Staging:Weekly Blog

!!!FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY!!! Please go back.  
This page is an archive of past thoughts, etc.  a working sketchpad/test balloon for brainstorming ideas.  What is here is incomplete, possibly inaccurate, and does not represent fully thought-out beliefs of the authors.    
Thank you for your understanding.

Welcome to the first issue of Reasoned Voice for 2026.

One year ago, MLK Day 2025, I launched this website.  I had a general idea of where I wanted to go, and started along a path.  Many detours and rewrites, I am still finding my way.  One of those detours was a hiatus to help work on my wife's (successful!) run for City Council here in Lowell, MA. Although I had a general idea of elections, this was my first time getting involved at this level of detail. A good reminder of the importance of experience in addition to theory. But also a great reminder of the importance of also stepping back, to see both the forest and the trees. To practice "convergent and divergent thinking", a key technique in critical thinking and problem solving. Observations of the same exact situation can look very different from close up and far away. (A good exercise is to look at your location in Google Earth from space and then zoom in on the detail...and vice versa). And how experience in one area can yield insights into other, often unrelated areas.

Which leads me to this Issue's topic: Habit.

The Importance of Habit

We don't always like to admit it, but humans are creatures of habit. Habit influences our decisions as much as or more than rational thought and reason. This isn't a flaw, it is part of the evolutionary biology that has helped humans survive and thrive. While habits can be detrimental (e.g., addictions). more often than not habit allows us to make reasonable decisions quickly without a lot of conscious thought...which allows us to apply our attention to other decisions. Especially in this information age, our conscious brains do not have enough capacity to deal with all of the issues competing for mindshare. Habit relies on the fact that if something worked well enough for us once or twice, it is likely to work for us again. That makes sense. Habits are efficient.

We adopt habits for a variety of reasons, but one of the most common is because others around us, others we respect, follow the habit. Again, there is some rational evolutionary reason for this: if it works for others we respect, it is likely to work for us as well. We may adopt the habits or our parents, our friends, "influencers" or even a popular TV character.

Examples of habits are eating breakfast each day, putting on a coat in winter, going to work, eating turkey on Thanksgiving, rooting for the home team, attending church. When habits are shared with others, and done as a group activity, we call them "traditions". Another evolutionary aspect of habit is our defense of habits. Breaking with tradition/habit is difficult. When challenged, we defend our habits. We can give good reasons why they exist and even give reasons why others should adopt our habits.

When we defend good habits, we call them justifications. When others defend what we perceive as bad habits, we call them excuses. In most cases, our minds are made up and we are advocating for/against a habit....we do not typically give them the mental scrutiny we would if we started with a blank slate. We also often associate habits with pleasant memories. It isn't the turkey itself that makes Thanksgiving, it is the associated memories that are conjured up. Turkey and stuffing in July do not conjure up the same associations. Often we remember an "origin story," the first time something became a habit.

Breaking habits is difficult. Our subconscious tends to treat our habits as "established fact." Habits are who we are, what we do, just like our names. We don't easily change our names, nor our habits. When habits are especially hard to break, we label them "addictions." Interestingly, for many habits, the opposite can also be a habit. For example, a non-smoker can adopt the healthy habit of not smoking.

Voting as Habit

Ask most regular voters why they vote and they will give a very rational reason as to why people should vote. And they will often also recall an "origin story"... the first time they voted. It may be having gone to the polls with a parent, or as someone who was formerly not allowed to vote. And that habit/tradition continues, reinforced by that memory.

For example, if I reflect honestly as to why I vote, my truest reason is simply because "I always vote. " In other words, it is my habit to vote. Why would I break that habit? When I think about the origin of my habit, I recall turning 18 just before a Presidential primary and the pride I felt in being able to vote. It wasn't as much about being able to participate in democracy as it was a coming of age, to be able to feel pride in being able to do something only adults get to do, to do something many of my classmates couldn't (many hadn't turned 18 yet or hadn't registered to vote). Not particularly noble, but nevertheless I have voted in most every election since and I take it seriously.

Having talked to other voters, I would venture to say that most regular voters have an origin story, a reason why it is now their habit. But they vote, as I do, simply as habit. We vote even when it is clear our vote won't make a difference, when someone is running unopposed, when the weather is bad, or when we would be happy with either candidate. It is just something we do. Although we can also give some very convincing justifications as to why we should vote.

Not-Voting as Habit

Not-voting is also a habit. We don't like to admit it, but there are actually some reasons/excuses not to vote. It may be inconvenient, our votes seldom matter, we are voting for a person who is not going to vote 100% our way and who will likely disappoint us on some issue. And in this day and age, we might even make enemies or get ridiculed on the Internet for supporting a candidate different than others. There is a lot of anxiety that comes with paying attention to the news and being informed. If our group of friends doesn't vote, and we've never voted, why would we start now? (Which is different than why we should start.) Especially when few of their friends vote.

The point here is that even though the reasons why one should vote far outweigh the reasons for not voting, what we should do is not usually enough to break habits. People shouldn't smoke, gamble, get angry, overeat...but that doesn't overcome habit.

Complaining about Voting as Habit

On the subject of voting, one habit is complaining about people who don't vote. This seems to be a point of conversation every election cycle. Talk show hosts will invariably dedicate airtime to being disappointed that more people don't vote. Another habit is to make statements like "if you don't vote, you don't have the right to complain." Perhaps that is as it should be, but there is no evidence of that being the case. In reality, non-voters still complain, and have the same ability to post their opinions in social media or call into talk shows as their friends who vote. I would venture to say that complaining about people not voting seems to be as fundamental a habit of democracies than actually voting. So complainers, feel justified, you are contributing to democracy! (A good example of how one can justify a bad habit.)

The Takeaway

Voting was used here only as an example. There are many other examples where habit overrides what should be true. Habits play an important role in human behavior. The reality is that habits are hard to break--and well-reasoned, persuasive arguments are often not enough. That may not be the way it should be, but that is the way it often is. And recognizing that fact may help us come up with some practical solutions to complex problems in our polarized world, and help us be more accepting of others.

"Every great thinker is someone else's moron." - Umberto Eco ... Foucault's Pendulum.  

"Don't let perfect be the enemy of good." - Voltaire (and others)  

Stepping back, and using divergent thinking, can help

Life is complicated, especially when humans are involved. Especially among those of us who consider ourselves critical thinkers.

That isn't to say that we shouldn't continue to strive to make the world the way it should be, to hold people accountable to act the way they should, that we shouldn't strive to make MLK's dream a reality. But in the meantime, while that battle is being fought, there is also value in finding other approaches.

but that there is also value in finding other solutions in the meantime.

that a well thought out, well presented argument will convince others to behave as they should behave. Or seeing their thinking as flawed.

The above is a bit of an illustration of what I see as the subtle difference between "pure" critical thinking and "pragmatic" critical thinking. Critical thinking will yield all the logical reasons people should want to vote. But habit and human behavior don't always follow

One hugely important aspect of critical thinking is objectively evaluating what

What's My Point?

So What Then?

Many communities are trying to encourage voting by making it easier to vote. That makes sense. Once someone is predisposed to vote, making it more convenient increases the likelihood that they won't lapse, or will start. But such changes have resulted in incremental increases in voting, not as large as one would hope.

I would argue that these efforts have minimal effect on those who are in the habit of not-voting. Putting up more McDonalds may make it easier and more likely for some customers, but it isn't going to make many vegetarians or nutrition-conscious consumers change their habits. I would bet that the biggest predictor of McDonald's customers is whether they at McDonalds as children or teens. In Massachusetts, Dunkin Donuts vs. Starbucks is not just about the taste of coffee, it is an identity, an association with one group or another. One doesn't become a Red Sox fan because you objectively like a particular player or uniform, but rather because your parents and friends are, and you can identify with "Red Sox Nation."

And getting people to change their habit from non-voter to voter is a much more complex problem than getting people to eat at McDonald's or wear a Red Sox Jersey. We want people to be informed voters, not just make random choices. We can't give "two-for-one" offers to new customers. In our polarized political world, attracting a new voter who votes for the opposite political party is not seen as a positive. (Just look at the many states that are trying to repeal laws making it easier to vote.) Our important tradition of making our votes anonymous also makes it more difficult.

Again, I am not saying that people shouldn't vote, but just accepting the reality that giving them reasons why they should, or making it more convenient, will have limited effect on those already in the habit of not-voting.

Insight into How We Address Problems

Our human tendency is to jump to solutions. We like definitive solutions. We like to simplify complex problems into simpler problems. When we see solutions that should work (e.g. anyone who believes in the importance of a democracy and takes their responsibilities as a citizen should want to vote) we tend to double down on the solutions. We tend to think that "we just aren't trying hard enough."

But some problems can't be so easily simplified. Our solution may be assuming a different problem. For complex problems, sometimes the most difficult (and frustrating) aspect is fully understanding (and accepting) the complexity of the problem.

Or we can just deny that and complain. A very popular choice... and there may be good evolutionary reasons for that as well.

And when those solutions don't work seeem, we tend to double down on the message. As if that will get people to do what they should do.

Pragmatic problem solving needs to accept this fact. Pragmatic problem solving takes this into account. Which makes problems significantly more complex and difficult to solve.

We all want solutions to complex problems.

Much of our current efforts to encourage

It was a wonderful opportunity to step back, reflect, and observe. The democratic election process offers wonderful insights into our culture, human behavior, and perceptions. And the added time helped me think a bit more about the goals of this website, to hopefully make it more

Perhaps the most important, and certainly surprising, insight is the important role that habit plays in our day-to-day decision making process. While texts on critical thinking often treat habit as a flaw (we can always find examples where habit leads us to a less-than-ideal decision) the reality is that when we step back and look at it more holistically, habit plays an incredibly important role in our ability to think critically.

Habits are efficient. We can make quick decisions that allow us to have more time to focus on other issues. Habits have proven results, we don't have to revisit every decision. Yes, there are bad habits, but most habits provide reasonably good results in a short amount of time. "Good enough" results for the task at hand, and the speed allows us to devote mental energy for other tasks. Just as fast food is not the healthiest, it satisfies our hunger and saves time that can be used for other tasks.

The reason that I mention this, is because what is often thought of as "critical thinking" tends to focus on the ideal and assumes that enough time is available for conscious focus and thought. It is fascinating how this simple addition of habit changes our solutions to contemporary problems.

For example, let's take the question "why don't more people vote?" (A question that was front of mind during the campaign... often discussed in the media and conversations.) And when this topic is discussed, it invariably includes very rational reasons as to why people SHOULD vote. And for good reason. Democracy depends on citizens voting and making informed decisions. Proposed solutions focus on educating voters and making it more convenient to vote. (E.g. early voting, mail-in voting, easier registration). In general, these solutions have made incremental impact, but have not resulted in meaningful increases in voters.

And we often hear statements like "if you don't vote, you don't have the right to complain".. which is reasoned argument, but one that clearly doesn't happen in the real world. In reality, non-voters still complain, and have the same ability to post their opinions in social media, call into talk shows as their friends who vote. Complaining seems to be a more fundamental aspect of democracies than actually voting.

But what if we turn this around a bit? Not look at this as a moral argument, not a responsibility, but simply one of habit. Most of us who do vote can cite reasons why we vote, but for most of us there is an "origin story." We remember the first time we voted. Perhaps it was going to the polls with a parent, voting for a particular candidate, or for an immigrant from a non-democratic country, being able to cast a vote freely. The most influential reason that I vote is simply because I always vote. Just as the reason people have turkey on Thanksgiving. Its tradition, that's what I always do.

How does one first decide to eat turkey on Thanksgiving? Yes, the sales and recipes in the paper may help, but mostly it is because our friends and family have turkey, and they've invited us to join them. We are part of the club. There are groups that don't like turkey, some are vegetarians, and they create their own traditions that they follow every year. Just as many Jewish families have a tradition of going out to Chinese restaurants on Christmas (one of the few restaurants that are typically open at Christmas). They may not be celebrating Christmas per se, but they are celebrating their own Christmas tradition.

Tradition is essentially a habit. A pleasant one, but a habit. We don't rationalize why we do it, we just do it because... its tradition!

Habits We know there are good and bad habits. But the "tipping points" in any habit are getting started (it can't be a habit if you've never done it) and stopping. And stopping is essentially the habit of not doing something, we can think of both of these as "starting."

Making voting more convenient helps keep people who want to vote from stopping. And makes it easier for those who want to vote to start. But it doesn't have much of an impact on those who don't want to start. Having a

Season 2: Issue 1

2+4=6

Not a very controversial statement. Logic and reason tells us this is true.

If the survival of the Earth depended on a wide political spectrum agreeing on the answer, the Earth would survive.

Now, imagine a button in the midst of Times Square (or any other populated place) that said:

"Pressing this button will destroy the world. DO NOT PRESS IT!" And scientists and experts all confirmed that pressing the button would cause the Earth to implode.

Logic and reason tell us not to press the button.

