diff options
Diffstat (limited to '78906-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | 78906-0.txt | 1669 |
1 files changed, 1669 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/78906-0.txt b/78906-0.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..c9da382 --- /dev/null +++ b/78906-0.txt @@ -0,0 +1,1669 @@ +*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 78906 *** + + + + + LITTLE BLUE BOOK NO. 759 + Edited by E. Haldeman-Julius + + How to Conquer + Stupidity + + Leo Markun + + HALDEMAN-JULIUS PUBLICATIONS + GIRARD, KANSAS + + + + + Copyright, 1927, + Haldeman-Julius Company + + +CONTENTS + + Page + + Introduction 3 + + Learning How to Think 17 + + Some Common Forms of Stupidity 47 + + + PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA + + + + +HOW TO CONQUER STUPIDITY + + + + +INTRODUCTION + + +Perhaps _stupidity_ is a somewhat vague term. In general, we know what +it is. Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary defines it as the “Quality +or state of being foolish; extreme dullness of understanding; crass +foolishness.” Dr. L. Loewenfeld, in his thorough German treatise _On +Stupidity_, points out that the word may be applied with regard to +an individual or with regard to single acts of persons who are not +considered stupid. The wisest person is capable of occasional foolish +deeds. + +I shall speak here of stupidity not only as weakness of understanding +but also as improper response of any sort. I shall not, however, +particularly concern myself with awkwardness of body. Moreover, I have +considered certain aspects of mental inefficiency in _How to Think +Logically_ (No. 1063), _Insanity and Other Mental Disorders_ (No. +1094), and several other Little Blue Books. I shall try not to repeat +myself except where this appears necessary. + +When we speak of a man as being stupid, we mean usually that he has +less than average intelligence. But here we are again employing words +which are without exactness. Intelligence cannot be measured as though +it were a matter of weight or specific gravity. There are so-called +Mentimeter tests, somewhat similar to the army intelligence tests with +which some of my readers may be familiar; but they do not entirely +live up to their name. They do afford a rough index to the possession +of certain qualities. They should not be used without considerable +caution, however. There have been a number of unwarranted attempts made +to draw deductions from these tests as though their value had been +conclusively demonstrated. + +Dr. George A. Dorsey truly says, “I can test your capacity or +intelligence or your will only as I can pick a winner at a horse race. +I know at the end of the race.” The whole idea of testing and grading +seems to be based upon an academic fallacy. Who was more intelligent, +Socrates or Napoleon? Pasteur or Alexander the Great? Shakespeare or +Goethe? If these men had been given Alpha or Mentimeter tests, should +we be able better to answer these questions now? I think not. + +Stupidity is a relative matter, just as intelligence is. In a primitive +tribe, the man who has good muscles, good vision, and good hearing, +with a certain amount of what we call savage cunning, is amply able to +take care of himself. He may become chief and he is almost certain to +be well supplied with food and wives. In a civilized community, if he +is extraordinarily well supplied with the endowments mentioned, he may +perhaps make a fortune as an athlete. In this case he will not lack +for wives, either. But if he is intellectually of low grade, he may +not be able to retain his large earnings. He is likely to spend them +quickly for foolish luxuries and to dissipate them by gambling. Then, +when middle age weakens his muscles, he is forced to adjust himself to +inferior living conditions. Then he is called a fool--a term seldom +applied to one actually in possession of considerable wealth. + +What is stupidity in a college town may be ordinary intelligence in +a mine or a sculptor’s studio or on the baseball field. It may even +be genius. People who are extraordinarily developed in one direction +may be underdeveloped in others. A man may be a great general or an +industrial leader without having an ear for music. We are not justified +in calling a scientist stupid because he absent-mindedly hands the +conductor a button instead of his ticket. His act is one of stupidity, +however, as I use the term here. If his absent-mindedness should +manifest itself frequently while he is conducting important scientific +experiments, it would be indicative of great stupidity, of unfitness +for his work. + +What we call folly or stupidity may amount to a lack of will power, an +inability to concentrate upon the problems of life. Or it may be due +to improper habit formations. Usually, but perhaps not always, it is +connected with a lack of intellectual capacity in the narrow sense. +The idea of stupidity is after all subjective. The martyr-masochist +(we may take Jesus and Socrates as examples, although their lives as +we have them seem to be masses of legends) is a hero to his follower, +a “damned idiot” to the unsympathetic. But, from the point of view of +their own development, they are not stupid. They do what it is within +them to perform and to suffer. Here I pay no heed to the verdict of +history, and rank the unsuccessful with the successful Christs. When +Nathan Hale was hanged, he did not know that the Revolution was going +to succeed. He did not know that the school books of his country would +some day set him up as a patriotic example. If these states were still +British colonies, we should probably think of Hale--if we thought of +him at all--as a fool. We should probably think of George Washington +and all the other rebel leaders in the same way. + +John Brown’s scheme was absurd. The chance that his expedition should +succeed was not one in a thousand. It failed, and yet his failure +helped finally to bring about the abolition of slavery. Edmund Clarence +Stedman was right when he wrote in 1859: + + And Old Brown, + Osawatomie Brown, + May trouble you more than ever when you’ve nailed his coffin down! + +Would Brown have been more of a fool if the United States had been +destined to retain Negro slavery? In other words, is failure positive +proof of