September 1951 — Vol. 32, No. 9 —
On Straight
Thinking
Download
PDF version
Life is full of irritations. Some of them
are little things, like a bad—tasting cigarette or a
crowd blocking a doorway. Others, like misunderstanding one
another and not being able to explain ourselves clearly, are
more serious and take greater toll of our good nature. Our
tension mounts, our humour subsides, and first thing we know
we are smothered under a pile of incidents which, perhaps
unimportant in themselves, have the power to destroy our enjoyment
of life.
Thinking about our personality and social problems will
not by itself rid us of our worries and fears, but thinking
straight about problems, hopes and plans will make
us surer of ourselves, increase our confidence, and thereby
reduce both worry and fear.
Straight thinking doesn't depend entirely upon logic or
anything like that, but it does demand that we take time to
think. We don't want too much stopping to think, of course.
That would denude us of ideas, vitality, and individuality.
We need the golden mean between too much concentration on
thought and too little thinking about things.
There are fallacies in thinking of which we must beware.
It is not always the truth of basic ideas that counts toward
accuracy; we must also take into account the way they are
put together. If we say "The moon is made of green cheese"
we are dealing with two realities - the moon and green cheese
- but we put them together falsely, and our judgment is wrong.
Logic is the science given over to describing forms of thought
which we need to use if we are to reason validly. It is not
a difficult subject, but the words and names it employs are
likely to frighten people away.
The Principles of Thinking
There are two ways of making a decision. We may make observations,
weigh the possibilities, and decide what to do or say. That
is the rational way. Or we may decide without conscious thinking,
as we so often do about the little things in life.
We should be in a continual turmoil if we had to think consciously
and by rule about every little thing we did during the day.
It would be harrowing, we should lose a great deal of our
spontaneity, it would become harder and harder to accomplish
anything, and we should be continually getting lost in byways.
The person who is indecisive about little things is like puss
chasing her tail, the centre of a complex drama but not getting
anywhere.
Thinking is not easy. Some of us imagine that we are thinking
when we are only sitting at ease watching a memory movie.
Reverie can be deceptive. We may sit down to ponder a problem,
and with a corner of one eye on a corner of the truth we may
spend an hour wandering without profit amid things that interest
us but are not important to the question at hand.
Logic
Logic is a study that extends over a lifetime. Indeed, what
we have today of logical reasoning is the outcome of many
lifetimes devoted to study, but all that we ordinary people
- business men, teachers, club workers, members of societies,
and everyone who is in daily contact with others - all we
need is to know and apply a few elementary rules.
Here are four principles for testing our thinking:
(1) The principle of Identity. Everything is what
it is (therefore, you say to yourself or to your argumentative
friend, it is no good raising a quibble on this score.)
(2) The principle of Contradiction. Contradictory
judgments cannot both be true (so you do not entertain the
thought or try to put across the idea that something can both
be and not be.)
(3) The principle of Excluded middle. Everything
must either be or not be: it is impossible to mention anything
together with a quality or circumstance without allowing that
the quality or circumstance either belongs to the thing or
does not. Your answer must be "Yes" or "No". (This is a rule
that will keep us from trying to ride two horses in different
directions at the same time.)
(4) The principle of Sufficient Reason. There is
sufficient reason for everything. (So you tell yourself when
something perversely refuses to turn out the way you want
it to: nothing happens without a reason why it should be so
rather than otherwise.) Some logicians think this principle
has no place in logical doctrine, but it is a very useful
tool to the business man, and, indeed, to all of us who find
ourselves wishing to think straight.
Using logic will not give us the truth in answer to our
questions, but it will help us to reach the truth. To learn
that truth can be reached only by straight thinking, and that
sometimes the truth we find may challenge our cherished beliefs,
is the beginning of a philosophy that can make us great.
About Common Sense
The processes of thinking may appear cold and intellectual,
whereas we know that life calls for decisions and actions
in which emotions and imagination play a part. Well, many
of these decisions and actions are based, we are accustomed
to boasting, on "common sense", and logical thinking is merely
the science of common sense. The man of eminent common sense,
the woman of good judgment, are persons whose minds think
clearly and are not influenced by prejudice, narrow views,
pig—headedness and false values.