But, it wouldn't take long for someone to press the button. Our world would not last a week, maybe not an hour.

Thus is human nature. And why critical thinking in our human-populated world, needs to go beyond the traditional "formal" methods of logic and rationality. It isn't enough for us to be logical and rational, we also have to account for the fact that in a world of more than xB people, we can't expect unanimity. For example, xx% of the Earth's population believes xxx. And while better education is surely part of the solution, the number is still xx% among the educated?

So, even if every single human on Earth received a strong education, xx would still believe in xx or that science is a hoax.

Why is that, is this a human flaw?

When we look at it from an individual perspective, it sure seems that way. Why would anyone willingly design an intelligence system that makes bad choices.? Was this a flaw of evolution?

Possibly, but more likely it is a feature of evolution. Evolution's goal is for survival of the species, not necessarily survival of the individual. And in most cases, our species benefits from the crazies. Flight example.

The problem of course is that evolution never had to deal with the advancements in technology. One person's craziness had limited reach. A person jumping off a cliff, playing Russian roulette, did not end society.

But that is very differ

f the survival of the Earth depended on no one pressing the button, the world would surely be destroyed. Someone would press the button. It might be because they believe it is a hoax, it might simply be out of curiosity or mischief, it might be because someone dared them to do it, but the world would surely get destroyed. Even if 99.9% of the people can be trusted, all it takes is one outlier having a bad day for the button to be pressed.

In the world, there are some absolute truths.

Humans have the ability to think and use reason. We listen, we observe, and we draw conclusions and create beliefs based on our own personal methodologies. And we continue the process throughout our lives to adjust and build new beliefs and knowledge. As such, our beliefs and reasoning are "subjective" ... they are based on our own perspective.

Objectivity tries to see things from a neutral standpoint, a search for a "higher truth". Objectivity recognizes that different perspectives and experiences may lead reasonable people to different conclusions.

Critical thinking applies objectivity and other proven methodologies to our subjective experiences, allowing us to see things from a broader perspective. Just as astronauts can see the Earth from a broader perspective than farmers their fields. This allows us to develop "absolute truths" .... things that are true from all perspectives. Critical thinking often involves applying "formal methodologies" such as algebra, logic, and the scientific method to help us find objective solutions. These valuable tools form the basis of much of our formal education.

Such tools allow us to correct inaccurate beliefs and become less subjective thinkers.

People Think Math is Hard

2+4=?

OK, maybe not so hard.

How about

2,133,666,431,221 + 6,234,542,444 + 3,122,333,444, 121 =  ?

or xxxxx.

Yikes. Your head is probably hurting just looking at that.

The Real World is Harder

OK, the above problem seems complex. But at least there is an answer that all would agree on. Across the globe, the correct answer will be the same. The answer today is the same answer as tomorrow. And there are objective tools (e.g. calculators, excel) that will yield the same answer (assuming the numbers are entered correctly).

If the survival of the Earth depended on providing the correct answer each day, the world would survive.

Human Nature

This is a fact of human nature. We are curious, we are flawed. Someone will always be crazy enough to do the unwise thing, to do the stupid thing. This is an essential aspect of human evolution.

Evolution actually depends on some people doing stupid things. Evolution focused on the species, not the individual. Many people have died jumping off cliffs trying to fly. And others learned from them and tried to improve the process. And some of them died too. 99.9% were smart enough not to try. The Wright Brothers tried too. And discovered that the impossible idea of human flight was not quite so impossible.

Just as evolution depends on genetic mutations, it also depends on imperfect thinking. It depends on someone to push the button.

Such is the nature of human behavior. And why the real world is so much harder than Math. No matter how

If the survival

What will be the outcome of the next flip of this coin?

Seemingly a much less complex problem than the above math problem. Most of us would quickly offer an answer.

But, unlike the math problem, there is no single correct, repeatable answer. If the survival of the Earth depended on finding the correct answer, even gathering all of the experts and scientists in the world would not . There would be a 50% chance of survival....today. If that had to be repeated each day, the world would not survive a week.

Most of us would offer an answer. We would even provide some internal rationale as to why that is. Perhaps we always pick heads, perhaps it is because the last flip resulted in heads, or perhaps it is because the last flip was tails. Through our personal experience and beliefs, we have each developed our own methodologies for creating

How about this one:

If you put a button in Times Square that said "This Button Will Destroy the World, DO NOT PRESS", it wouldn't take very long before someone would press it.

Logic would tell us not to press the button.

Humans have the ability to think and use reason. We listen, we observe, and we draw conclusions and create beliefs based on our own personal methodologies. And we continue the process throughout our lives to adjust and build new beliefs and knowledge. As such, our beliefs and reasoning are "subjective" ... they are based on our own perspective.

Objectivity tries to see things from a neutral standpoint, a search for a "higher truth". Objectivity recognizes that different perspectives and experiences may lead reasonable people to different conclusions.

Critical thinking applies objectivity and other proven methodologies to our subjective experiences, allowing us to see things from a broader perspective. Just as astronauts can see the Earth from a broader perspective than farmers their fields. This allows us to develop "absolute truths" .... things that are true from all perspectives. Critical thinking often involves applying "formal methodologies" such as algebra, logic, and the scientific method to help us find objective solutions. These valuable tools form the basis of much of our formal education.

Such tools allow us to correct inaccurate beliefs and become less subjective thinkers.

Applying critical thinking to social problems leads us to answers that rely on what people and societies "should do." For example, to treat each other kindly, to follow traffic laws and speed limits, to vote, to not gamble. To follow the golden rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." From an objective critical thinking perspective, they make perfect sense. And our solutions tend to rely on others behaving as they should.

And yet, as we know, that isn't what actually happens in real life. Human behavior, honed through generations of evolution, works a bit differently. People speed and run red lights, many do not vote, gambling is a huge industry. The golden rule seems to have gone out of favor. Pragmatic critical thinking lives in this space. It is the part of critical thinking that deals with the gap between what should be true in the world, and what actually is.

It seems to me, that so often we deal with this gap by returning to what "should be." E.g. that somehow if we just educate people on why it should be, they will change behavior. From my perspective, that only works for some... they have to be willing to listen and consider that objectively. In the modern world, that becomes increasingly difficult. The major focus of this site will be to try to understand why that is and to explore alternatives.

A Real World Question: "Why Do so Few People Vote?"

This question seems to come up every election cycle. Talk show hosts and casual conversations bemoan the lack of voter participation. And despite many efforts to increase participation, the results are disappointing. These conversations tend to reiterate all the reasons people should vote, leaving us at a loss for why they aren't voting. Just as with the golden rule, they are good reasons, based on sound rationale. And yet, little changes. Despite so many good-faith attempts to increase participation, it seems like a losing battle.

This seems like a good place to try to apply a pragmatic critical thinking lens, to step back and change perspectives. For a moment, to take "should" out of the equation, and focus on "what other factors determine whether someone will vote?"

Before you read on, you may want to take a moment to think about how you would answer. Then read on, the answers may surprise you.

The Number One Factor That Determines Whether People Vote? (Probably Not What you Think)

As mentioned, there are many thoughtful, eloquent, and convincing reasons as to why citizens should vote. Those reasons are certainly true, and they do influence and inspire our choices. But likeliest answer as to what is most important isn't very grand or inspirational. The most important factor of whether we vote or not may simply be a question of habit. Although we often think of habits as bad (e.g. drug addiction), we have many more helpful habits. Sleeping every night, eating breakfast, driving on the correct side of the road, going to school are just a small sample of our many daily useful habits.

Humans are creatures of habit for good reason. We don't have the time or mental capacity to reason through every decision we make. There is less risk in repeating something that was safe than trying something new. Given a field of wild mushrooms, we are much safer to eat the type that we tried before than trying a new variety. Our evolution makes us predisposed to habits. When you think about it, most everything we do is something we've done before. Habits tend to be efficient use of our brainpower. Once something is a habit, we don't tend to question why we do it, why we should do it, we just "lather, rinse, repeat." Evolution makes

How Habits Become Habits

All habits have a start. Nothing can become a habit if you don't do it once. Interesting, the reason for doing something the first time may be quite different than the reasons we use for continuing a habit. Most of us who vote regularly can remember the first time we voted, and the reasons why. And although I may occasionally reminisce fondly about those reasons, and use them to reinforce my behavior, the main reason I vote is because that it is just something I have always done. When calendar says "Thanksgiving" and I make turkey, when the calendar says "Election Day," I vote.

Attracting new voters means getting them to do something they've never done before.   In the commercial world, billions of advertising and marketing dollars are spent trying to get consumers to try something for the first time.  Free samples, testimonials, rational arguments and attractive packaging all have some impact, but the greatest influence is whether one's social circle also has the habit. In modern parlance, we call them influencers. Budweiser horses may be cute, but the reason most people drink Budweiser is because their friends do. Do you want to be the only Sam Adams drinker when all your friends drink Bud, or conversely do you want to be the only Bud drinker when all your friends drink Sam Adams? Preference of course also enters the picture, but at the very least, what your friends do will influence what you are to try once. If your friends and family ate at McDonalds, you are much more likely to eat there than someone whose family did not.

The Second Time

The second time is also a bit unique. It is a choice not only informed by influencers but also by your first experience. If it was a good experience, you are likely to repeat it, and a bad experience may mean you will never try it again. Each subsequent time follows a similar pattern, but we give it less and less thought.

The Habit

Once something is a habit, we tend to continue it, unless we have a bad experience. In which case we may or may not give it another try. But if I am already in the habit of drinking Budweiser, I will likely continue even though my new circle of friends drinks Sam Adams, unless I have a bad experience that makes me rethink my preference.

The Habit of Not Voting

Not voting is also a habit. Not voting has the advantage of being the initial state. Our first elections are as non-voters. It isn't until we are 18 that we even have the choice.

There are also good reasons not to vote. It may be inconvenient, our votes seldom matter, candidates disappoint us. In this day and age, we might even make enemies or get ridiculed on the Internet for supporting a candidate different than others. There is a lot of anxiety that comes with paying attention to the news.

Digging Deeper: Why Do We Want Others to Vote?

As stated before, there are many noble and important reasons why we vote, and we want others to vote. Our society depends not only on us being good citizens, but on others doing the same. But our reasons for wanting others to vote are less xxx. In general, we want others to vote because we assume that they will support our candidates and positions. The more people who agree with us, the more likely it is for our candidate to win. Or at the very least, be informed voters who take the time to evaluate the candidates and issues.

How many of us would go out of our way to sign up new voters if we knew they were going to vote for the opposite candidate?

To illustrate this, here's one method guaranteed to significantly increase voter participation: Give $100 to everyone who casts a vote. Would you support that? I wouldn't. Which illustrates that our goals are much more complex than simply wanting more people to vote.

Summary

The point of this exercise was to illustrate several key points that are important for critical thinking:

1. Pragmatism is a bit depressing. We can come up with solutions and approaches that should work in theory, or that make some assumptions about what should be true. And evolution makes us predisposed to adopting
2. The importance of taking time to truly understand the problem. Too often we assume a simplified version of the question, and pursue solutions that are not actually addressing the real problem.
3. In day to day life, habit can be stronger than reason.

Next Steps

1. Making it more convenient to vote is a good thing. It will help encourage those who want to vote to do so, it will help voting be a sustainable habit.
2. But we need more approaches focused on breaking the habit of not-voting.
3. W

Modern Solutions

There are many well-intentioned methods to increase voting. Much of the attention is given to making voting more convenient. It certainly helps. It takes away some excuses, it reduces the stress of having a specific time to be able to vote. And since first-time voting is a two-step process (registering to vote and voting are separate steps), easier registration certainly helps.

But convenience only affects those already inclined to vote. A major component of McDonald's success is convenience. It greatly affects the frequency of repeat customers. But no matter how many there are, how convenient the ordering process, it will have almost no effect on someone who doesn't eat fast food.

And while we think of our steps as making voting more convenient, it hasn't kept up with the modern world. For shopping, we no longer have to plan to go to the store during business hours. Stores have extended hours, some open 24 hours. And now, we can order things online 24x7 and have them delivered to our door. Convenience is relative.

What's Next?

One of the most important aspects of problem solving is to make sure we are asking the right question, and that we fully understand the question. And there are many things we can do to have more people vote. But is that our only goal?

One of our great human strengths is to simplify complex problems and come up with quick solutions. From the above, we could come up with some modern approaches to increase voter participation. For example, online voting. But that makes us realize that our goals are much more complex than simply increasing participation. We also want to make sure that people are qualified to vote, that people can vote freely without coercion, that people are who they say they are, and that each voter can only vote once.

This is an important lesson. Humans are adept at finding solutions quickly. This is efficient and effective for the majority of problems we face. And we can always adjust after. But it is far from perfect. For complex problems, we tend to simplify the problem and jump to solutions that may create other problems... sometimes even making things worse. Exacerbating this, is that in our current political world of polarization, neither side has an incentive to fix flawed solutions. One side doesn't want to admit error for fear of being xxx, and the other side wants to xxx. In a polarized political world, the goal becomes to identify flaws to make the other side look bad, not to help identify flaws to improve the solution.

