Smita Pani: [World Malayali Club] SELF-TALK AND DECONDITIONING

Extract from my book:

"Most of our so-called reasoning consists in finding arguments for going on believing as we already do." James Harvey Robinson

SELF-TALK AND DECONDITIONING: Rudolf Fletch in his excellent treatise, The Art of Clear Thinking, outlines the origin of some man-made concepts, we take for granted as absolute and eternal. As cited above, the concept of zero had its origin ca 500 CE in India, the concept of romantic love and chivalry ca 1150 in Arabia, the concept of the corporation ca 1553 in Italy, the novel in 1678 in France and so on. Or take the concept of conservation of the environment. In my youth in the fifties and sixties of the last century, clearing the forests and cultivating the land thus cleared, was considered a sign of a progressive society. Then suddenly in the seventies and the eighties, there was talk of conservation, and now no one in his right senses can ignore environment and its conservation. The concepts of the welfare state, romantic love and marriage, progress, success, self-help, women's lib and so on and so forth are all of comparatively recent origin. Yet, they have profound influences on us as if they were concepts of a fundamental and eternal nature.

One of the most dangerous of concepts – the concept of national sovereignty - is also of comparatively recent origin as narrated above in the formation of new concepts. This concept was promoted by Jean Bodin, a Frenchman, for the first time in 1576. He must have been a sycophant or had an axe to grind in forwarding the concept. Politicians and powerbrokers were quick to latch on to this concept and suppress freedom movements everywhere. The havoc it has played and goes on playing is immeasurable.

Kashmir is a good case in point. Billions of dollars have been flushed down the drains by India in the last fifty years for retaining Kashmir - billions that could have been spent on alleviating the misery of the poor. Pakistan in spite of its much lower GNP, has more than matched India, dollar for dollar, life for life and blood for blood. The biggest losers in the fracas are the Kashmiris themselves, generations of whom have gone through hell, caught in the crossfire between the Indian military and the Pakistan-sponsored terrorists. The only winners in Kashmir are the military brass on both sides, their political godfathers and the arms dealers in America, China and Europe.

To sum up what we have learnt here, we depend on our past experiences in our day-to-day decision-making. We register our perceptions of the world outside as concepts, and in order to facilitate our reasoning we have to classify and to categorize our concepts of objects and events, of subjects and predicates. We often do not have access to statistics nor the time and resources to process them even when we have access to them. As a result, instead of going through the trouble of a mature decision-making process we often jump to conclusions based on an incident or two. This often makes things simplistic though illogical. We tend to make naive statements - blacks are lazy, Hindus are dolts, things were better in the past, the rich are callous, the poor are honest - all based on one or two stray incidents. Such simplifications may be handy, but can also prove dangerous.

It seems that it is not the common man alone that jumps to hasty conclusions. In his masterpiece 'An Inquiry into the nature and causes of the Wealth of Nations' (1776), Adam Smith contents that the Irish are the most beautiful or handsome people on earth, because their staple food is the potato. Though Adam Smith's genius cannot be denied, he seems to have slipped up in making this generalization about potatoes and the Irish. For one thing, he fails to define what beauty or handsomeness is nor does he say how these qualities can be metered. After all, like obscenity, beauty often lies in the eyes of the beholder. What is more, Adam Smith fails to prove whether potato is the single factor that contributed to the presumed Irish comeliness or whether there are other factors or combinations of factors that made substantial contributions to Irish beauty. He also failed to consider the fact that the potato is native to South America and was introduced into Ireland and Europe after colonization of the Americas. If potato contributed to Irish beauty, then the South Americans who had been consuming potatoes at least a thousand years longer than the Irish should have been far more handsome or beautiful than the latter.

Below are some more of such specialist/professional opinions that went awry. Conclusion: Even those who are real scientists or experts in any field need not be cent percent reliable in their views and opinions.

Ø "Computers in the future will weigh no less than 1.5 tons." (Popular Mechanics, forecasting advance of science, 1949.)

Ø "I think there's a world market for maybe five computers." (Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943.)

Ø "I have traveled the length and breadth of this country and talked with the best people, and I can assure you that data processing is a fad that won't last out the year." (Editor in charge of business books for Prentice Hall, 1957.)

Ø "But what is it good for?" (Engineer at the Advanced Computing Systems Division of IBM, commenting on the micro chip, 1968)

Ø "There is no reason why anyone would want to have a computer in their home." (Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp, 1977.)

Ø "640K ought to be enough for anybody." (Bill Gates of Microsoft, 1981.)

Ø "This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us." (Western Union memo, 1876.)

Ø "The wireless music box has no imaginable commercial value. Who would pay for a message sent to nobody in particular?" (David Sarnoff's associates in response to his urgings for investment in the radio in the 1920's.)

Ø "Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?" (HM Warner, Warner Bros, 1927.)

Ø "Heavier than air flying machines are impossible." (Lord Kelvin, president, Royal Society, 1895.)

Ø "So we went to Atari and said, 'We've got this amazing thing, even built with some of your parts and what do you think about funding us? Or we'll give it to you. We just want to do it. Pay our salary, we'll come work for you.' They said 'No'. Then we went to Hewlett-Packard; they said; "We don't need you. You haven't got through college yet'." Steve Jobs, Apple Computer founder on attempts to get Atari and HP interested in his and Steve Wozniak's personal computer.