stupidity? + +I suppose the answer depends in the final analysis upon our definition +of failure. The man who has given up his life to disinterested service +can hardly be blamed for not having earned a large fortune. Even if we +are unable to sympathize with his motives, we must understand that he +probably succeeded in realizing most of his own ambitions. Sometimes, +indeed, people work hard in one direction to forget failure where +success was most desired. The laurel wreath may then fall to ashes amid +the applause of the unseeing crowd. + +But in general we rate a man according to his seeming ability to adjust +himself to his environment. We soon forget his petty stupidities if he +is able to do some one thing better than his neighbors, provided only +that his accomplishment is highly rated. At present the preacher who +can send his hearers into convulsions of religious ecstasy is almost +sure to get his name into _Who’s Who in America_ and is fairly certain, +if he possesses a certain flair for business, to amass a comfortable +fortune. But the same man, born in an irreligious age might be simply +a lazy good-for-nothing or even a patient in an insane asylum. What +became of all the potential scientists who were born in the Middle Ages +and accomplished nothing? Poor stupid fellows, most of them must have +been called by their neighbors. + +As a matter of fact, we know few people well enough to be justified in +calling them stupid. Of course not all the feebleminded and demented +men and women are removed from the world’s work. But it is better +to keep the definitely diseased mentally out of our conception of +stupidity. Since we are concerned with the conquest of folly and +since the mental disorders are either incurable at present or curable +only by medical treatment of one sort or another, we shall leave them +out of account. What interests us primarily is the correction by the +individual himself of his own minor stupidity. + +We should understand, though, that mental capacity cannot be enlarged +by any effort of the will. After an individual has reached his full +growth, his mental capacity may be decreased by an accident or disease, +but there is no known way by which he or others can increase it. + +Still, mental attainment can be raised, for the reason that it is never +equal to mental capacity. To elevate the level of mental attainment +means (in the widest sense of the word) to educate. What we call +stupidity may really be ignorance or lack of order. Moreover, lack of +order, that is, an imperfect scientific method or logical system, is +the most common cause of ignorance. The man who has learned how to +study, not the one who has acquired a few random scraps of information, +is on the way to becoming educated. The slow apprentice is sometimes +undervalued when he is actually laying the proper foundations for his +work. + +Teachers often fail to appreciate the merits of the boys and girls in +their care. If they are intelligent, they can see that certain bright +children are properly acquiring their Latin and their English, and may +some day be teachers themselves. But that the boy who simply cannot +learn his literary history may have it in him to be a poet--that they +are ordinarily unable to understand, unless the boy is already writing +verses for the school magazine. + +A high school teacher once asked me why I didn’t think of taking up +the profession of chemist. I was too amazed to reply. And yet, from +the ordinary academic viewpoint of grades, he was justified in his +question. I stood somewhere near the head of his class, relatively +higher than I did in my English section. The new science was of +considerable interest to me, even if the mechanics of laboratory work +proved somewhat irksome. But a professional chemist must attain a +certain amount of manual dexterity and a considerable interest in the +mechanics of his work. It is probable enough that some of the boys +whose work in the high school class was mediocre are now on the way to +becoming successful chemists. + +On the other hand, I feel that I appreciate literature more +intelligently than the classmates of mine who were better prepared in +high school to explain the allusions in “Comus” or to tell what Wyatt +and Surrey wrote. For me, at that time, the subjects were dull because +they were still unclothed with flesh. + +This bit of autobiography is set down here for the light it may shed +upon problems of development as they are presented to the teacher and +the parent. It is not always easy to tell the true trend of a child’s +abilities. Sometimes, indeed, the boy or the girl knows, even if the +teacher does not. When there is a question of genius, perhaps genius is +necessary to recognize it. To the world it may be the living image of +stupidity. + +It is true that genius in the restricted sense is such a rare +phenomenon that most of us need not concern ourselves about the ability +to recognize it. But the products of genius, especially when they are +of a novel sort, are likely to prove puzzling. No less a critic than +Henry James wrote about one of Walt Whitman’s books of verse: “It has +been a melancholy one to write about it.... It exhibits the effort of +an essentially prosaic mind to lift itself, by a prolonged muscular +strain, into poetry.” Despite all Whitman’s tricks of false poetizing, +this verdict is decidedly unjust. The fact is that James was not +himself poet enough to recognize poetry except in traditional garb. + +To stigmatize difference as inferiority is an egregious form of +egotism. It indicates a lack of the ability of self-criticism, +too. Hard-headed business men are wont to look down upon poets and +philosophers, and these are accustomed to retaliate in kind. + +The qualities which enable a man to succeed in business are of course +different in part--although by no means entirely--from those which make +an artist. The musician and the sculptor must not be judged too harshly +for deficiencies in their ability to carry on commercial transactions. +Many artists find it advisable to leave all matters of business to +agents or managers. + +We must be careful, then, not to consider people stupid simply because +their experiences and their ways of life do not coincide with our own. +If they do not possess that particular wisdom