Who is Qualified to Vote?

There are quick answers, and more complex answers. Although all say they want to increase voter participation, the goal for candidates is to win an election.

So often in problem solving, we don't take the time to fully understand the problem, so come up with solutions that only

Why Is Turnout Much Higher in National Races than Local Races

When ones vote matters more in local elections and local races have more effect on individuals.

(e.g. online voting). But whe

quickly realize that our goals are much more complex than simply getting more people to vote.

Our goal is to

Awareness is another. Campaigns spend huge sums to make people aware of their candidate and the issues involved. The reasons why their vote will matter. However, most of that comes from advocates who spin the truth, who ofte

TV ads may reinforce the behavior of Coke drinkers, but no ad is a match for simply having had it served at one's family dinner table.  And once it becomes a habit, we may take that with us when we go to restaurants or a house of our own.

Habits are an efficient use of mental energy. We can't think critically about every decision we

The Uncommon Answer: Voting/Non-Voting is a Habit

T

Habits begin with trying something the first time. Then we decide if it is worth continuing. Once it is a habit, reason helps us justify continuing the habit, or whether we should stop. But it takes much more thought and effort to break a habit then to continue it. A person who has voted in the previous election is more likely to vote in the next than someone who didn't.  Someone who has never voted before, is less likely to vote in the current election. If everyone in our circle are voters, we will tend to vote as well.  If no one does, if we may feel awkward at being so different. Not voting is also a habit. Fewer people vote now because more people give up the habit than take it up.

Starting the Habit

Any habit requires a start.  Getting someone to do something for the first time is not as simple as simply making it convenient.

The second time

If we have a good experience with something we tried, we typically give it a second try. And if that is a good experience, it becomes a habit.

Continuing the Habit

The first time we try something is usually with the encouragement/advice of others we trust, others in our circles of influence.

 

We like to think of ourselves as independent thinkers, but humans are social animals, and we like to fit in with our peers. It may be strongest in our teens, but it is with us from cradle to grave.  We adopt the habits of those in our social groups.  We might miss out on a social outing in order to make it to the polls.

When I ask voters about the first time they voted, they remember it, it almost always accompanied by a story.  Perhaps a story of their parents having voted, or sometimes it was a specific candidate/cause that motivated them to vote for the first time.  Or perhaps immigrating from a country where they weren't allowed to vote freely.  Fascinating because I don't think  most people would be able to recall the first time they drank a Coca-Cola.  Clearly voting is something important to those who do vote regularly.

How do marketers get someone to try something for the first time.  Advertising can help, but nothing works better than a trusted source or friend.  Much of the time we go to a restaurant for the first time, it is with a friend who invites us.  Or perhaps our dentist tells us about a restaurant she likes.  

For those of us who do vote, we know the reasons we vote, and assume others would if they understood the reasons

However, every voting cycle we return the same question, and offering solutions from the perspective of those of us who are voters, and know why we vote.

So we focus on explanations and solutions.

Intro

Hi All,

No matter of one's politics, today's inauguration marks a significant point in American History, one that seemed unthinkable to so many of us just 10 years ago.  Add in the irony of this inauguration happening on MLK day, and this seemed like a good time for me to begin my blog.

Although I had thought of myself as skilled in logic and critical thinking through education and experience, it did not prepare me for the change in the political landscape and the increasing polarization that we are seeing in today's world. How could people see things so differently, and how could seemingly rational people make such seemingly irrational decisions? Clearly there were things that I didn't understand, things that I had wrong. That set me off on a journey to try to make sense of what I was seeing.

A key turning point for me, came in October of 2016, the month before Trump was first elected President when I attended a lecture given by David Ropeik through the Parker Lecture Series in my hometown of Lowell, MA.  His lecture focused on the work of Daniel Kahneman, and the book Thinking Fast and Slow.  A book that described the way our human subconscious (fast thinking) and conscious (slow thinking) interact.  And how as much as we have come to think of humans as unique individuals, all of us share many mental traits that influence our thinking and approaches, traits that affect our judgment. One of the most fascinating traits being that we tend to deny that we have those traits.

Much effort has been made to categorize these traits, now commonly called "cognitive biases" and the closely related "logical fallacies." As of this writing, Wikipedia lists well over 200 such biases and fallacies. The general idea is that if we can learn about our biases, we can overcome them, and all become more rational thinkers and therefore reduce polarization. Thus, an answer to increased polarization is more education on critical thinking. This is the case that noted psychologist and Harvard Professor Steven Pinker eloquently makes in his popular book Rationality.

This all made sense to me. But then I saw a Pugh research poll in 2019 that demonstrated a sharp decline in confidence/respect for the value of education. The poll showed that only half of Americans think that colleges and universities have a positive effect.  Among Republicans, that number was 33%, down from 53% in less than a decade! That is truly a mind-blowing and sobering statistic. More education in critical thinking skills is a great ideal, but doesn't that require that education is valued? How do we promote education and critical thinking to those who believe our educational institutions don't have value? Aren't those the very people we need to reach most?

That got me to start thinking differently. I enrolled in a Masters program at UMass Boston in Critical and Creative Thinking to ponder this further. To step back and recognize how well-meaning efforts can contribute to polarization. Telling someone that they are flawed or wrong (even when they are) is not a winning strategy for changing minds. In reality, it feels like it is more likely to trigger fighting instincts, to create an enemy, to close a mind instead of encouraging thought.

I graduated from the program in 2021. I have spent the last 2 years in internal debate with myself, trying to figure out the best path

"Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow. The important thing is not to stop questioning." - Albert Einstein

forward. I still don't have many answers, just lots of questions. But asking "why?" Is one of the most important components of critical thinking (as well as one of the most annoying habits of the child who constantly asks "why?") There is an old joke about a yeshiva student who asks: "Rabbi, why do you always answer a question with a question?" And the rabbi replies: "Why Not?"

Why did I decide to start this blog? Why not?

Day 2

disillusionment - the condition of being disenchanted : the condition of being dissatisfied or defeated in expectation or hope.

- Merriam Webster Dictionary

If I had to pick one word to sum up our world today, and especially this last Presidential election cycle, it would be "disillusionment." I see and hear examples of it every day. For many of us who voted against Donald Trump, the disillusionment is rooted in the realization that beliefs in many of the values and foundations of our American Democratic system that we took as universal, are not universally held. And for many others who voted for him, that was the culmination of their disillusionment with many of the iconic American institutions. Institutions that they feel have failed them.

I have come to see disillusionment as a natural reconciliation between reality and our beliefs and expectations. And therefore, for true truth-seekers, disillusionment is a natural progression in the search for truth. If the world worked as we believed/hoped, there would be little need for education. Our lifelong process of education is filled with disillusion, continuously dashing our idealized view of the world with a ruthless dose of reality. We learn to cope and move on. As infants and children, we learn that the world doesn't revolve around us, that our cries will not always be met with instant gratification of our desires by our parents. As we grow, we learn that we don't always get what we want, we have to share and consider others. Love is not always reciprocated, it is often unrequited. And over time, and through science, we learn perspective, recognizing that our individual perceptions are not always accurate. For example, it sure seems like the sun revolves around the Earth. (We stand still and watch the sun go around us.) It sure seems like there is a Santa Claus.

These are all examples of disillusion. And as such, disillusion isn't purely a negative, but rather something that helps us find the truth,

"You must not lose faith in humanity. Humanity is an ocean; if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty." - Mahatma Gandhi

a natural part of education and our evolution as human beings.  The word itself tells us that what we believed was an illusion.  So, ridding ourselves of illusions can be a good thing.  And of course, the truth isn't always pretty.  Reality isn't idealistic, as much as we would like to believe otherwise.   Better to know the truth than to believe something that is more pleasant, but untrue.    

The key is how we deal with disillusion. We can accept it and deal with it, we can deny it, we can tilt at windmills, we can wallow in disappointment, or we can turn away and isolate ourselves. Acceptance is hard, it requires us to challenge our beliefs. denial is much easier. Tilting at windmills may make us feel better, make us feel like we are doing something, but it replaces one illusion with another...the illusion that our actions will make a difference. Turning away is a survival instinct; what is the point of worrying about something we have no control over?

As we celebrate the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, this is a good time to think about how we deal with disillusion. His life was certainly a lesson in dealing with disillusion. Despite the promise of equity and value for human rights delineated in our Constitution, despite the promises that our legal system would uphold those principles, the reality is that all too often people were judged by the color of their skin, not the quality of their ideas. Black soldiers who put their life on the line defending our nation and its ideals, came home to find that those ideals were only ideals, not reality. Martin Luther King had many options for dealing with this disillusionment, but he chose the path of acceptance and dealing with it. MLK acknowledged this disparity, and took the path of exposing the reality, while also holding onto the dream of a nation that lived up to its ideals and setting a path to make that happen. At this time of disillusionment, we can all take inspiration from his legacy.

Day 3

Mathematical logic is a rigorous system of rules that deals with facts and problems that have definitive answers. Human reason is less precise, susceptible to outside influence and inaccurate information, and thus is often considered inferior to mathematical logic. However, real-world human problems typically have uncertain answers, with many unknowns. Furthermore, the most accurate answer is not always practical. Science may be able to tell us with 100% accuracy which food has more calories than another, but there is no 100% correct answer as to what I should eat for lunch. The answer depends on more variables than we can identify. Health, availability, cost, what I ate yesterday, time to prepare, what others in my family prefer, are an example of just a few of the many tangible variables that go into that decision. Our beliefs are complex, influenced by facts and evidence, but also based on the beliefs of others, personal observation of a limited set of data, and instinct or "gut feel". We may not even be able to fully elucidate our beliefs. Our beliefs are deeply rooted in our subconscious and not always easily explainable.

This can be very frustrating. We can offer a seemingly airtight defense of our reasoning, present logical arguments and convincing evidence,

"Always remember that you are absolutely unique. Just like everyone else." - Margaret Mead

and find that others are still not moved. Sometimes, instead of moving them to consider it objectively, it might even cause them to adopt a contrary defensive posture and put up walls of resistance, cite misinformation, and not even consider the evidence we offer. Instead of it bringing us together, it moves us apart and creates polarization.

And we certainly saw that in the recent Presidential election and the aftermath. Most everyone will agree that the U.S., and the world, is becoming more polarized. Of course, both sides tend to blame the other for the polarization. It is a natural human instinct to see others as the problem. It is almost universal to feel that "if others thought like I do, the world will be alright." Which seems reasonable until one realizes that everyone feels that way, including those who disagree with us. From their perspective, we are the problem.

Conflict sometimes comes simply from having different criteria, preferences and priorities. For someone who has prioritized and studied nutrition, it can be frustrating to see the line of cars at the McDonald's. One side is placing a prioritization on nutrition, the other on convenience and speed. We may prioritize the importance of a decision, therefore give it more thought and attention, and then be frustrated when someone else does not give it the same level of attention.

Another source of conflict is our natural "hard-wired" subconscious tendencies to turn complex questions into definitive clear-cut binary answers. Yes or no, true or false, fight or flight, Red Sox or Yankees. The reason is one of efficiency and time management. Just as it takes less time for a teacher to grade an essay test vs a true/false test, our brains do something similar when dealing with problems. They distill complex problems into yes/no questions, make a quick decision and move on to the next. Mathematical logic doesn't consider how much time it takes to reach a conclusion, human reason does. For most day-to-day human problems, there is more value in making a quick "good enough" decision and moving on to the next problem, than getting the decision right. Sometimes that means we will get it wrong.

That last sentence, "In general there is more value in making a quick decision...than getting the decision right" is a tough pill to swallow for most of us. It runs counter to our values, and raises all kinds of logical questions and reactions. E.g. "What if everybody did that, what would happen to society, what would happen to truth? Surely truth matters!"

So, it is a good time to stop and ponder.

Day 4

Over my lifetime, I feel that I have become very adept at mathematics, logic, and rational thinking. I have a deep respect for absolute truths and the importance of getting things right. I believe strongly in science, in the scientific method, and the importance of objectivity. What is often grouped under the umbrella of critical thinking.

But I'm also an engineer, and an engineer not only looks at theory but how it functions in the real world. And when humans are involved, we can't just use logic to predict behavior. We quickly become disillusioned when we expect others to do the "logical" thing. Mathematics can demonstrate for a fact that gambling is a losing proposition. This isn't a secret, almost every gambler understands that. Yet gambling is xxx. Mathematics and logic alone cannot explain it. There needs to be another level of thought, a more multidisciplinary approach.

And this is an example of what I think is the essence of critical thinking. Not only logic and reason, but also an understanding of human behavior and the way humans think and make decisions. Looking not only at theory, but also at what happens in practice. And to not see human thinking as flawed, but rather optimized to make quick decisions about complex problems based on limited information. To accept that there must be an evolutionary reason for this. It also means not only looking at others objectively but also looking at ourselves objectively; recognizing that we too are human, and our brains are similarly optimized. It isn't "us" vs. "them", it is just us.