Ø "Drill for oil? You mean drill into the ground to try and find oil? You're crazy." (Drillers whom Edwin L Drake tried to enlist to his project to drill for oil, 1859.)

Ø "Stocks have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau." (Irving Fisher, Economics professor, Yale University, 1929.)

Ø "Airplanes are interesting toys but of no military value". (Marechal Ferdinand Foch, Professor of Strategy, Ecole Superieure de Guerre.)

Ø "Everything that can be invented has been invented." (Charles H Duell, Commissioner, US Office of Patents, 1899.)

Ø "Louis Pasteur's theory of germs is ridiculous fiction." (Pierre Pachet, Professor of Physiology at Toulouse, 1872.)

Ø "Fred Astaire Can't act, can't sing, balding... Can dance a little." (MGM talent scout, 1928.)

Ø "What can you do with a guy with ears like that?" (Jack Warner, movie mogul, rejecting Clark Gable, 1930.)

Ø "You ain't goin' nowhere son. You ought to go back to drivin' a truck." (Jim Denny of the Grand Ole Opry, Nashville, firing Elvis Presley after his first performance.)

Ø "I'm sorry Mr. Kipling, but you don't know how to use the English language." (Editor of the San Francisco Examiner, rejecting a short story from author and poet Rudyard Kipling.)

Homo Sapiens - that is what we are in technical language. We boast we are intelligent, rational, logical, sensible, wise, coherent and so on. This means we do not subscribe to our emotions; it means we use more of our brains than our heart. It means we weigh situations objectively, dispassionately, and analytically. Obviously, our claim to rationality is itself, more irrational than rational. We subscribe more often to rhythmic or conditioned thinking than to logical, rational or analytical thinking, because rhythmic thinking just happens to be easy and often convenient. The havoc that such spontaneous, simplistic and conditioned thinking plays is unimaginable. Humanity has had to pay a heavy price for such conditioned, dogmatic views in the realms politics, economics, religion, sex and relationships and other spheres of life.

Some of these simplistic situations are handed down to us by our parents and forefathers, with their illiteracy, superstitions, mutual suspicions and bigotry at every possible level. Such handed-down logic or rhythmic thinking is often impossible to shrug off as they are deeply embedded or etched in our emotional psyches. Belief in such simplistic logic comes easy; all of us are born into one belief or another and bred in it.

Rudolf Flesch advocates a method by which all propositions can be verified - just respond: "Specify!" or ask, "So what?" And things become clear.

Modern commercial advertisements provide the best examples of conditioning or persuading the masses by appealing to their emotions rather than to their intelligence. We have seen in the preceding chapter on conditioning the tricks of the trade used by propagandists and how Aristotle classified them. We will now consider the method used by Rudolf Flesch in exposing some of the ridiculous propaganda we come across every day. In parentheses are the above words of verification as suited to each situation. (The content as well as the illustrations using the name Durtee Soap are drawn from the 'The Art of Clear Thinking' by Rudolf Flesch)

Argumentum ad hominem might be: "Look at yourself in the mirror; only Durtee Soap will get you real clean." (Specify the word 'only'! Will not other soaps clean as well?)

Argumentum ad populum: "The easiest way to be loved by everybody is to use Durtee Soap." (Specify how Durtee soap will make me popular!)

Argumentum ad misericordiam: "Don't make your children unhappy by not washing their ears with Durtee Soap." (Specify how children will be unhappy if they are not washed with Durtee soap!)

Argumentum ad baculum: "Durtee Soap is being advertised every hour on the hour on all major networks." (So what?)

Argumentum ad crumenam: "Durtee Soap costs 2 per cent less and is 50 per cent more floatable than any other soap." (So what if the soap is more floatable? What are the statistics to prove the cost advantage of Durtee soap)

Argumentum ad verecundiam: "All five Rockefeller boys were brought up exclusively on Durtee Soap." (So what?)

Argumentum ad ignorantiam: "Only Durtee Soap contains the miracle ingredient Lodahocum. ( So what? After all what is Lodahocum, and how does it enhance the hygienic function of soap.)

Argumentum ad captandum vulgus: "Durtee Soap is the favorite of everybody from coast to coast." (Specify with numbers and statistics!)

Another method of seeing through such misleading assertions are to apply questions why, when, who, what, how, where and if even one answer is not satisfactory the statement is liable to be rejected.

Now take one of the most fascinating statements of the Bible. "Behold the birds of the air; neither do they sow nor do they reap. Yet their Father in Heaven takes care of them all." Specify how the father takes care of them all! How about the birds, which fall dead in the woods? What about the many species of birds that have become extinct since 'Creation'?

Voltaire declared, "If you want to converse with me, first define your terms!" Discussing or debating on issues and events external to common experience, as well as polemics without exactly defining the terms used is mere semantics and a waste of breath and energy. Nevertheless, we often go into discourses and debates on subjects outside common experience and without defining the terms we use.