which is ours, they may +be amply compensated in some other way. The man who has lived all +his life on a farm does not know the city ways: but neither does the +town-bred man know how to manage cows and chickens. + +When the scientist goes into a remote region and finds that the +inhabitants believe in all sorts of queer superstitions, he should not +consider them all stupid on this account. They have had no opportunity +to learn the methods or the conclusions of modern science. They should +be judged no more harshly than Socrates would be for knowing nothing of +the geometry of Minkowski and the equations of Lorentz. Living in his +time, the philosopher could not be familiar with modern mathematics. +Living where they do, the Arkansas “hill billies” naturally cling fast +to the superstitions of their fathers. + +But the educated man (so called) who believes that breaking a mirror +will bring him seven years of bad luck is, so far as this belief is +concerned, stupid. The authors of Genesis are not to be reproached +for thinking that all the species of men and animals were brought +simultaneously into being by a fiat of God. Considering the state of +knowledge in their time, their idea was natural enough. But it is a +disgrace when men calling themselves scientists now shut their eyes to +the abundance of testimony for organic evolution. I think we can call +them stupid without any priggishness. + +However, stupidity of one sort does not altogether damn any individual. +A man with very foolish prejudices and without any particular +understanding of history may nevertheless be able efficiently to manage +a great industrial establishment. He may or may not be a good collector +of antiques. His ability to tell good music from bad must be judged +without reference to his other elements of mental and physical strength +and weakness. + +The only criterion we have for stupidity is lack of success in one or +another respect. And yet, as we are all aware, the chance factors play +a great part in determining success or failure. The successful general +is not necessarily cleverer than the commander he defeats, even when +their forces appear to be evenly matched. The millionaire may differ +from the pauper simply in that he has had better opportunities. + +This and other considerations have brought about various attempts to +measure mental ability directly. We have already considered briefly the +intelligence tests now being used by various psychologists. Of still +lower value, by far, is phrenology, the pseudoscience which examines +the skull to find there an index to the mental faculties and traits of +character. So far as the mind has any one single organ, this is the +brain. But it does not seem that the shape of the head or the existence +of certain “bumps” on it bears any definite relationship to mental +capacity. + +Even the weighing of the brains of the dead does not seem to give +any absolute conclusions. Pearson and Pearl, examining thousands of +individual brains, found that the mean average brain weight of the +adult Englishman was 27 grams less than that of the Bavarians, 57 grams +less than that of the Hessians, 65 grams less than that of the Swedes, +and 120 grams less than that of the Bohemians. Are we to conclude that +the average Bohemian is proportionately more intelligent than the +average Englishman? Certainly not without additional evidence. + +A man who died in an asylum in Vienna was found to have brains weighing +2028 grams and without any pathological alterations which microscopic +examination could reveal. Gambetta, the famous French statesman, had +brains weighing only 1241 grams, or 150 grams less than the average. + +Aside from weighing the brains, all sorts of measurements and +examinations have been made, but these _post mortem_ intelligence +tests remain of indefinite value. Nevertheless it appears that the +structure of the brain is responsible for the difference, or for +part of the difference, between a highly intelligent and a stupid +individual. But the physiologists and the anatomists have not +altogether solved the problem. + +We do know that certain diseases sometimes reduce intellectual +capacity. A serious attack of typhus fever, for instance, may leave the +patient feebleminded or at least comparatively stupid. Injuries to the +head or tumors of the brain may do serious injury to the mind. Or the +gray matter of the brain may be injured by various drugs, leading to +more or less definite mental changes. + +Probably a great many fools are such simply because they have never +had any chance to develop those qualities in which they might +have excelled. In them we could not find any physical basis for +their stupidity, I suppose, even if brains gave up their secrets +in the dissecting room. Of course education is not identical with +intelligence, but it affords means of arrangement and order. Perhaps +it is necessary to add that by education I mean more than the formal +teaching of the schools and colleges. As we have seen, we do not lay +undue weight upon the minor eccentricities and deficiencies of the man +who can write a great poem or compose important symphonies. But let +us suppose that the potential genius never learns his alphabet or his +musical scales. All that remains to him in life is his stupidity. + +It is sometimes said that the man who has genius in him will not be +stopped by difficulties of this sort. He will somehow educate himself. +Actually we have seen men with none of the usual advantages display +sufficient power of will to reach their goal. But we know little of +those who have been discouraged. Here we have a certain justification +for the democratic idea of education for all, even if this seems to +lead to some unfortunate results. + +The educated fool, the man whose head is crammed full of facts and who +may possess a certain fluency in argument but who is yet unmistakably +stupid, exists among us in large numbers. At least in part, though, the +fault belongs with the system of education. Specifically, the teacher +thinks of the multiplication table or the college entrance examination +as an end in itself, without regard to the individual pupil, his +capabilities and his needs. + +Even in our best educational institutions, little progress has been +made in the synthesizing of