Although this may mean giving up some ideals, this isn't a capitulation. Recognizing that it may not be possible to get many people to accept global warming as fact and/or be willing to change behavior, doesn't mean we have to give up, it simply means finding additional approaches.

And recognizing that humans are wired to favor speed over accuracy in decision making doesn't mean that truth doesn't matter. It isn't

"Pierre was struck for the first time at this meeting by the infinite diversity of human minds, which makes it so that no truth presents itself to two people in the same way." - Leo Tolstoy - War and Peace

that accuracy doesn't matter, it is simply that there are other variables involved as well. Recognizing that humans treat morality as relative, doesn't mean that there will be chaos and no morality. It simply means that we are destined to see examples where people act immorally. It will frustrate us, but it doesn't mean morality is gone.

Feeling frustration at the election and the erosion of civility in political discussions doesn't mean that civility is gone. Regardless of political viewpoint, folks on both sides will still similarly obey traffic laws, similarly drive the speed limit (or in Massachusetts both similarly drive over the speed limit), stand in the checkout line together at the grocery store, and root for the local sports teams. That doesn't mean everything is fine, we'll undoubtedly see things happen that will make us angry, disillusioned, and feel like civility is gone. That's simply the way our brains work.

And here's the paradox. I can make a logical and statistical argument to show that civility hasn't gone, but that is cold comfort, we won't feel that way. We're all human with the same brain architecture. Even critical thinkers. Living in a society means that disillusion is inevitable.

Day 5

I've thought about these issues my whole life, and especially in the last 10. I've read a lot of books, taken a lot of courses, written and rewritten lots of papers. Changed my mind many times, and continue to struggle with priorities and organization. My thoughts do not follow a single logical path, but seem to be more a network of thoughts, with many potential paths through them.

In writing this, I'm sure it will feel at times that I am proseletyzing, and I probably am at times, without meaning to. There is little here that isn't available from other sources, there are undoubtedly sources that can explain more eloquently than I can, and some things I get wrong.

But we all have limited time. We do not have the time to read everything we "should," to ponder everything we should ponder, to do our own

"The writer shakes up the familiar scene, and, as if by magic, we see a new meaning in it." - Anais Nin

research and get things exactly right. And thus the value of curation. Others summarize a wider variety of material, make informed decisions about what is important, and distill information into more digestible packages. That's my goal here. To summarize and distill material from a variety of sources, including my own experiences and reason. I'm trying to curate different things into a package and hopefully offer a different perspective that can be valuable to others.

My plan is to write a week's worth of blogging every two weeks. So, no entries next week, but I will resume the week after, onxx . In the meantime, any comments and feedback will be welcome. And if it will be helpful, I'd be happy to host a Zoom discussion on any of the topics. Thank you for reading!! For now, response via email is best. Feel free to pass this on to others. And if you don't mind, please follow this link and check the appropriate box. If you hit unsubscribe, I will take you off the list (or just email me). You were initially added because I thought you'd be interested in this, were suggested by others, or had expressed interest in prior conversations. Apologies if I added you in error. If so, please just unsubscribe. Thanks!!!

And that can help us be less disillusioned and understanding of the current political polarization. It is somewhat painful, because it means challenging some core beliefs, in essence c

In doing so, the point to compare the brains to some ideal of logical decision making, but rather to simply accept and understand. To step back and think more holistically, to recognize that accuracy is only one

And this leads to what I believe is a universal first step in critical thinking, simply taking a step back and looking at problems more holistically. There is an old saying "give a

Probability and statistics is widely taught, and is a requirement for many fields of resear

I believe this is rooted in the way we deal with uncertainty. Statistics is the mathematical field that deals with uncertainty. I would argue that it is one of the least understood fields of mathematics because it tries to provide some certainty to uncertain situations, by dealing in ranges, averages, and probabilities. This mirrors the way our subconscious brains work... we are always trying to find certainty in uncertain situations. But when we see

Based on this evidence, and other similar example, Daniel Kahneman concluded that humans are not very good statisticians. But any statistician also knows that in any distribution, for problems where uncertainty is involved, one can always find specific examples to counter or demonstrate almost any hypothesis. And for problems with definitive answers, one example is enough for proof. But that is not true for uncertain problems. Which is a problem because our subconscious tends to treat uncertain problems as having certain answers.

Given examples where a vaccine didn't work, one can conclude that vaccines are bad. And this example can give evidence to support the hypothesis that humans make poor statisticians. But what about all the decisions one has to make that statisticians pass on. Can a statistician tell me what shirt to wear, what xx to xx. And how many days, how many hours will they spend analyzing xxx when a human makes the decision in xx seconds. Given a limited amount of time, does it count that a statistician can only make xx decisions, whereas a human can make xxx decisions in the same time. For the decisions a statistician does make, they will definitely be more accurate than the human, but what all the decisions they have no opinion on?

My point here is not to diminish the importance of science and statistics. Only to point out that we

perspectives and priorities matter in terms of how we interpret and use scientific acts, and also consider how results will be perceived by others. Science favors accuracy, and we certainly need accuracy. Accuracy is always better in the long run. But accuracy takes time, and time is a precious commodity. Even when science can find more accurate answers, humans do not always have the time or inclination to process those answers, especially when uncertainty is involved, and/or those answers challenge longstanding beliefs, or require sacrifice to accept.

And so, the purpose of my writing is simply to point out some different perspectives from an informed, reasonably objective, non-hostile point of view. To think of critical thinking in this context, and to better understand how our human brains make decisions. Not to find flaws, but to accept that there must be good reason for evolution to optimize certain abilities at the expense of others. Just, as how we don't think of a knee as flawed because it only bends one way, we just accept it and appreciate the evolutionary advantage it has given us to be able to run and move forward quickly.

Day 4

However, for most day-to-day problems, the disparity is inconsequential. A pizzeria in New York knows for sure exactly how much cheese and what type go on their pizzas. For the purpose of running their business, it makes zero difference that Chicago pizzerias are different.

But this can lead to frustration, conflict, and polarization for many social and political problems.

The rivalry between Res Sox fans and Yankee fans is an example. Talk about polarization! You are one or the other, there is very little in between. Most of us have fun with the Red Sox/Yankees rivalry, we do not ask one's team allegiance before helping someone get an item off the shelf of a grocery store, or xxx, but that isn't universal. And for many, especially those who have had a few too many, it actually leads to fistfights. I mean really, in this world someone is going to get into fisticuffs over their sports allegiance? It happens. And in some kitchens, a fight can break out about the amount of cheese on a pizza. There tend to be few fistfights about whether 3+4 equals 7.

The enmity is absolutely tangible, and yet one can't logically define why it should be so. Fistfights can break out over what ballcap you are wearing.

And this is very evident in politics. Many have specific reasons for their choices, very specific priorities. Others may not share them, or simply not really care. It is not that different from Red Sox vs. Yankees. Which is in itself an example.

When it comes to politics, when it comes to our feelings about the election, we tend to feel differently. And there is good reason, the impact of those decisions has more consequence, but we forget that it isn't top priority for most people. You may believe that is, you may be right, but that doesn't change the fact that is how most people deal with politics. It is Yankees vs. Red Sox, tacos vs. sandwich, mozzarella vs. parmesan. (OK, not American cheese, that's just going too far!)

Having a hard time accepting that? Welcome to the club, and welcome to the world of disillusion. Disillusion: reconciling reality with our beliefs and expectations.

We accept it as it is and marvel how evolution has evolved it to benefit humans, how it helps us run and move forward quickly, and has helped the human race survive and thrive. And my perspective is to treat the human brain similarly. Not as logically flawed, but an amazing instrument of decision making.

But statistics also tells us that one needs to look beyond specific examples and consider a much wider sample. Doing so isn't always easy, Kahneman's sample on

Most of the problems we face as humans cannot be easily answered with mathematical precision. It is easy to answer what is 3+4, it is much harder to answer what is the right amount and type of cheese to put on a pizza. And while there is no universally correct answer to the latter question, individually we will have very firm opinions. And those within our cohort will likely share a similar answer, it is only when we include a wider audience that we find disparity.

From a pure logic perspective, one would draw the conclusiont hat human thinking is flawed, And thus the next step would be to identify the flaws and try to correct them in order to make humans better thinkers. This is the essence of much education in critical thinking. And if one could achieve that, that would be absolutely true.

But it misses an important reality. Getting people to think that way, getting people to think the way do, is just a pragmatic impossibilty. That it how humans naturally think. And that thinking was honed by over a hundred thousand years of human evolution, and billions of years of previous evolution, so it is quite a bit of hubris to say that I know better than evolution. And even if were true, evolution will win.

A human knee only bends one way. It keeps us from being able to xxx. Is that a flaw? From one perspective it is. But from another perspective, also allows us to xxx better. And that maybe more important for humans than being xxx. Evolutions certainly says so. My approach is not to see these as flaws, but to better understand why they might exist, and more importantly a realistic approach to dealing with them. We may not be able to get everyone on board with the same views of global warming, or even agreeing on its existence, but it doesn't mean we have to throw our hands up and give up. It does mean that the problem is harder, but it doesn't mean that there aren't other ways to approach the problem. They may not be as effective, it doesn't mean we should give up on education, it simply means we should also work on other approaches. This isn't a binary choice, it isn't one solution of the other, we can lots of different ways, approach the problems from lots of different perspectives.

My goal is simply to try to look at the issues from a different perspective. It doesn't mean others are wrong, just that real-world problems are complex, and there are multiple perspectives.

And from a

Polarization is a way to describe our tendency to treat problems as yes/no. Yeses on one side, Nos on the other. Yankee fans on one side, Red Sox on the other. We can visualize this using a globe of our Earth as a model, Republicans at one pole, Democrats at the other.

Yankee fans at the South Pole, Red Sox fans at the North Pole. Trump voters at one pole, Harris voters at the other.

Pity the poor Phillies fan, which side do they choose? Why doesn;t

Day 3

The world is complex, and we deal with a complex wo

---

Day 2

Abstraction is one of the most valuable abilities of the human brain. Abstraction allows us to understand something new by comparing it to something we already know. It allows us to better comprehend something complex by comparing it to something similar. We can understand something intangible by comparing it to something tangible. We compare by identifying similarities (analogy) and differences. We use abstraction to "paint a mental picture." In today's world, a meme is a popular form of abstraction.

The word "polarization" is a good example of the way we use abstraction to help navigate complex concepts. Our earth globe has a north pole and a south pole which are opposite from each other, as far from each other as possible. In the current context of the election, polarization gives us a mental picture of the gap between Trump voter and Harris voter, conservative and liberal, Democrat and Republican. I find our globe to be a useful analogy for thought, so will carry it further to try to better understand how this polarization came to be, and how we might mitigate it.

In the United States. the Continental Divide is a line that determines whether water will flow to the Atlantic or Pacific Oceans. Rain that falls to the east of the Continental Divide will eventually end up in the Pacific Ocean, rain falling east will flow to the Atlantic. Two raindrops may start out just inches apart. One goes West, one goes east. Each following the path of least resistance, guided by gravity Initially the flow may be quite slow, the drops not that far apart. Over time, they move further and further apart. They may join with like-minded droplets and form a stream, joining with other streams and eventually a river. They may even vacation in a lake for awhile on the journey. Momentum builds, and the pressure to continue forward continues until they reach the oceans. And those two sibling droplets, born inches apart now are at opposite ends of the continent. We might think of the Pacific and Atlantic oceans as the East and West poles of our globe.

This model works for human thought as well, and we can imagine how two siblings might end up as polar opposites politically. Not only pulled by gravity, but also influenced by outside forces just as a water droplet's path might be altered by man or beaver. And there are other options, just less probable. A western droplet might evaporate, join a cloud for a ride, and then parachute in the east. And the Atlantic and the Pacific oceans connect with each other and currents flow between them and mix their waters. If two people start at the same place, one walks south, the other north, at some point they will be at polar opposites, but if they continue their journey in a straight line, they will once again meet.

A somewhat comforting thought is that polarization is not a steady state, eventually the oceans mingle. We can encourage mingling by not ostracizing, by sharing other non-political interests with those we politically disagree with.

Also, I've been thinking a lot about the way a siphon works.

A siphon can make water go uphill, against gravity, but requires 3 conditions:

1. The end has to be downhill from the start (i.e. it needs to be worth the fight of going uphill).
2. Some outside force needs to get it started by pumping the water uphill
3. The chain can't be broken. If it is, it will need to be pumped again.

So, if we want to change minds via siphon, we need to understand their concerns, offer a better path, offer a boost to get there, and maintain the pipeline. Easier said than done, but at least something to ponder.

And never give up on education, just recognize that it works best on those who have only just started their journey. In Wyoming there is a stream called Two Oceans Creek that supplies both the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. The force of one's breath might be enough to push a droplet one way or the other. On the other hand, it will be hard to influence the direction of a water droplet in the rapids of the Colorado River.