Take Abraham Lincoln's famous statement, defining a democratic government as " … a government of the people, by the people and for the people." It is one of the most high sounding and Utopian of statements. Somehow, Lincoln forgot to define the all-important term 'the people.' Much of today's bloodshed in the world, over secessionist movements and ethnic struggles, can be effectively prevented by defining the term 'The People' to the satisfaction of the peoples concerned.

The strongest weapon for totalitarian regimes and dogmatic thinking is not logic or rationale; it is psychological - the tremendous and unstoppable power of repetition. However rational you are, it is often impossible to stand up to the compelling power of repetition.

During the Indo-Pak wars, I had been led to believe by the Indian propaganda machinery that every Indian soldier was equal in valor to five Pakistanis; that though the Pakistanis had sophisticated American weaponry, they were not educated enough to use it. After some years, I went to one of the Arabian Gulf countries for employment, and came into personal contacts with many Pakistanis. To my surprise, many of them declared that every Pakistani soldier was equal in valor to seven Indian soldiers, and that though the Indians had sophisticated Russian planes and missiles, the Indians were just too scared and rustic to use them effectively.

In like manner, India harps on the theme that had it not been for its size and strength it would have been taken over by external forces and all Indians would have to slog away as slaves of foreign invaders. India is not alone in this repetitious propaganda and most nations use this fib and the doctrine of the integrity of nations to suppress freedom struggles. No modern power in its right senses would dare or care to take over India or any other country for that matter, for its natural or human resources. Slave labor is no more as productive as it used to be in the Agrarian Wave. As for resources, the Sultanate of Brunei, the tiny nation in the South China Sea with so much oil wealth, would be the best candidate for an armed takeover and exploitation. Nevertheless, this has not come about. So all such fears of takeover by foreign powers is just a political gimmick or plain national paranoia.

Not only nations and political institutions, but cult leaders and religions also put the power of repetition to good use. Repetition by religions and cults are even more effective than political propaganda, as this divine propaganda is taken up often by the people we trust most - our own parents and elders. Blind belief and acceptance comes easy in such matters. On the contrary, disbelief and rationality needs courage, an inquisitive mind and above all maturity, to give the Adult in you its due, in preference to the constant ravings of the Patriarch, and their dogmas, suspicions, bigotry, taboos and traditions.

Self-Talk

We have seen in the foregoing chapter how the Child in us cannot make any decisions on its own, and it has to consult the Patriarch and the Adult. This consultation is a continuous process, an incessant chatter within, which we call self-talk. Our beliefs and attitudes are formed by repetition by others, as well as by ourselves and often we are not even aware of them. They become second nature and like the wheels of a car, which have fallen into a rut, formed by traffic on dirt roads, our thoughts take the same habitual routes. Only by tuning in consciously to our self-talk can we be made aware of the faults and flaws in our thinking and reasoning. Then alone can we get out of the ruts of conditioned, rhythmic or habitual thinking. By thus tuning in to the self-talk, we can distinguish between the Patriarch and Adult in us, and make suitable corrections, rectifications and modifications. The trick lies in detaching ideas from words, especially words, which have emotional dimensions to them and revalidate them from the position of one who holds no such awe or reverence for these conditioning words and concepts. We can then make mature decisions and avoid conditioned and dangerous ones. When the Patriarch and Adult agree then the decision-making is easy. When they are at variance, ignore the Parent and the Patriarch. Perhaps all self-help and management books are aimed at helping us become aware of our self-talk, at analyzing them and reaching good decisions and at attaining win-win situations in spite of apparent differences.

Fear Of Unknown

Deep inside we "know" what is right and what is wrong, what is reason and what is superstition, what is logic and what is dogma. Nevertheless, we do not have the courage to say 'The king is naked'; we dare not call a spade a spade, for the deep primordial fears in us. Speaking of fears, fear of the unknown is often far more terrible than the fear of the known. Kings were feared for the physical damages they could inflict and once the kings were dead or vanquished, the fear had no relevance. On the other hand, shamans were feared for their invisible powers. That fear survived even when the shaman was out of sight; that fear grew even more formidable when the shaman died and his spirit presumably became ubiquitous and more powerful than his living body. Even in this modern age, priests, the successors of the shamans of old, are often more feared and respected for their spiritual or superstitious powers than kings and their ministers for their temporal powers.

In like manner, unknown fears of every possible kind stalk us from the inside of our insides. Doomsday prophets of every hue fan up our unknown fears into conflagrations to suit their nefarious agenda. In our utter feeling of insecurity and in our primordial fear of the unknown, we fall for their rhetoric, repeated over and over again to hypnotize us. Eventually, we become mere pawns in their hands. We begin to obey them implicitly and robotically and many then go out on a killing spree while others subscribe to weird superstitious practices and ceremonies. In our panic, we enslave our minds and reason to the charlatans and wolves of this world who appear in sheep's clothing as priests, cult leaders, saviors and politicians. They offer us their stale elixirs and their rotten panaceas for the ills and troubles of modern times. If we subscribe to them, it will only be at our own peril.

"Most of our so-called reasoning consists in finding arguments for going on believing as we already do." James Harvey Robinson