideas are limited to having to explain such processes to people who are easily influenced by tactical politicians who are interested in immediate goals, not long term stabilization and growth. So, until people actually start explaining complex issues in a way that most people can understand, WITH THE NECESSARY PATIENCE, we’re going to have serious problems in the future, unless we can come up with simple answers to very complex problems.