There is also the example of the salmon to think of. Salmon annually are able to fight the tide and swim upstream. But it exhausting work, not all make it, and it can't be done all the time. If we expect to swim against the tide, or expect others to do so, we need to be judicious in what we prioritize. The ability to do so is limited.

Day 3

Nature and evolution are paragons of efficiency. Efficiency is not about getting a perfect answer, it is about getting a good enough answer in the least amount of time. Time is a limited and precious resource. And this especially applies to human thought. Our subconscious brains are incredibly efficient, making many decisions very quickly, often based on very little information. Our subconscious brains are very much like the water droplets we discussed yesterday. Following the path of least resistance to make their way through obstacles.

Evolution has also equipped humans with a conscious brain. An aspect of our brains capable of very complex problem-solving, one that can act as a siphon to get us to find an even better solution. Conscious thought is much less efficient. Our conscious brains can only work on one problem at a time, has limited ability for sustained concentration. There are only so many hours in the day, and especially in the modern world, more demand for our brains than we have time for. So, we have to perform a sort of triage, and decide what gets our conscious attention and what does not.

While this is a bit of an oversimplification, I find it to be a very useful model to think of our conscious and subconscious brains as distinct entities, each with their own unique abilities and limitations.

In mathematical terms, we can think of the above in terms of local vs. global maxima and minima.

our subconscious brains are tuned to local maxima, whereas our conscious brains are able to look for global maxima. Not surprisingly, locating local maxima is much easier.

Our conscious brains can only do one thing at a time, has limited ability to concentrate, and needs to be recharged each night.

Time is a limited and precious resource.

being able to do something quickly that works most of the time, is better than doing something perfectly that

Human thought path of least resistance.

Day 4

Steppping back.

Day 5

Word of the Year

--

It is a good example of how we use visual models that include all of our senses to help navigate complex concepts. An ancient form of a meme? In thinking about polarization, I find to be useful. Two drops of water, inches apart, each following the path of least resistance and slowly moving east or west from the origin, eventually joining a slow moving stream. Perhaps vacationing for awhile in a lake before joining a river heading for the coast. And as it nears the extreme, it picks up momentum, part of a fast moving mob of water, with momentum and force behind it, making reversal seem futile. (Although salmon seem to have figured out how to resist the tide).

Such abstractions of our physical world applied to human thinking are valuable in so many ways, and will be used often in this blog. Abstractions such as metaphors, xx and xx, create models that help us condense complex concepts. Abstractions are a natural human thinking process. Like waterdrops following gravity, they offer an efficient path of least resistance. For example, it is much easier and efficient to think of our earth as a sphere, instead of an uneven ellipsoid. It works just fine for most of our day-to-day tasks, freeing up time for other priorities.

The xxx model applies to human thinking. In the xxx model, two water drops dropped inches from each other at the top of Mount xxx will end up thousands of miles apart, in either the Atlantic or Pacific oceans. So too with human thinking. We might start at the same point, with similar ideals, but we tend to follow the path of least resistance. Disillusion often fuels our movement, and momentum from a variety of inputs around us pushes us down a path. And we might concude with polar opposites,

We have the ability to resist, to swim against the tide, but it takes effort, and there are other demands on our time. Salmon may be able to swim against the tide, but it is an exhausting process, and they only do it once and can only be done once a year.

A useful model. But it also misses some important lessons from nature. Some west moving water evaporates into the atmosphere, is carried eastward and then dumped via rain onto the east. Water can be pumped from east to west and west to east. Amazingly, water can be siphoned to actually run uphill and keep flowing without a pump as long as the end point is at a lower resistance and the chain is not broken. And once it reaches the ocean, a drop does not stop. The Pacific and the Atlantic oceans connect and their waters mingle over time.

But that isn't the end of the story. As any young French water droplet quickly learns: "it is not all about eau." Other factors and inhabitants can influence things. Man or beavers can alter the path of a river, because they have other priorities. In today's world, a drop of water that makes it all the way east to Saratoga Springs, may get end up in a plastic bottle that gets shipped west.

A good lesson when thinking of political thought. If water and electricity follow the path of least resistance, the most efficient path, why should natural human thought be any different? I find that this is a good model for the human mind. Our subconscious follows the path of least resistance, the most efficient path, but our conscious brains can act as engineers and override that, finding a new path that may be less efficient in the short run, but may take into account other factors and priorities.

I don't have any easy answers. But one of the most important pieces of advice I ever received was that the most important step in problem solving is to thoroughly understand the problem.  And hopefully this blog will be useful for me and readers to help better understand the problem, which hopefully can lead to some attempts at problem-solving together.  To quote something I saw attributed to Margaret Mead, "Nothing great was ever done by one person. But lots great was done by small groups of like-minded people."  (NOTE: I have not found verification that Margaret Mead ever said this, but it is still a good maxim.)

does not win many arguments or open minds. It may in fact fuel enemies, closing

And doesn't our approach help fuel polarization, essentially telling others that the solution is that "you need to think more like me?" Which is exactly what "they" are thinking about "us."

So, in late 2019 I began shuttering my business, and entered a Masters Program in Critical and Creative Thinking at UMass Boston, with the goal of better understanding the complex issues involved. 

I didn't want to simply point out flaws in human thinking that should be corrected, but to better understand why they exist in the first place. After all, if these flaws and cognitive biases are so bad, why weren't they eliminated via evolution?

If education is as valuable as we know it to be, why is confidence in our traditional education institutions receding among much of the public, creating yet another area of polarization.

I graduated in 2021 and have spent the last 2 years in internal debate, trying out different theories and approaches to these complex problems, finally deciding to start this blog and accompanying website.  This is a true work-in-progress, which I have come to accept as the steady state when dealing with any complex problems.  

*

Readers looking for easy solutions will undoubtedly be disappointed. 

All I can do here is to hopefully help others better understand the problems we face by curating ideas and approaches I have found useful.

Day 3

Critical thinking offers us a way to deal with disillusionment. We try to see the world more objectively, to find truth. But in the real world, truth is complex. And in our Democratic societies, truth doesn't get us very far if society do

Truths have exceptions and operating conditions.

Day 3

We are not trained to deal with disillusion, like many such things, we are supposed to figure it out for ourselves. We learn by observing our parents and others we respect, and follow their lead. It isn't something most of us give much conscious thought to, we just do it subconsciously. Changing beliefs is not something that happens easily, it takes a significant amount of conscious energy, especially when that belief is the foundation of other beliefs. Similar to a building, it is rather easy to repaint a room, but much more difficult to change the foundation. Often it is easier to simply believe that our foundation is solid rather than addressing the problem. Eventually the building may crumble, but by then we may have moved, or died. In the meantime we have other fish to fry.

In general, the older we get, the more difficult it is to let go of our illusions, since many other beliefs are likely to be based on those illusions. It is often easier to discredit the contrary evidence than to accept disillusion. It even seems reasonable to do so. We learn through experience that when we touch a candle flame, we burn our hand...and reason tells us that extinguishing the candle will keep us from getting burned. Likewise, a citizen in the 1600s might have thought: "before Galileo my beliefs that the sun revolved around the earth seemed sound and went unchallenged, so the problem must be Galileo." Denial and defense are a strong human instinct. Wars have been fought in order to uphold illusions of truth. Eventually the truth wins, the illusion dies out (although remnants remain), but that may take generations...little consolation to the pioneers who set the path. Galileo was forces to recant his life's work and lived his life under house arrest, Martin Luther King and many other leaders of the civil rights movement were murdered. Galileo's theories are now acknowledged as fact, Martin Luther King's work is widely recognized, but equal rights still a work in progress.

Critical Race Theory uses evidence to show that the ideal of equity regardless of race in the U.S. is an illusion. That despite many attempts, including the civil rights act of 1964, the reality was that while some progress had been made in some areas, there was still a rampant disparity of equity based on race. This was the foundation of the DEI movement. A natural part of the DEI movement were theories on how to correct this. We see today, how strong denial can be. Just as in Galileo's time, the political powers are aligned to deny the validity of disillusionment with our system. Some States have gone so far as to eliminate DEI programs from colleges and governments. As if somehow the problem can be solved by simply denying that it exists. By shifting blame to those who espouse DEI, just as blame was shifted to Galileo.

Day 4

An important component of critical thinking is to step back and look at ourselves critically. A good analogy is to think of each of us as actors on the stage. We see the action of others on stage from our perspective. But when one sits in the balcony, we see the actors from afar, we see ourselves as just one of the actors, and we also see the reaction of the audience.

From this perspective, we not only look at those who denied Galileo, but also from those who supported his ideas. One could argue that Galileo and his supporters held on to an illusion that others would accept his evidence and change their beliefs. Minimizing or possibly even ignoring the reality of the impact that the evidence would have on others, and the power of human thought to resist the acceptance that their beliefs were an illusion. We can point out that a building has a crumbling foundation, and condemn that building, but we can't expect residents to easily accept that reality, especially if we do not give them a place to go. While Galileo's evidence only provided evidence that the Earth revolved around the Sun, and did not say anything about the existence of God, that isn't the way it felt to many. They did not see it simply as another scientific fact, but an assault on their foundational beliefs in God. This was of course exacerbated by people and institutions who fanned the flames, used this as an opportunity to further their own power and beliefs. And likewise, Galileo's side did not speak with one voice, he did not control the message. No doubt that others who had a beef with the religious institutions, or perhaps were atheists, also twisted Galileo's words to further their own religious and political beliefs. And when this happens, when so many opinions enter the mix, the fight is seldom about the facts themselves, but rather a chance to rehash old rivalries and feuds, and desire for political/power gains. It is a seldom acknowledged aspect of free speech: if everyone is talking, no one is listening. Human ears and brains are only capable of listening to one person at a time, we only have time to listen to a select few. In a world of xx people, if everyone's speech is valued equally and given a chance to speech, the ideals of free speech are lost. Too much speech actually drowns out free speech.

And, from the balcony, I believe that we who opposed Trump, have to objectively address our own contribution to the situation today. For one, the illusion that somehow providing scientific evidence will convince others. We can provide all the evidence we want about global warming, but that isn't going to be pragmatically very convincing to a family of coal miners in West Virginia who have mined for generations, especially if we don't provide a path elsewhere. It may be unsafe, but it is their foundation. Their human instincts will kick in and they will fight to hold on, and others with other beliefs they feel threatened, with other political aims, will undoubtedly fan the flames, introduce new fuel (such as misinformation) to increase the flames and take in new converts.

Likewise, there are those, often well-meaning, who will use the evidence of global warming to fan the flames for support, to advance their own beliefs or political causes,

Day 4

As we discussed, In the 1600s, many held on to the illusion that the Sun revolved around the Earth, and held on to that illusion by denying and discrediting Galileo. But disillusion is complex, and one could also argue that Galileo also held onto the illusion that people would accept his evidence, ignoring or downplaying the pragmatic reality that people and institutions would fight hard to deny its truth. This reality includes the is exacerbated by the reality of how societies handle evidence. Galileo wasn't the only one speaking, his was not the only voice. His research only provided evidence that the Earth revolved around the Sun, it did not say anything about the existence of God. However, that is where the debate was focused. Others interpreted his words for themselves, often based on other preconceived notions and ideological beliefs. And this isn't only from proponents, agnostics and atheists no doubt also used his research as proof that God did not exist. Such rhetoric tends to lead

Likewise, I think many of us who are disillusioned with the Presidential election results, held onto the illusion that our evidence and beliefs would be accepted by the general populace, underestimating the institutions would deny it. As well as minimizing that we are also susceptible of using evidence to advance our political beliefs.

There are numerous examples of denial throughout history, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. In the 1600s, the common belief was that the sun revolved around the Earth, that the Earth was the center of the universe. Galileo demonstrated that the Copernican theory was correct, that the Earth revolved around the sun. Instead of accepting the evidence, instead of accepting disillusion, those in power set out to deny that their beliefs were an illusion. Illusions appear to be true, and when one stands in a field, it sure does look like the sun is revolving around the earth.

nstead of accepting it, the powers that be stuck to their beliefs, as if they could deny the truth by suppressing and discrediting Galileo. It should be noted that this approach is an extension of a form of reason that does work well in many situations. F It is a natural subconscious reaction to conflict, one that works in many cases, but not all.

Disillusionment is an attack on our beliefs, it makes us angry, and anger triggers powerful, instinctual fight or flight defense mechanisms. When we are angry, our brain chemistry changes. We lose objectivity and empathy, we lose subtlety and nuance, and we see those who disagree with us as the opposition, as the enemy. Our focus turns from truth-finding to winning/surviving. Our focus looks to find weakness in our opposition that can be exploited to our advantage.

Anger and blame go together. We need a reason to justify our anger, and one way to do that is to place blame. We lash out at what is mo

When dealing with competing ideas, we try to find the weakest part of opposing ideas, and we use that to discredit the entire idea.