knowledge. The student working at his +psychology seldom has it borne in upon him that if the science has any +meaning at all, it is an instrument for criticizing literature and +for understanding life. Knowledge is not bound up in little packages +labeled English A and Social Ethics 4 and Biology 9a, as university +catalogues seem to indicate. + +The more we learn, the more specialization becomes necessary. And +thus it happens that we have admiralty lawyers, physicians who have +forgotten all that they ever knew except that which pertains to the +genito-urinal system, specialists in the calculus of tensors or in +plant histology. This tendency to specialization, which can hardly +be escaped or regarded as an unmitigated evil, yet stimulates the +production of wise fools. + +If the university professorships are many, there is still room for +instruction in the art of thinking, which means really the art of +living. But here, I greatly fear, the qualified experts are pretty +conspicuous by reason of their absence. It is, after all, a somewhat +optimistic definition which makes man the thinking animal. Most of our +reactions are instinctive or habitual or inspired by our emotions. +In fact, constituted as we at present are, the attempt to do nothing +except as the result of formal thought would be fatal. + +But perhaps the attitude of thinking for oneself might be profitably +encouraged. The ordinary teacher is literally frightened when a pupil +discovers something for himself beyond the text and the commentary. +This is as much as to reproach the teacher for not having done any +original teaching! + +It is a human trait to follow the lines of least resistance. Therefore +the intelligent pupil reasons out matters for himself only when +he has failed to prepare the set lesson. Then he calls his act one +of “bluffing.” If his recitation or his examination paper is found +satisfactory, he feels that he has outwitted the teacher. Unfortunately +there is a considerable amount of truth in this assumption. But it is a +truth which does no credit to our educational methods. + +If we are to learn how to think at all, we must learn it by ourselves, +and largely through many trials and by rejecting a great many errors. +(In the final analysis, all education is self-education. We cannot +successfully be crammed full of knowledge by any outsider. A good +teacher can do no more than stimulate and point out certain pitfalls.) +Some people never learn to think for themselves--and no thinking which +is copied from another deserves the name of thought at all. Originality +is the leading, the differentiating, ingredient. + + + + +LEARNING HOW TO THINK + + +“A being who could not think without training,” says John Dewey, “could +never be trained to think; one may have to learn to think _well_, but +not to _think_.” The lower animals cannot be taught to think at all, +because they do not possess the power to generalize. It seems that the +same thing might be said, with some qualifications, of the less complex +or “lower” races of mankind. Among us, too, we find a great many +people of more or less vegetative character. Their thinking is of the +simplest, and it occurs comparatively rarely. + +The elements necessary to thought are, according to Dewey in _How We +Think_, classifiable under three heads. First of all there must be an +accumulation of experiences and facts from which suggestions arise. As +I have tried to show in _How to Think Logically_, all our knowledge +comes eventually from our sense impressions. The material used in +thought does not arise mysteriously, out of nothing, in the mind. But +with the store of experiences and facts are inferences and ideas built +up out of the data afforded by the sense. Every individual selects and +combines for himself. + +The second element necessary for thought consists of the “promptness, +flexibility, and fertility of suggestions.” That is, the experiences +must be available. They must not be too deeply forgotten, but must be +within easy reach when they are needed. + +The third element is the “orderliness, consecutiveness, +appropriateness, in what is suggested.” The images and ideas may come +up in large number and yet may not assist efficient thinking. They must +first of all be relevant. Also they must be available in an orderly +chain. The principle of order in thinking is of the utmost importance. +Furthermore, it can be acquired much more easily than the ability to +gather a great many experiences and to keep them within easy reach. +Merely to hear and see much is of little avail. We know the people who +travel all around the world and come home to prove themselves as stupid +and as ignorant as before. It is the principle of order, indeed, which +gives the ability to accumulate experiences and facts and to make use +of them at will. + +What causes us to look about us, to listen, to taste, to smell and +to touch? Instincts and habits of various sorts. Some psychologists +speak of a special instinct of curiosity, which is at the basis of all +science. But I suppose the accumulation of knowledge is in general +strictly utilitarian. Primitive man studied the habits of various +animals not because he was trying to establish the science of zoölogy, +not because he had any abstract curiosity, but because he wanted to eat +certain creatures and to escape being eaten by others, and then because +he had accidentally stumbled upon the fact that some animals might be +partially tamed and so rendered of use to the human race. + +We learn first of all by doing. Of all the proofs that the earth is +approximately spherical in shape, the best one to the man without +special training is the fact that it has been circumnavigated. +Incidentally, this proof is not of much value until the earth has been +circumnavigated from north to south and from south to north through the +poles. + +Physics and chemistry did not originate in a disinterested will to +learn, but in the attempt to solve certain problems of practical +importance. Even, now, the students of the pure sciences justify +themselves with the apologetic statement that any scientific discovery +may prove of important usefulness. + +The “Why?” of the child or of the philosopher is at bottom an attempt +to learn that which may be put to use. At present, indeed, there is +some tendency to make a parlor game of philosophy, to divorce it from +real life. But wisdom is not desired as an ornament alone, and the +true love of wisdom cannot exist in a vacuum. No valid distinction is +to be made between the wisdom of life and wisdom in the abstract. The +abstract is, in general, merely a representation in shorthand of the +concrete. Such words as _fear_ and _valor_ and _justice_ have very +definite reference to behavior. They are not mere counters to be played +with by learned professors. + +Abstractions are to thought what levers and pulleys and inclined planes +are in the handling of unwieldy masses. They assist greatly in the +ease, the range, and the depth of suggestions which come up for the +solution of a problem. + +Thinking is problem solving. But if this word makes us think of +arithmetic and algebra, we should note at once that we must not +depend too much upon the answers found in official keys. Teachers +and preachers and writers are wont to state with all the flourishes +of authority what nobody knows or what, at any rate, they are not +intelligent enough to discover. + +To turn from thought to unreasoning faith is obviously to confess +failure. Sometimes this confession covers only a small field, sometimes +it extends over the whole field of knowledge. The Fundamentalist wants +to find all his science in the Bible, the Modernist perhaps only part +of his psychology and philosophy. + +Loewenfeld tells of an ignorant old woman who lived with a tubercular +man. The health authorities warned her against using the same glass +from which he drank and exposing herself in various other ways. “That’s +foolishness,” she said. “If God doesn’t want me to get sick, I’ll stay +well; and if he wants me to get consumption, it won’t do me any good to +use a separate glass.” + +Of course many religious people proceed on the more sensible assumption +that “God helps those who help themselves.” Even the piety which is +sure that miracles occurred in olden days does not depend upon their +recurrence in our time. Yet there is a Christian sect, most of whose +members belong to the “upper classes” and consider themselves educated, +which teaches that only faith can cure disease. + +There is not room here to discuss the utility of religion or the +possible existence of a deity. The Little Blue Book reader can find +ample material dealing with these subjects in a number of the +booklets, notably the series by Joseph McCabe. But here we may notice +what a large variety of miscellaneous follies have been upheld in +the name of religion. For instance, it was formerly declared that +the building of railroads was inspired by Satan. At times during the +Middle Ages, all men who were indiscreet enough to show themselves +more learned than the multitude were denounced as followers of the +same fallen angel. Mohammed declared that faithful Mussulmans might +have more than one wife apiece, but that they should drink no wine. Or +rather he asserted that tasting the first drop is the dangerous thing. +Some of his followers employed great ingenuity in not tasting the first +drop but in getting the full advantage of all the rest. When Protestant +American Christianity borrowed this prohibitory tenet from Islam, some +of its leaders made mental reservations to find similar evasions for +themselves. Perhaps some of them have also believed that the enactment +of Prohibition carried with it the legalization of polygamy. But, of +course, the scandals which have circulated about certain ministers are +not enough in themselves to damn religion. They simply prove that human +nature is human, even within temples, tabernacles, and manses. + +Much has been said and written about the stupidity of asceticism. +If, however, poverty and chastity are really pleasing in the sight +of God, and if they lead certainly to ineffable eternal bliss, then +they are amply justified. Many a burglar has gone cheerfully to a term +of ten years in the penitentiary, his heart gladdened by the thought +of the little fortune which he has safely hidden away to enjoy after +his release. Should not all good Catholics hie them to nunneries if +a little temporary self-denial can assure them of so much hereafter? +But the priestly leaders see that the consistent application of this +doctrine would drive a great many into apostasy and would leave no +Catholics of legitimate birth for the next generation. + +In theory, the Catholics have the Bible interpreted for them by the +Church, but the Protestants read it and decipher its mysteries for +themselves. As we know, however, each sect has its own creed. Only in a +few of the Unitarian congregations are the individual members free to +decide if Jehovah is a man or a sun-myth or a force found in nature. +Even here I suppose nobody goes to church where he cannot agree with +most of the minister’s teachings. + +It is a common tendency to hear and read only those arguments which +confirm one’s own beliefs. The organs of orthodox religion circulate +among the orthodox, the liberal religious papers go to the liberals, +the anticlerical magazines go chiefly to atheists and agnostics and +deists. Very few Republicans read the Socialist papers and books, +unless it be to find ammunition for anti-Socialistic arguments. + +In the United States, the party system is such that no particular +thought is required on the part of the voter. It is much easier to +follow in one’s father’s footsteps than to attempt to differentiate the +principles of one party from those of another or to find out which +candidate for Keeper of the Dog Pound is best qualified for the office. +In a municipal election, the Republicans always stand for economy +and needed improvements, the Democrats for needed improvements and +economy. Whichever party has its principles approved, taxes go up and +the improvements are postponed. Perhaps I am needlessly cynical: I have +only lived in two or three of the cities and read about some of the +others. + +The citizen who is not a politician by profession can only give +part of his time and thoughts to government. On the other hand, +the political leaders make it their business to have the control +of things--especially of the treasury--in their own hands. This is +understandable enough. But the civics teachers in the schools teach +their pupils that the government of the United States is perfect, or at +least that it would be perfect if all the qualified voters went to the +polls. Despite the evidence afforded by their senses, some good people +continue to cherish this naïve belief. + +But it appears that comparatively few minds are capable of probing to +the root of a matter. Most are contented with shallow suggestions, +with some easy appeal to authority. It is so easy to answer a complex +problem with a name; to say, for instance, that a lecturer for world +peace is a Bolshevist, and with that word to shut off further debate. + +This fault is not confined to drug store philosophers and American +Legion leaders. Professor Graham Wallas--in a book on _The Art of +Thought_, too--turns upon McDougall and the other psychologists who +deny the mysterious energies hypothesized by the vitalists with the +assertion that they are furnishing a system which the Bolsheviks turn +to account for their propaganda. + +Bolshevism is dangerous, many Italians and Spaniards have argued; +therefore a dictator is necessary. But there is no true question of +_either_ ... _or_. The fear of Lenin’s ideas has contributed much +to the decline--temporary, let us hope--of the love of liberty in +America. The French Revolution had the same effect in England in the +time of Burke and Godwin. Hazlitt wrote that “waking from the trance +of theory we hear the words Truth, Reason, Virtue, Liberty, with the +same indifference or contempt that a cynic who has married a jilt or a +termagant listens to the rhapsodies of lovers.” + +The reason is that these capitalized abstractions had been nothing +more than words. If liberty is once associated with a reign of terror, +immediately it seems corrupted to the thoughtless. The abuse, for them, +reflects upon the proper use. Temporary associations must never be +confounded with necessary accompaniments. + +The rough and ready thinking of the multitude jumps from the frying-pan +into the fire, from Lenin to Mussolini, from tyranny in the name +of liberty to tyranny in the names of security and glory. If the +licensed saloon-keepers were friendly with the police authorities, so +are the unlicensed bootleggers. Regular medicine is imperfect, but +chiropractic and Christian Science are absurd. + +When business is poor or wheat sells for a low price, then it is time +to send out the Republicans and to elect Democrats, many people seem +to think. Meanwhile the attempt to find real correctives is neglected. +This is as bad as sending for the priest instead of the doctor when a +child is dying of diphtheria. + +Such conduct is surely indicative of disordered thinking, of a +sightless groping for associations. People accustom themselves to +living on the instinctive and habitual level, and in times of emergency +their apparatus for thought is as if rusted by disuse. + +Thinking is not simply a discharge. It must be directed against some +obstacle. Must we then wait for some great difficulty to present itself +before we employ our intelligence? No, for in that case we should +invariably find ourselves unprepared. Thinking requires practice at +least as much as piano-playing does. + +But to talk of practice is perhaps to lead astray. For our instinctive +and habitual and emotional responses are not sufficient in civilized +life. We must regulate them with thought. Intelligence is always +useful, provided only that it is worthy of its name. Sometimes it is +imperatively demanded, but we can use it every day, almost every waking +moment. This is not to imply that the mind must be in a constant state +of strain or that we should strive to rid ourselves of our instincts +and our habits without regard for their demonstrated value. + +“Let me take the liberty further to observe,” writes Richardson’s +Clarissa Harlowe to her hot-tempered brother, “that the principal end +of a young man’s education is to teach him to reason justly and to +subdue the violence of his passions.” Is there indeed some connection +between just reasoning and the control of one’s passions? Or, in any +case, was either very well taught at Oxford and Cambridge in the +eighteenth century? Or, for that matter, are the ability to reason and +the power to control one’s temper communicated to the students in the +American colleges of the present day? + +Self-control is hardly inculcated in our schools above the primary +grades. Indeed it is largely a matter for parents to attend to +while their children are young. Moreover, many good reasoners have +exceedingly violent tempers. In the moment of passion they do what they +may afterward greatly regret. + +Of course it is stupid to act with unnecessary haste and violence. But +a bad temper is seldom to be mended in adult life. Few persons possess +sufficient strength of will to correct a tendency which should have +been checked during their formative years. The hot-tempered are forced +to patch up with what diplomacy they may possess the consequences of +their thoughtless actions. Sometimes, indeed, a perverted sense of +honor causes them to defend in cold blood the wrongs they have done +while excited. Thus they add stupidity of a gross kind to their former +folly. To confess that one has been in the wrong is no disgrace. + +The egotism which fails to understand this is a common cause of foolish +actions. Obviously it is difficult to judge oneself in the same way +that one judges another. We all know that human beings in general are +fallible. Even the most intelligent of our friends and neighbors make +mistakes. Why not we? If we truly grant the principle, we may find +instances in plenty. Then we have an opportunity to correct many of our +errors. But if we refuse to admit their existence, our hands are bound +from the very start. + +A good sense of humor is a distinct aid here. He who laughs healthily +laughs sometimes at himself. Thus, consciously or unconsciously, he +admits his lack of perfection. This confession does not automatically +open the door to improvement, of course. It seems there are some +good-natured people who carefully preserve their minor foibles in order +that they may joke about them. But, if they are at all ingenious, +surely they may be merry without holding fast to their faults. + +The objective conception of self is absolutely