This is a virtue we may call "seeing things whole." To think
straight, a person's observation must include the unwelcome
as well as the welcome facts; he must be able to separate
the important from the unimportant; he must take note of uninteresting
facts that have a bearing on the question, and not only of
the facts which have intrinsic interest for him. The man who
wishes to think effectively cannot afford to wear blinkers.
Nor can the straight—thinking man fixate on beliefs,
however well—established they seem, and refuse to consider
new or different facts that might affect them.
Some Practical Helps
It may seem silly to talk about "system" in connection with
thinking. Many of us have been accustomed to thinking about
thinking as some vagrant faculty that sometimes surprises
us by being right. The whole point of this Monthly Letter
is that while a method does not supply thought and inspiration,
it does guide them, and can make our thinking come out right
more often.
One elementary rule for successful thinking may be adapted
from the Boy Scout trick for finding a lost object. You decide
approximately where the object may be, then start in a wide
circle and walk in ever—narrowing circles around that
spot. The object may not be found precisely in the centre
- if it were always there it would not be lost - but the system
is better in its results than casting far and wide in erratic
criss—crossing lines.
Almost, as it were, growing out of this is another guide:
don't try to perceive the whole of a complex situation at
once. Pay careful attention to details. Chase away the moths
of distraction, which can so quickly and stealthily riddle
our thinking with holes.
Let your imagination have free play within the bounds you
have set. This is one of the important requirements of an
executive: to allow his imagination, centred upon a problem,
to play with all the knowledge it has accumulated about this
or closely related problems. It is by combination of the old
and the new, fused by contemplation, that the creation of
solutions is brought about.
Often, in these Letters, we have urged the value of writing
things down, and nowhere else is this device so prolific of
gratification as in thinking.
Ideas and conceptions which seem utterly chaotic when circling
and colliding in the mind become clear and separated into
orbits and systems and galaxies when written or sketched on
paper. There is in the very act of taking a pencil in hand
something imperative which the most wandering mind seldom
resists.
Writing things down brings us face to face with facts, and
gives us the chance to study them minutely. It shows us new
relationships between facts. And it gives us the opportunity
to go back and check the correctness of our thinking. By its
clarity, it tends to eliminate wishful thinking.
Reasoning from Facts
The choice of facts from which to proceed often presents
a difficult problem. If we keep in mind the purpose of our
train of thought, and select the facts which have the most
vital bearing on it, we shall not go far wrong.
Facts are the material of thinking, and there are four principal
sources: our direct observation; our memories; reports provided
by other persons, and self—evident truths.
Having gathered and stored facts, and decided what facts
are useful and true in the case under thought, we need to
put them together in a form that will give a valid conclusion.
One of the best ways is by throwing statements containing
the facts into a syllogism, which is merely an argument consisting
of three propositions. The first two propositions state known
facts, the premises, and the third is the conclusion. The
most common example in teaching logic is this:
All men are mortal
Jones is a man
Jones is mortal.
Here is an argument in which a general statement is made
(All Men are mortal), then a particular statement
(Jones is a Man) which brings Jones within the wide
statement, and this leads to the conclusion (Jones is mortal).
It must be noted that the syllogism does not make truth,
but demonstrates it. The premises must be correct. If the
facts stated in the premises are correct, and if the syllogism
conforms to the rules, then accuracy of the conclusion is
assured. (A little Pelican book, Thinking to Some Purpose,
by L. Susan Stebbing, covers the principles and practices
of logic in an understandable way, and provides us with all
the usable knowledge of this subject we need for everyday
affairs.)
Intuition and Experience
There are many persons who pooh—pooh logic. They rely
upon intuition, as did Lucetta in Shakespeare's The Two
Gentlemen of Verona: "I have no other but a woman's reason;
I think him so, because I think him so."
Intuition has its big and important place in life. There
are certain truths which the human mind perceives without
effort. Our sciences, our philosophy, and our business are
built upon truths obtained through intuition. Science calls
such truths "axioms," philosophy calls them "innate ideas",
and business men call them "horse—sense."