One way we stto divert attention from reason is to place blame. Galileo discovered that the Earth revolved around the sun, but instead of accepting it, the powers that be stuck to their beliefs, as if they could deny the truth by suppressing and discrediting Galileo. It should be noted that this approach is an extension of a form of reason that does work well in many situations. For example, we may touch a candle flame, burn our hand, and reason tells us that extinguishing the candle will keep us from getting burned. So, one might think: "before Galileo my beliefs seemed sound and went unchallenged, so the problem must be Galileo." It is a natural subconscious reaction to conflict, one that works in many cases, but not all.

We certainly saw the same thing with the response to Martin Luther King, and see similar denial in action today. For many white citizens: "Before MLK, I didn't believe that racism existed, so therefore the problem must be MLK." And we see the same reaction to DEI today. "Before DEI, I didn't believe racism existed, I didn't personally see it, so therefore the problem must be DEI." Martin Luther King was assassinated. DEI has been assailed, eliminated from many businesses and educational institutions, and even outlawed in some States. The justifications focus on the more radical suggestions from DEI proponents, not the core points of DEI.

The justifications focus on the more radical suggestions of DEI proponents, not the core points

The fight reaction is one of the oldest and deepest rooted instincts of humans. And ust as we can fight people, we can fight ideas. Denial is a form of fighting.

Denial is easy. Acceptance is harder. In a complex world, one can always find a reason to discredit a source.

An interesting human trait is to deny our susceptibility to denial. We tend to think of denial as something that "they" do, not something that "we" do. But it is a natural human trait of our subconscious. It takes conscious effort and time to override, which only returns us to disillusion and the despair of an intractable problem. We don't like to believe that problems are intractable, we like solutions.

The natural reaction is to say: "but they do it more, they are worse." That may be absolutely true, but that doesn't change my point that this a natural human reaction when our beliefs are challenged, when we become disillusioned.

I feel that those on the left of center, myself included, have denied the

We are all human, we are all susceptible to denial. It is a natural first human reaction to any challenges to our beliefs. If someone tells us that our favorite food is unhealthy, our favorite book is poorly written, our friends are not kind, our pet dog has bitten them, our first natural reaction is to deny and place blame.

Many sought to discredit the man as if somehow that could deny the ideas. At the same time that many publicly

The truth eventually came out, as it always does, but that is little consolation to those that were persecuted for accepting the truth. Another way to deny is to simply ignore it, as if it can be hidden away just by not thinking about it. We do this by changing priorities, by finding something else to focus on, so that one doesn't have to deal with harsh realities.

the belief in the Constitution and the principle of equity, the reality was that a person was often judged by the color of their skin, not the quality of their ideas.

Reconciling disillusion involves resignation and acknowledgment that our beliefs weren't correct, but also can result in new ideals and aspirations to make our beliefs become reality. A child who breaks a dish will not easily divulge the truth, but might hide the broken dish, or perhaps blame their sibling or their dog. Or they might learn how to repair the dish or purchase a replacement. And for a truly motivated child, that might lead to a career in pottery, or perhaps materials science and inventing unbreakable dishes.

For me, the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King is very much related to disillusionment and how one responds to it. Disillusionment from the recognition that reality diverged from tjhe ideal. Despite our belief in the Constitution and the principle of equity, the reality was that a person was often judged by the color of their skin, not the quality of their ideas. .

History has shown just how difficult that is. While many responded positively to MLK's message, including the eventual passage of civil rights legislation and the dismantling of Jim Crow laws, this didn't come easy. Congress hemmed and hawed and many Democrats worked behind the scenes to block the passage of civil rights legislation, while publicly saying the opposite. The FBI worked to discredit Dr. King, to divert attention and distract from the inequality. Excuses were made, blame was placed on others. And MLK was soon assassinated.

Today, xxx years after, we can still see the difficulty. Despite great strides and attempts, racial inequality continues. A black xx, a . We Changing law had less practical results than we had hoped/believed. Jim Crow laws are off the books, yet segregation is still xx. xxxInstead of embracing and learning from DEI xxx, the result has been one of denial and suppression. Diverting attention from the core by focusing on the more radical suggestions for improvement, and using that as the excuse to ban DEI from educational institutions of xx. Not all that different from banning Galileo's teachings about xx, because he also believed xxx.

One can't help but be disillusioned. One can only wonder what MLK would think if he were alive today. He would certainly be disillusioned, and even question whether the xx. But he also would lift up the dream. The dream remains. Reality remains and the truth does eventually win the day, even if we may not live to see it.

Accepting disillusionment as part of the learning process, accepting reality and learning from it, are the eternal lessons of history, so eloquently voiced and reinforced by MLK. We may be disillusioned, but we are also uplifted by the knowledge we have gained, and can put that knowledge to good use in the pursuit of the dream we share.

Day 3

polarization

Division into two sharply distinct opposites. Especially a state in which the opinions, beliefs, or interests of a group or society no longer range along a continuum but become concentrated at opposing extremes

- Merriam Webster

After a long hard battle at Merriam Webster, with a polarized camp of voters, including accusations of voter fraud, polarization emerged as the Merriam-Webster word of the year for 2024. For those of us rooting for xx, it is a bitter pill, but we have to begrudgingly congratulation polarization on its victory. And we can be grateful for term limits. Next year, we'll have a new word. (Perhaps "disillusionment" will put its hat into the ring next election cycle?)

Day 4

Please take a moment to read the following, and pay attention to the flow of your reaction. And, if it makes you irate, please read the following before giving up on this blog.

"There is little difference between a Trump voter and a Harris voter"

What went on here. If you are like me, your initial reaction would have been anger and frustration. Because when I hear that, I made some assumptions. I thought about the places where Trump voters and Harris voters differ and see a huge difference, an important distinction to make. One that should be trivialized or treated equally.

But in doing so, what have I missed, what assumptions have I made. Most importantly, I focused on the political. A very reasonable assumption because that is usually the context of such statements. But aside from politics, there really isn't much difference. We still shop at the same grocery stores, drive xxx, root for the same teams. Yankee fans, regardless of political party are going to side with their fellow Yan

And like almost all such models, they are not completely accurate, but rather are shortcuts to make a specific point. A sphere does not actually have poles, all points are equal. Even our Earth does not have East and West poles, only North and South. And our North and South poles are among the least hospitable for human life. Can you imagine people actually choosing to live at the poles? Gravity or not, all but Santa and a few intrepid researchers would head for warmer climes. If only the political extremes were as inhospitable to human political thought, polarization would not be a thing.

And our earth globe has a North and South Pole which are the ends of the axis that the Earth revolves on. Polarization invokes the meme of a world where people gravitate and huddle in only two locations. A succinct metaphor, in modern parlance, one might call the image a meme. What is fascinating is that t

This calls to mind another metaphor. They say that a drop of water falling to the west of the xxx will end up in the Pacific ocean, one dropped just a few inches away to the East will end up in the Atlantic. The drops follow a long and winding journey, always taking the path of least resistance, and ending up on opposite sides of the continent.

Perhaps Florida and California are more appropriate metaphors for American polarization?

What is fascinating is that the general concept of a globe as a spherical object, has no poles at all. For example, our Earth does not have east and west poles. And on a sphere, heading in any direction will eventually return you to the same point.

What is rather fascinating about "polarization" is that that the poles on a sphere are rather arbitrary. While our common Earth globe has a North and South pole, it has no East and West pole. If we pick any starting point on the globe, a person traveling west will eventually come face to face with a person traveling east. The same is true for North/South. Which supports my observation that there isn't much difference in the positions of extreme liberals and extreme conservatives, the difference is primarily in the path that got them there.

And this makes xxx to me, as I've always thought extreme liberals and extreme conservatives to be very similar, they occupy the same territory, it is just that they arrived via different paths.

The problem with polarization is that we stop thinking of the world as a globe, but rather a wall map, where the two extremes don't connect. Which is somewhat of a flat-earth view of the world. It is easier to think in two-dimensions instead of 3, but it sure misses something.

When I think of this election cycle, polarization seems very obvious. There is very little middle ground. Each side is convinced of the rightness of their position and the wrongness of the other side. Meanwhile the very idea of sides is rather arbitrary, the criteria based on who one casts a vote for. Meanwhile we ignore all of the other commonalities and division opportunities. A conservative vote in New England roots for the Red Sox, eats fried clams and drinks Dunkin Donuts, and shares little in common with a xxx fan in conservative xxx.

Mathematics and science offer a wonderful explanation of how polarization can occur, how two people in the same space can come to very different conclusions. To a fan sitting in the bleachers of an auto race, the cars go by in a blur, but the trees in the infield are standing perfectly still. To a driver in one of the race cars, they can clearly see the detail of the driver next door going at the same speed, but the fans are a blur, as are the trees in the infield. Try this out the next time you are on the highway. The car next to you is going 60 mph but looks to be barely moving, the trees on the side of the road are not moving at all, but they whiz by quickly. Meanwhile the earth is spinning at xxx mph, hurtling through space at xx mph, and we don't even notice it because everything in our world, including our atmosphere and solar system, are moving at the same pace.

Relativity explains this. One doesn't have to be an Einstein to understand this theory of relativity. Our perceptions are based on our personal situation. In politics, different people may have different priorities. To one side, the character of the President seems vitally important, to another xxx. Facts don't always matter as much as perceptions, no matter how much we'd like to believe otherwise. A farmer can mistakenly believe that the world is flat, and that doesn't affect their farming.

And even facts are seldom as hardfast as we'd like them to be. Understanding Einstein's Theory of Relativity is one of the most important aspects of science, and likewise understanding how relativity affects the human experience and perceptions is equally important for a better understanding of our world.

Day 4

So how do we deal with disilllusionment and polarization? The answer involves changing our perspective. Stepping back and looking from a further point of view. And one key apsect of this is recognizing that not everyone is coming with is, convincing others is a long process. We can srep outside the racetrack, look from above and see xx, but the drivers and fans are too focused on the race to step outside with us.

Week 1

Weekly Key Concepts
Day 1	Introduction
Day 2	Humans are Human
Efficiency and "Good Enough"
Ambiguity and Paradox
Day 3	Prioritization
Preference and Emotion

Day 5: Categorization and Ambiguity

The human brain maximizes efficiency through categorization. For example, we lump all trees together in the category of trees. Within the tree category, we might create categories for maples, and oaks. Our brains can handle 4-6 categories at once, so our indexing systems tend to also group things in less than 6 categories. Look around and you will see countless examples of such categorization. Menu choices at a restaurant, animal groupings at a zoo, aisles at a grocery store.

Categorization allows us to summarize common features, and allows us to store more information in our memory. The simplest categorization method reduces things to 2 categories (often refered to as "binary"). Our world is full of binary choices. True or false, yes or no, day or night. Almost any group of categories can be turned into a binary choice through further grouping: e.g. week or weekend, red or "not-red.

While this is efficient, like all efficiencies, some precision and subtley is lost. E.g. there are many shades of red. Most true or false questions have "operating ranges" (for example, while a ball thrown in the air will always come down, this wouldn't be true in outer space.)

Mapping. False Equivalence.

So, although we group things for efficiency, humans are also adept at dealing with ambiguity. Some items can be in multiple categories, and the categorization can change with context. Human language is a good example of this. Human language is imprecise. The same word can have multiple meanings. Used in the real world, many words have subtle differences based on context.

Statistics and the concept of distributions is a mathematical way to represent this.

Prioritization of differences is a key aspect of human thinking. When we compare items that aren't directly comparable, we are prioritizing which criteria are most important to us personally. A parent with a transgender child is likely to transgender issues as of vital importance, and another parent whose child was a victim of violence may see xxx (Need better examples here). While Spock and xxx (name an organization freak) may create a list of the items of importance ranked on a 1 to 10 scale for each, that is not how most humans do it. Our world's are not static. Prioritizations change based on events and moods and times of day. Not everything can be easily compared or prioritized. Questions like which is more important to you: climate change or education are impossible to answer.

If we are to understand people, the important most thing isn't to identify the prioritizations, it is simply to understand that this is what humans naturally do. And self-preservation is embedded in our DNA, so naturally we will instinctually favor those things we believe are most important for our survival and thrival, then those that favor those closest to us, etc.

And in our modern, Western world, with the proliferation of responsibilities and information, efficiency is important. McDonald's may not offer the most nutritious or healthy meal, but it efficiently supplies us with good enough nutrition quicky to allow us to focus on other tasks. The answer we choose also depends on context and the consequence of each decision option. Choosing the less nutritious meal has little short-term consequence. For someone with serious allergies, the choice of meals has more consequences. This also explains why two different people might make different choices, or even why the same person might make different choices in different situations/contexts. What is good enough for one person might not be good enough for another.

In the school room, accuracy is emphasized. In math class, when adding large numbers, getting to the precise answer is important, regardless of how long it takes to get there. In most everyday situations, making estimations that allow us to get to answer quickly is good enough. For example, when dividing a pizza into eighths, we don't get accurately even slices, we don't measure, we estimate and save time. The consequences of uneven slicing are minimal.... unless you have two eight year-old boys who both demand the biggest slice.