prerequisite to the +attainment of an exact or scientific system of thinking. In the mind +which overvalues self, immortality is an uncontradictable postulate. +The sun goes around the earth, and the solar system is the center +and most important part of the universe. God is like man--like the +egocentric “thinker,” that is. The white race--or, if it is a Chinese +speaking, the yellow race--is superior to the rest. The United States +is the greatest country in the world, Indiana is the fairest state in +it, and Kokomo should be “boosted” everywhere for the fine city of +home-loving citizens it is. When civic pride lends to improvement, it +is thoroughly justified. But when it is a mere expression of vainglory, +it is no better than any individual’s blatant self-glorification. + +The first and most important intellectual task of man is the control +of his own body. The work of self-control starts early in infancy. The +child must learn to put its food and drink into the proper place, to +walk, to speak, and so on. This is not thinking, but it is work for +the nervous system as well as for the muscles. Perhaps the beginning +of generalized thought came when the child starts to mark out the +boundaries between itself and the outside world. This leg can be made +to move at will, that leg (which belongs to Mother Dear) will move at +Baby’s command only by special favor. Previously, when Baby’s limbs +had been under a less exact control and when Mother had run to obey +the child’s slightest desire, if this could but be understood, the +distinction between the I and the She had not been so clear. + +Definitely to understand the self and its limitations is at once to +rule out all magic. I cannot destroy an enemy by means of the evil +eye because there is no ray of malicious animal magnetism proceeding +from me. There are all sorts of forces in the universe, and my special +powers conform to the usual order. If I should lean far out of the +window without in some way being held back, there is no doubt that I +should fall. Like an apple or a bar of iron or a cat, I am acted upon +by gravitational forces. Like all living organisms, I feed and excrete +for a brief period, and presently my body will decompose. If I think +and the milkweed does not, this does not mean that I, as a man, am +subject to any special laws of nature. It simply indicates that my +ancestors have been acted upon in definite ways--not all thoroughly +understood at the present moment, we must concede. + +I have certain senses, and objects exist for me as I see and hear and +smell and taste them, or as they feel hot or cold or painful to the +touch. In this way I am revealed to myself, too. If I had been deaf +from birth but had nevertheless been taught to speak, my voice would be +little more to me than the sensations in my throat. + +Perceptions are important as they are apperceived, that is, interpreted +in terms of what is already known. Proper observation involves orderly +arrangement, as has already been said. In training the powers of +observation, the essential thing to watch for is proper selection. + +As a matter of fact, we learn this pretty well without any formal +teaching. The educational critics who said that people do not observe +well, because they are unable to tell offhand if the numerals on their +watch dials are Roman or Arabic, was misadvised. Dewey rightfully +observes that we pull out our timepieces to find the time, not to see +if the fourth number is represented by IV or 4. Most of us can make the +latter investigation without any difficulty when it is necessary to do +so. + +Every act of observation leads to a general intellectual conclusion. +This thesis, like some others which are stated here, is developed in +my booklet entitled _How to Think Logically_. At this point we may +consider it sufficient argument against the educators who would develop +the art of observation as a thing in itself. Actually no one of the +mental “faculties” is independent or is capable of its own intellectual +development. Even the stupid teachers who conceive of education as mere +memorizing assist to some extent in their pupils’ learning how to think +and do. + +All taught subjects must bear a relation to personal problems. This +thought is important enough to bear repetition. Without such a unifying +conception, all attempts at education are certain to be fruitless. + +One learns in terms of what one already knows. The child who has seen +a brook can readily imagine the greater brook which is a river. The +boy in the city slums who has seen no greater body of running water +than that contained in the gutter after a rain must begin his study of +hydrography here. + +This sort of learning prevents the formation of two different worlds, +one of what is contained in books and lectures, the other of the +experiences of life. No man is a pedant who assimilates his learning to +actual problems. + +Yet Cowper’s words in _The Task_ are frequently justified: + + Knowledge and wisdom, far from being one, + Have ofttimes no connection. Knowledge dwells + In heads replete with thoughts of other men, + Wisdom in minds attentive to their own. + Knowledge, a rude unprofitable mass, + The mere materials with which wisdom builds, + Till smoothed and squared and fitted to its place, + Does but encumber what it seems to enrich. + +The possession of considerable intelligence does not protect one from +occasional lapses into folly. Certainly those who possess a great deal +of formal education are not on this account free from stupid thoughts +and actions. Their great danger is that of failing to see their +specialties, those subjects in which they are most interested and best +informed, in their proper relation to the rest of reality. Sometimes +they imagine that all the world is interested in certain theories which +they or their teachers have developed. + +Men sometimes become interested in a certain reform movement to such +an extent that nothing else matters. The universe is but a place from +which alcohol or tobacco is to be driven. Or some form of recreation +occupies all their thoughts. Life is worthwhile to them because it +affords a certain amount of time for bowling or playing pinochle or +cheering on the local baseball team. + +Of course the development of the human being must be