Most persons of responsibility are more readily convinced
by experience than by any other means. Life is a succession
of lessons enforced by punishment for mistakes and rewarded
by the good outcome of doing things right. To link these experiences
in meaningful ways gives us satisfaction, because of these
things we are certain.
But we need not confine ourselves to our own experiences.
It would be a dreadful prospect if every child entering the
world had to wait and learn by experience the burning quality
of fire, how to catch and cook his dinner, and that he can't
successfully tackle a lion unarmed.
The man who depends upon his own experiences has relatively
few materials to work with. That is why technical books and
trade papers are used to make available to us knowledge of
the techniques and practices used effectively by others.
Cause and Effect
Taking the experiences we ourselves have had, and the experiences
of others, we may analyse them to determine what made them
turn out as they did. By that means we find new combinations,
introduce new factors, and perhaps discover new applications.
In doing this we shall find that not every result is truly
ascribed to the commonly—thought—of cause. Perhaps
the most usual fault in our reasoning is the assignment of
the wrong cause to an observed happening.
A few hints about the pitfalls may be of service. It is
wise to look for a third factor in every cause—and—effect
relationship. The apparent cause and the apparent effect may
be moving together because some other event is bearing on
both alike. This is a precaution particularly necessary in
studying business statistics, comparing the results in two
departments during a year's operations, or relating, let us
say, the rise and fall of the money supply in Canada to that
in the United States.
We know very little about real causes. Under certain conditions,
we have observed, certain events are always followed by certain
others. We need to guard against thinking in a routine way
that because this came after that, then this is because of
that. The same result may have several antecedents. For example,
it may be true that if there are too many cooks the broth
will be spoiled, but it is also true that spoiled broth may
result from the inefficiency of one cook.
Much confusion may be avoided by being definite about the
things we are discussing. "Define your terms" is good logical
doctrine - and it is fully as useful to the business executive
as to the philosopher. But definition is difficult, it is
a severe test of mental skill, and it is often looked upon
as tiresome.
Definition must bring out a distinguishing attribute of
the notion we are defining, and it must be clearer than the
notion we are defining. Mr. Friar gave irritable confirmation
of the difficulty when he said in Arnold Bennett's Dream
of Destiny: "You've found me out. You've asked me for
a definition. All you subtle people do that. I can't define.
I never could. I can only state."
From Definition to Judgment
After gathering facts, observing happenings, recalling experiences
of ourselves or of others, and defining both our objective
and the terms we are using we proceed to reason things out.
Two ways of doing this are by induction and deduction. Induction
is arguing that what is true of an individual must be true
of the class to which it belongs; deduction is arguing that
what is true of a class must be true of an individual in that
class. Most of our knowledge is obtained by a combination
of the two.
At the point to which we have reasoned by either induction
or deduction we frame a hypothesis, which is merely an opinion
we hold tentatively while we test it. We assume that such—and—such
follows as a result of so—and—so, and that when
similar conditions exist in future, the same thing will happen.
If we find that our hypothesis is correct, so far as observations
which we consider adequate go, and that such—and—such
never happens except under the conditions that we have decided
are necessary, we will conclude that we have reached the truth.
Even if the hypothesis falls down, the act of framing and
testing it has cleared the ground, and we have fewer possibilities
to cover in our next attempt to find the truth.
The danger to be avoided in this kind of thinking is that
of forming an unbreakable attachment for a pet hypothesis,
so that divorce from it seems heartbreaking. Methods of thinking
are not subject to sentimental feeling: they are merely devices
which we use as a means to acquiring truth and controlling
facts.
When we frame propositions, which can be the first tests
of hypotheses as well as stepping stones to truths derived
from hypotheses, we take a big practical step toward thinking
clearly. There are four forms of proposition which we use
in deductive reasoning, and it will be seen that when we have
fitted our thought into asserting something in one or other
of these forms we have eliminated a great deal of woolly thinking.