The "fight or flight" reaction is one of the oldest evolutionary instincts that most animals share.

One of those human traits is making quick decisions based on limited information. Time is limited, so making quick decisions allows us to do more. This means a trade-off between accuracy and speed. The answer we settle on may not be the most accurate, but we try to choose the most efficient. I would argue that efficiency is achieved when we find a fast good enough answer for the task at hand. The proliferation of fast food is a good example of the importance of efficiency. It may not as nutritious or healthy as well-prepared fresh food, but it provides enough nutrition for daily survival in less time.

Of course, this depends on what people value most, some people may value health over time.

Perhaps a real-world example can illustrate this point. In the sport of football, one must advance the ball 10 yards to gain a first down. Each time the ball is advanced, a referee estimates the point at which the tip of the ball was at the time the ball carrier's knee touched the ground. The ball is then flipped to another referee standing on a hashmark many yards who tries to place it at the same distance. This happens three times and despite all of the room for errors through estimation, if it is close to 10 yards, a 10-yard chain is brought from the sideline, and the distance gained is measured to within 1/4". Mathematically, the chance of this being the correct call is about 50%, about the same as a coin flip. But from a pragmatic sense, this approach is good enough for the task at hand.

And this also illustrates another human trait, the way we deal with estimation by acting as if they are accurate when they are close enough for the task at hand. Anyone who complains about the inaccuracy would be considered a poor sport, and the idea of flipping a coin would be rejected instead of referee measurements would be rejected by most all football fans.

T For example, recognizing the fact that the phrase "humans are human" involves two different meanings of the word human in the same sentence. We have to figure out how to parse that phrase with few clues from the sentence. Instead, we bring in context and other experience. And no matter how precise the dictionary definition, the phrase will mean different things to different people at different times, and the meaning will change with context. But rather ironically, another human trait is that in normal day-to-day activities we gain efficiency by treating our estimates as precise, and acting as if there is no ambiguity. Yet this ambiguity is never mentioned, all parties treat the estimates as if they were precise. And this is estimation is fine for all practical purposes.

While there are a lot of traits that distinguish humans from other animal species, I think the most important is "efficiency." Efficiency doesn't mean simply doing the same exact task faster. In most cases, it involves a tradeoff. We do things much faster, but some level of precision is sacrificed. Ikea tables are not as solid as those tables built in the 1700's by experienced woodworkers. But the expertise and time required to build one is significantly less than that of a woodworker, a wider range of materials can be used, and the utility remains. The table may not last as long, may wobble a bit, but one can still eat one's meal, write a diary, etc.

Humans have excelled not only at using tools, but also at passing on knowledge to others. Both allow us to be more efficient as a group... doing more in less time. The written word was a human invention that allows us to store and pass on knowledge more efficiently. Combined with the technology of the Internet, we can now learn almost instantly what might have taken our ancestors a lifetime. Which allows us more time to do more. And although technology has advanced the amount of information available, our brains remain similar to the brains of our hunter-gatherer ancestors as does the number of hours in a day. So, we cope by being even more efficient with our time, which means being more efficient in our decision making, which leads to more tradeoffs and shortcuts.

In the phrase, "humans are human", although the words are the same, the second occurrence of "human" means something different than the first. It refers to human traits; things that most all humans share*.

---

?????

Mapping is an excellent example of crystallized thinking. Whether we are talking about a geographic map, a diagram of the human skeletal system, or a flowchart to document a process, maps i

Keep for a bit

Welcome to your new wiki!

---

To upload your logo, make sure your dimensions are at most 155px by 155px. Upload it at Wiki.png.

For more info on how to get started with your wiki, visit the MyWikis Help Center.

For more info on how to use MediaWiki, visit our help pages.

Hormones

Closely related to categorization is pattern matching. We can use historical knowledge/observation to predict what will come next. If we see the wolf in the pen with the sheep, we have a pretty good idea of what would come next. And although we may not have ever seen a lion in with the sheep, we know that both l

Leftover

Tidbits, Deeper Dives, Reviews

We do categorization in a myriad of ways. Evolutionarily,

Our world is chock-full of frameworks. Grammar is a framework for organizing words.  The banking system is a framework for commerce.  Houses contain bedrooms, bathrooms and a kitchen.  We accept these frameworks because they make life easier, we don't re-evaluate them each time for each task.  

A more sophisticated form of abstraction are models and maps. Think of a road atlas (or for you youngsters, the map on your GPS). DESCRIBE.

Maps and models are incredibly efficient. They allow us to consolidate lots of information. And of course, it also means that lots of information is lost. This doesn't matter when that lost information isn't that important, but can be a problem if we forget that information was lost. (E.g. if that shorter road involved a trip over a mountain). And as creatures of habit, it is sometimes easy to forget that we are using a model, not observing the actual thing. When two items appear in the same category,we have a tendency to forget that they are discrete and may think of them as the same. This can lead to stereotyping and "false equivalence."

This gets even more complicated when we are discussing samples and distributions (i.e. statistics.) Distributions are a collection of discrete items, put together into a map. E.g. a graph of the heights of U.S. males. Statistics gives us a way to describe the distribution with calculations such as the average. It is easy to forget that each point on the graph is an individual, and that no person may actually fit the average.

This is why probabilty and statistics are so frequently misunderstood.

Closely related to categorization is "mapping."

While categorization is efficient, like all efficiencies, some precision and subtlety is lost. E.g. there are many shades of green, yet we learn that "leaves are green."

Most true or false questions have "operating ranges" (for example, while a ball thrown in the air will always come down, this wouldn't be true in outer space) or includes unstated assumptions (e.g. 11+3=14. But for telling time, if it is 11 o'clock and we add 3 hours, the answer is 2:00).

Mapping. False Equivalence.

So, although we group things for efficiency, humans are also adept at dealing with ambiguity. Some items can be in multiple categories, and the categorization can change with context. Human language is a good example of this. Human language is imprecise. The same word can have multiple meanings. Used in the real world, many words have subtle differences based on context.

Statistics and the concept of distributions is a mathematical way to represent this.

Prioritization of differences is a key aspect of human thinking. When we compare items that aren't directly comparable, we are prioritizing which criteria are most important to us personally. A parent with a transgender child is likely to transgender issues as of vital importance, and another parent whose child was a victim of violence may see xxx (Need better examples here). While Spock and xxx (name an organization freak) may create a list of the items of importance ranked on a 1 to 10 scale for each, that is not how most humans do it. Our world's are not static. Prioritizations change based on events and moods and times of day. Not everything can be easily compared or prioritized. Questions like which is more important to you: climate change or education are impossible to answer.

If we are to understand people, the important most thing isn't to identify the prioritizations, it is simply to understand that this is what humans naturally do. And self-preservation is embedded in our DNA, so naturally we will instinctually favor those things we believe are most important for our survival and thrival, then those that favor those closest to us, etc.

And in our modern, Western world, with the proliferation of responsibilities and information, efficiency is important. McDonald's may not offer the most nutritious or healthy meal, but it efficiently supplies us with good enough nutrition quicky to allow us to focus on other tasks. The answer we choose also depends on context and the consequence of each decision option. Choosing the less nutritious meal has little short-term consequence. For someone with serious allergies, the choice of meals has more consequences. This also explains why two different people might make different choices, or even why the same person might make different choices in different situations/contexts. What is good enough for one person might not be good enough for another.

In the school room, accuracy is emphasized. In math class, when adding large numbers, getting to the precise answer is important, regardless of how long it takes to get there. In most everyday situations, making estimations that allow us to get to answer quickly is good enough. For example, when dividing a pizza into eighths, we don't get accurately even slices, we don't measure, we estimate and save time. The consequences of uneven slicing are minimal.... unless you have two eight year-old boys who both demand the biggest slice.

The "fight or flight" reaction is one of the oldest evolutionary instincts that most animals share.

One of those human traits is making quick decisions based on limited information. Time is limited, so making quick decisions allows us to do more. This means a trade-off between accuracy and speed. The answer we settle on may not be the most accurate, but we try to choose the most efficient. I would argue that efficiency is achieved when we find a fast good enough answer for the task at hand. The proliferation of fast food is a good example of the importance of efficiency. It may not as nutritious or healthy as well-prepared fresh food, but it provides enough nutrition for daily survival in less time.

Of course, this depends on what people value most, some people may value health over time.

Perhaps a real-world example can illustrate this point. In the sport of football, one must advance the ball 10 yards to gain a first down. Each time the ball is advanced, a referee estimates the point at which the tip of the ball was at the time the ball carrier's knee touched the ground. The ball is then flipped to another referee standing on a hashmark many yards who tries to place it at the same distance. This happens three times and despite all of the room for errors through estimation, if it is close to 10 yards, a 10-yard chain is brought from the sideline, and the distance gained is measured to within 1/4". Mathematically, the chance of this being the correct call is about 50%, about the same as a coin flip. But from a pragmatic sense, this approach is good enough for the task at hand.

And this also illustrates another human trait, the way we deal with estimation by acting as if they are accurate when they are close enough for the task at hand. Anyone who complains about the inaccuracy would be considered a poor sport, and the idea of flipping a coin would be rejected instead of referee measurements would be rejected by most all football fans.

T For example, recognizing the fact that the phrase "humans are human" involves two different meanings of the word human in the same sentence. We have to figure out how to parse that phrase with few clues from the sentence. Instead, we bring in context and other experience. And no matter how precise the dictionary definition, the phrase will mean different things to different people at different times, and the meaning will change with context. But rather ironically, another human trait is that in normal day-to-day activities we gain efficiency by treating our estimates as precise, and acting as if there is no ambiguity. Yet this ambiguity is never mentioned, all parties treat the estimates as if they were precise. And this is estimation is fine for all practical purposes.

While there are a lot of traits that distinguish humans from other animal species, I think the most important is "efficiency." Efficiency doesn't mean simply doing the same exact task faster. In most cases, it involves a tradeoff. We do things much faster, but some level of precision is sacrificed. Ikea tables are not as solid as those tables built in the 1700's by experienced woodworkers. But the expertise and time required to build one is significantly less than that of a woodworker, a wider range of materials can be used, and the utility remains. The table may not last as long, may wobble a bit, but one can still eat one's meal, write a diary, etc.

Humans have excelled not only at using tools, but also at passing on knowledge to others. Both allow us to be more efficient as a group... doing more in less time. The written word was a human invention that allows us to store and pass on knowledge more efficiently. Combined with the technology of the Internet, we can now learn almost instantly what might have taken our ancestors a lifetime. Which allows us more time to do more. And although technology has advanced the amount of information available, our brains remain similar to the brains of our hunter-gatherer ancestors as does the number of hours in a day. So, we cope by being even more efficient with our time, which means being more efficient in our decision making, which leads to more tradeoffs and shortcuts.

In the phrase, "humans are human", although the words are the same, the second occurrence of "human" means something different than the first. It refers to human traits; things that most all humans share*.

?????

Mapping is an excellent example of crystallized thinking. Whether we are talking about a geographic map, a diagram of the human skeletal system, or a flowchart to document a process, maps i

The world is complex, and getting more complex each day, so there are more demands on our brainpower than any individual can handle. We handle this through prioritization and filtering. And while some priorities are shared, each of us has different priorities and preferences. And preferences will change depending on the circumstances/context. Depending on the person and situation, a meal may be judged by its attractiveness, its nutrition, its taste, its cost, or its convenience.

One way to be efficient is to group objects together, to identify similar attributes. So for example, we know that both great danes and peekinese are both dogs, sharing many attributes, even though they look quite different. Once they are grouped, we can then identify them by their differences. Much more efficient than having to list all the attributes of each. Through evolution,

) This means that even among those things that pass the initial filtering, our brains have to prioritize where to put our attention. Again, evolution plays a strong role.

Other information is prioritized, for example we might notice an ominous rain cloud or a barking dog. We often focus on exceptions.

we do not notice every tree, much less every blade of grass that we can see, but we would quickly pick out a charging lion or an ominous cloud. We quickly break down what we see into categories. So, for example, we might describe a scene as a field surrounded by trees, with a small pond, and a farm house. Even though there are many types of trees in that scene, of differing sizes and species, our minds have efficiently grouped them together. We also subconsciously choose to ignore (i.e. filter) some items, for example, a driveway to the house. When we look at a scene, our brains go through an automatic process to tell us where it is most important to focus.

Humans have become very efficient at identifying patterns, finding similarities and differences.

Studies have shown that human conscious working memory can only focus on 4 to 6 items at once, so grouping things into categories helps our conscious processes. Of course, there are lots of different potential groupings, so our brains must prioritize and choose where to focus our mental energy. Noting similarities and differences helps us be more efficient. For example, we can categorize a Pekinese dog as a small long-haired dog with a flat face. When we do so, we are de-facto prioritizing these features over others (e.g. their demeanor or lifespan).

which may be different from the way they would actually like to be treated.

We have discussed how humans are self-centered in their perspectives and prioritizations. But humans are prosocial, we must cooperate with others to survive. Evolution addresses this through deep-seated notions of fairness. The concept of fairness is evolutionarily important to our species. While humans have a strong survival instinct, we also depend on others for our survival. What sociologists call "prosocial." One instinct that helps reinforce our community responsibility are our innate "fairness instincts."

But, like many things, fairness isn't judged on an absolute scale, it is judged relative to what we perceive others are getting. And it is subject to the same proximity prioritizations and filters as all our perceptions. So, we will be more likely to judge fairness of the size of our pizza slice our tablemate receives, than against what someone receives at another restaurant.

In DeWahl's study, the second monkey who was getting grapes was not the one complaining. If he were human, he might have internal;y justified his getting grapes as being the result of feeling he was doing a better job than the other. I.e. the system was still fair. This will be discussed further in subsequent posts, but you can see how these factors can affect people's viewpoints of social programs based on their prioritizations and perceptions of fairness. A person who benefitted from a school lunch program might see providing food stamps as fair, whereas someone else who went to school hungry and had to scrounge pennies to pay for lunch, might see it as unfair.

Another important point is that fairness is judged in comparison to others. If everyone in a particular village has a television, they may all believe they are being treated fairly, even though another viillage that they seldom see has color televisions. The comparisons are typically what is closest (proximity at work again).

I mention these here because I think they can give insights into modern behaviors and politics. Our social systems often break down when we feel we are being treated unfairly. In complex social systems, we may focus on certain attributes. So, for example, we might compare property taxes between two communities, but not the services that are being provided from those taxes. If we are paying more dollars in taxes than a neighbor, we might feel that is unfair. Someone else might look at taxes in terms of percentages, and feel that they are being treated unfairly because they are paying a higher percentage of their income in taxes.

Relativity, like "objectivity" seems to have gone out of fashion. For many, relativity conjures up "moral relativity" which conjures up thoughts of no such thing as "right and wrong" and therefore the breakdown of modern society where there are no facts or truths.

But that is an example of

Reason and memory are much more efficient when we put things and ideas into categories, by noting similarities and differences. We can save lots of time if we don't have to memorize every tree, but rather know the things that trees have in common, and the differences between types of trees. Through evolution, our neurological systems have become very adept at noting similarities and differences. We instantly can find the orange object in a room full of green objects. We know that a redwood is a tree, even if we've never seen one before.

This means that we often judge objects relative to others. Although the modern world provides absolute measures such as the size of a glass in ounces, or distance in feet, these measures are actually a comparison to another object. (E.g. the length of a human foot). We are much better at comparing objects than at estimating actual measures. For example, I can not tell you the weight or circumference of a baseball off-hand. But I do know that a baseball is smaller and lighter than a softball. Most of us are not able to look at light and tell how many lumens it it, but we can pick out which star is brightest in a sky full of stars. Given a photo of a forest, we can identify which tree's leaves have turned orange. We are quite skilled at identifying similarities and differences between objects. For most of human history, measurements were made by comparing an object to a reference object. (For example, a "foot" was the length of king xxx's actual foot).

Our skills at making comparisons are reinforced throughout our lives, including "compare and contrast" exercises. In math we learn equal to, greater than and less than. Comparison is an efficient way of measuring. And like all efficiencies, some accuracy is gained, so we sometimes make errors. Optical illusions take advantage of our comparison shortcuts and can fool us.

As we get better at comparisons, we learn to identify patterns, to identify cause and effects. We develop the ability to estimate and predict. A good cook does not need a measuring spoon to pour out a tablespoon of oil, they are able to estimate it "by eye." We know that applying heat to water will cause it boil. The higher the heat, the faster it will come to a boil. In most cases, we do not need to make exact calculations, the estimations are good enough.

We also learn to put objects into categories based on similarities and differences. For example, we group oaks, maples, pines together in the category of trees, even though pines needles and oak leaves are quite different. We might further divide trees into softwood and hardwood. Categories are a form of subconscious prioritization. When we group items into a category, we are prioritizing the similarities over the differences. For example, when we look at a group of shapes, and we identify the one that is orange and the others are green, for that purpose we are prioritizing color over shape. A different exercise, where all the shapes are orange, we would pick out the square as the one that is different. This is how our environment can shape our subconscious prioritizations without us even realizing it.

Humans compare everything, not only objects. We can compare ideas and concepts. For example, we can compare communism to capitalism, we can compare movies to television. Equality is often judged in terms of "fairness." The concept of fairness is evolutionarily important to our species. While humans have a strong survival instinct, we also depend on others for our survival. What sociologists call "prosocial." One instinct that helps reinforce our community responsibility are our innate "fairness instincts." We will cooperate in a group, even sacrifice personal xx, if we feel we are being treated fairly. So, for example, on a lifeboat, we are willing to share the remaining food equally, even if it means we are still hungry. However, we would get upset if another person ate more than their fair share. This is a fascinating instinct, one that may be used by primates to help their species xxx. DeWahl here.

Modern-world humans make over 30,000 decisions each day, roughly one every 2 waking seconds. Reliance on shortcuts, experience and sources is essential to making it through the day. In most cases we aren't trying to find the ideal choice, but rather the best choice among those easily available. When we're at Burger King, our choices are limited to what is on the menu. Burger King may say "have it your way", but they mean your way within the constraints of the choices they offer. My way might be served on rye toast, but that isn't something they offer. In this case, "my way" is relative. I have more choice than if they only served a burger with the exact same condiments to everyone.

W

Scarcity model, fear and fight.

It may seem that some people don't have this sense of fairness. We all know of examples of people who want more than others. But I believe this is not due to the lack of this belief, but rather that they use "justification" to believe why this is fair.

Relativity is an important aspect of human decision making. We make decisions through comparison between options, and we take advantage of categorization. We're very adept at putting things into simpler categories to make decision-making more efficient. And as with any efficiencies, some accuracy and precision is lost. Although humans are capable of handling between 4 and 6 choices at a time, decision-making is easiest when choosing between two choices (often refered to as "binary"). Binary choices are the simplest, and it is likely that brain function evolutionarily began with the ability to make binary choices. "Fight or flight" is a fundamental binary choice shared by many species. Our world is full of binary choices. True or false, right or wrong, yes or no, day or night. Almost any group of categories can be turned into a binary choice through further grouping: e.g. week or weekend, green or "not-green", on or off, guilty or not-guilty.

Humans are also very good at pattern recognition. Given a series of objects, we are very good at identifying similarities and differences.

Any decision can be broken down into a series of choices between two options. For example, asked to choose the heaviest of 6 objects without a scale, we will pick up two objects, feel which is heavier, and then compare that one to the next object in line.

One is the opposite of the other, there are no in-betweens.

Human decision making typically involves choices between options. Which shirt we wear, what we eat for lunch, what we xxx are all choices among available options. Typically we compare options, looking at one relative to the other. When we are hungry, we choose the largest among our choices. When we are frugal, we choose the cheapest among the choices. And as we have discussed, the criteria we use for making choices depends on priorities and preferences. Frugality may be the priority if we are on a tight budget, size might be the priority when we are very hungry. Seldom do the choices perfectly fit.

In much of our schooling and training, we deal in absolutes. When adding 3+4, we aren't given a bunch of choices to choose from and choose the best relative to the others, instead we calculate the absolute correct answer.

Mathematical decision-making typically comes at problems the opposite way.

Relativity means evaluating something by comparing it to something else. We may not be able to tell by feel how much a package weighs, but we can tell that it heavier or lighter than another object. Even things that we have come to think of as absolute, were originally

Some of these are subconscious such deciding how long a stride to take, some are ruled by habit such as choosing a pair of shoes, and some require significant thought such as whether the answer to a question is true or false.

The simplest decision reduces problems to two choices

Our social systems reinforce the true/false approach. Much of our math and science education focuses on "deterministic" problems, problems where there is a known, quantifiable, stable correct true answer. Any other answer is false. For example the question of what is 3+4. The correct answer is 7, all other answers are wrong. We often refer to correct answers as facts or universal truths. We use reason to combine truths to draw new conclusions. Mathematical proofs use "logic", a formal form of reason, to determine the correct answer. Much of logic is based on binary problems. A thesis is either true, or it is false. Proving something to be always true can be difficult, but proving something false only requires finding one instance where it is not true. An interesting aspect of binary logic is that given two choices, if one is incorrect, we can assume the other must be correct. If a coin doesn't land on heads, we can assume it must be tails.

Binary logic does not give much room for nuance. If we add 3+4 and get 6, we are incorrect, it is the wrong answer. Likewise, if we add 3+4 and get 285, that is equally the wrong answer. In the classroom, both are equally incorrect. We don't distinguish between them. 6 and 285 are equally bad answers.

However, in the real world, 6 is a lot closer to the correct answer to than 285. There is an adage that close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades, but I would say that the person who ate a crock of soup with 285 teaspoons of salt might disagree.

---

Humans are very good at abstraction. We apply knowledge in one area to another. In this way we can (trees).

For more complex problems, where there is no single correct answer, binary approaches can still be quite efficient. Something may not be absolutely always true, but treating it as such is good enough for most situations. For example, the boiling point of water is 212 degrees. But this actually depends on pressure. In Denver, where the air pressure is somewhat less due to its altitude,, the boiling point of water is 198 degrees. However, most of us live closer to sea level, and thus 212 degrees becomes a rule of thumb that is good enough for most situations.

In the real world we live in, almost all truths have similar exceptions dependent on context. A ball thrown in the air will fall down is truth. But it is true on earth, but not true in outer space.

Even moral questions such as "thou shalt not commit murder" can have exceptions (e.g. would it have been moral murder Hitler in his youth if you knew for sure what he would become). However,

Categorization is efficient. Putting things into categories such as true or false saves a lot of mental effort.

This can sometimes lead to the aptly named "false equivalence."

Humans are also adept at abstraction. We adapt tools and knowledge from one area to another. So, we often use

Computers are based on binary mathematics... an elaborate organization of on/off switches, and the most efficient search algorithms use binary approaches. However, the real-world is seldom binary, but rather we often organize it that way for efficiency of thought. This will be another topic that will be discussed often throughout this site.

Our human brains are very good at comparing objects, identifying similarities and differences, and putting them into categories. Objects in a category share a common attribute or set of attributes. Categories are shortcuts that are extremely efficient. We don't have to memorize every oak tree we've seen, we can just remember the common attributes that oak trees share. Categorization allow us to tell which plants are trees by their shape and trunks, to distinguish maples from oaks by their leaves, and can even estimate the age of a tree by its size.

In school, we learn to hone our categorization skills through "compare and contrast" questions. Multiple choice questions, and True or false questions practice these skills in that we are required to put our answers into categories. The simplest categorization method reduces things to 2 categories (often refered to as "binary"). Binary choices are the simplest, and it is likely that brain function evolutionarily began with the ability to make binary choices. "Fight or flight" is a fundamental binary choice shared by many species. Our world is full of binary choices. True or false, yes or no, day or night. Almost any group of categories can be turned into a binary choice through further grouping: e.g. week or weekend, green or "not-green", on or off, guilty or not-guilty. Computers are based on binary mathematics... an elaborate organization of on/off switches, and the most efficient search algorithms use binary approaches. However, the real-world is seldom binary, but rather we often organize it that way for efficiency of thought. This will be another topic that will be discussed often throughout this site.

Our brains can handle 4-6 categories at once, so our indexing systems tend to also group things in a small number of categories. Look around and you will see countless examples of such categorization. Menu choices at a restaurant, animal groupings at a zoo. Complex

Our ability to compare helps us reason.

Categorization is important for humans because we are only capable of handl

So for example, we are able to identify a birch tree as a tree, even if we have only ever seen

This allows us to be more efficient by creating "templates" that allow us to use reason to draw conclusions. So, for example, we may never have seen a birch tree before, but we would still know it was a tree, even if we'd only ever seen maples and oaks.

For example, we may lump all trees together into the category of "trees". We might create a "template" that all trees share such as having leaves and bark.

Within the tree category, we might create categories for maples, and oaks.

Categorization allows us to summarize common features, and allows us to store more information in our memory. It also aids us in indexing, as these categories become indexes.

Categorization requires us to focus on certain attributes and to de-emphasize others. So for example, when we are asked to find the similarities between a tree and a frog, we might say that they are both green. This skill of finding similarities is also referred to as "abstraction." Abstraction and categorization allow us to create frameworks that can be used for multiple situations. Frameworks are important shortcuts for efficiency.  They allow us to "take some things for granted", we don't have to analyze them and perfect them for each situation. They are good enough for our goals.

Schools offer a framework for learning and becoming adept at abstraction and categorization.

An important aspect of categorization is not only recognizing similarities, but also differences. When we "compare and contrast" we are practicing these skills. Through evolution, we are very good at visually identifying differences. One may not notice all the sheep in a pen, but one will quickly notice the wolf roaming among them. When we feel threatened, we instinctively "herd up", that is associating with others we feel are most like us.