The propositions are named "A E I O", with the following meanings:
A...the universal affirmative (All A's are X's)
E...the universal negative (No A is an X)
I...the partial affirmative (Some A's are X's)
O...the partial negative (Some A's are not X's)
The proposition lays before our own minds or the minds of
others the result of an act of judgment, in which we have
brought together two ideas. It is always a choice between
two and only two alternatives at any given time.
Enemies of Thinking
The first enemy of constructive thinking is purposeless
reverie, or day—dreaming. This is a kind of intellectual
vagrancy indulged in by surface thinkers, who are the only
unprogressive people in the world.
Next is prejudice, which closes the door to truth and knowledge.
One mark of an educated man is the degree of his open—mindedness.
A common sort of prejudiced thinking is to hold an opinion
more strongly than the evidence warrants. Some prejudices
are caused by emotional bias, under the influence of which
we select incidents favourable to them, fail to notice anything
that tells against them, and then proceed to use our favourable
cases as "proof".
Sometimes we jump to conclusions. We have a likeable idea
in our minds, and we assume that it is true, then proceed
to use it as a foundation upon which to base our reasoning
toward that very conclusion.
Then there are faults due to a mistake in reasoning. One
common mistake is to argue from an unqualified statement to
a statement about a special case: "democratic institutions
are the best, therefore they must work well in India." Or,
on the contrary, we may argue from a specially qualified case
to a conclusion that ignores the qualification.
We shall find, as we progress in thinking straight, the
importance of words. They are the very instrument of thinking;
without them we should be as ignorant as the beasts of the
field. Words provide us with nets in which we catch thoughts
and ideas; they are the material in which we encase our thinking
to build ideals.
We should try to understand clearly the words we use in
our own thinking, and to convey to our hearers what precisely
it is that we are using these words to say.
A Few Bonus Virtues
Straight thinking is good for us because of many dividends
it pays. It helps to release our tensions, to heal our disappointments,
to cure our indecision and to increase our courage.
Tensions are released when they find an outlet, and what
better outlet could there be for the pent—up forces within
us than thinking some problem through to its solution? Even
to go back, at the day's end, to some decision made, and analyse
it in the light of a few elementary rules of thought, may
ease our minds by confirming our judgment, or, if calm thought
dictates otherwise, we may proceed to correct the mistaken
decision, with consequent peace of mind.
Disappointment, coming upon us like twinges of sudden pain,
can be tackled by our thought. So long as we can think, there
is no need to flutter like a wounded bird. Disappointment
can be wholesome medicine if out of it we learn the possibilities
for good that we have in our minds.
Meditative Thinking
Most of us, while agreeing that we should be better able
to think if we used some of the knowledge glanced at in this
Letter, will say that we have not time. Pages could be written
about the fallacy in this thought: about the extra time it
takes to fix up mistakes made because of shallow or too—fast
thinking: about the emotional disturbances brought on by trying
to think of too many things in the course of a day's work;
about the physical breakdowns caused by over—loaded brains
forcing a slow—down.
When we learn to think with some degree of order about the
everyday affairs of our lives, we shall be in the happy position
of having time to think about things that really gratify and
relax us.
All through the day there is no solitude; always the door
opens and someone comes in, but in our own minds there is
a chance to be alone. We can have the same satisfying feeling
as if, when on a hike, we walk a hundred steps away from the
road, into a woods or a glen. By the mere being in an atmosphere
of serenity our nature grows porous to gracious thoughts,
and in silent conversation with ourselves we rebuild exhausted
stores of thought and contemplation.
There are times when we may not wish to be alone with our
thoughts. We may wish to tell our thoughts, and pick up for
meditation the thoughts of others, The solitude that is necessary
to good thinkers is not isolation, but separation from the
stress and turmoil of the man—made world. It is a good
and a health—giving thing to have a friend with whom
to think and talk.
They are lucky persons in whom the sense of wonder and delight
are kept forever fresh and who have friends with whom to share
spiritual thoughts. They can never be poor in the things that
matter most. They are people in whom the art of thinking is
always making the world to be born again.
[ Return to RBC Letter
home page ]
|