true to itself. +We are not justified in quarreling with a man or calling him stupid +because his interests differ from our own. But the hobby-horse must +not ride unchecked when it comes into society. The ship-builder, for +example, need not bore us to death about ships: he may do it quite as +well talking about his score at golf. But if he would have people call +him clever, he had better either remain silent and listen to others’ +discussions of their vocations and avocations or else diversify his own +remarks. + +In conversation and in letter-writing, much is merely conventional. +We could save a good deal of time, no doubt, by never saying “Hello” +or writing “Dear Sir.” In fact a great many of the things we do are, +from a certain point of view, rather stupid. But actually we find it +more troublesome and annoying to revolt against the minor conventions +of life than to follow them. Taken all in all, etiquette does help much +to avoid social friction of an unpleasant sort. Yet it is foolish to be +too slavishly bound by the formal rules of polite society. + +A famous heroine in French fiction preferred to be drowned rather than +to remove her skirts so she could swim. Many people have this same +attitude toward the conventions. But of course the power of thought is +of little avail except if it can be applied to a practical criticism +of fixed habits and rules. Nothing is too sacred for the thinker. +Everything is to be tested not by the standards of sterile authority +but by its value in the thinker’s own world. + +It is true, though, that we are leaning more than ever upon +intellectual authority. Who has knowledge enough to consider and +weigh for himself the evidence against and for the theory of organic +evolution, Einstein’s theory of relativity, and the theory that the +works attributed to Homer were written by various men and molded into +something like their present form by ancient minstrels? Surely no one +man can judge all three theories with reference to the full evidence. +If we are to have opinions, we must base them upon the conclusions of +the experts. + +Very well, but what are we to do when the experts disagree? Or when we +are unable to tell who is qualified to pass an opinion? Very often the +difficulty may be evaded. If we know little of mathematics and physics +and astronomy, it is by no means necessary that we should hold any +definite opinion about relativity. The attitude of suspended judgment +serves well enough. + +Let us suppose, though, that we cannot escape in this manner. We are +serving on a jury. The defendant has killed the woman he loves. The +state calls a number of experienced alienists who declare the man +perfectly sane. The defense calls upon a number of equally eminent +experts who explain his psychosis, dwelling upon his inability to +distinguish right from wrong. We scratch our heads to indicate that +we should like to begin thinking but do not know just how to start. +Probably we should never have been summoned to solve such a problem. +The long hypothetical questions are too intricate for us to understand. +How do we actually come to a conclusion? Perhaps we watch the defendant +to see if he looks like the maniacs we have seen on the screen in +short comedies. Or we say to one another in the jury room, “There’s +too much of this murdering. If we let this guy off because he’s nuts, +there’ll be plenty more doing the same thing.” Actually we should give +the benefit of any doubt to the defendant. There are infinitely more +lunatics executed than sane men who escape on the plea of insanity. But +the ordinary man cannot recognize a malingerer. Sometimes the experts +require weeks of observation. Yet, after a hurried and necessarily +perfunctory examination, they are ready to give their solemn opinions +in court. + +Often we are confronted with insufficient evidence and yet are required +to make up our minds in one way or another. For the manufacturer the +question may appear in this form: Shall I dismiss my workingmen, whom I +may not be able to get back when the busy season comes, or shall I have +them make up stock, which I may be unable to dispose of? Such a problem +is usually solved with reference to past experiences. But the year to +come may be unlike those just preceding. There are all sorts of guesses +about the future. Certain experts draw intricate graphs purporting to +indicate the trend of business. They speak wisely about cycles and +counteracting tendencies. Sometimes they are right--no doubt more often +than the mere guesser. And so the modern manufacturer leans a little, +not too heavily, upon their wisdom. + +Any forecaster able to predict the approximate course of the real +estate boom in Florida might quickly have earned enough to retire +from the forecasting profession forever. Here, apparently, was a case +unexplainable by the thinker: very small causes led to very great +results. A few legal measures of interest to the wealthy class seemed +to make gold mines of swamps and deserts. The chief causes of the boom +were of course psychological. Those speculators who understood this +took their quick profits and went away. Sometimes they were in too +great a hurry, and the fools to whom they sold their properties made +more than they. + +But we must not conclude that the stupid people have all the luck. +Intelligence makes opportunities and employs them to good purpose. +Folly stumbles and is very conspicuous when it stumbles upon gold. At +the same time, we must remember that wisdom is not the only factor +making for success. A beautiful woman or even a handsome man with no +brains may have the thorns removed from the roses of life just because +of her or his physical attractiveness. + +A matter of luck, obviously. But so is it a matter of luck that one +should be more intelligent than one’s neighbors. Wisdom can be improved +upon--but so can beauty. Both are controllable only to a limited +extent. Perhaps the advantages of clear thinking are not so obvious +as those of a clear complexion, however. There seems to be a greater +demand for the latter. + +If thinking is somewhat painful, so, I believe, is receiving a +permanent wave or an application of beauty clay. But it is only +necessary to have the fee to be seized upon by the beautifiers. While +the educational institutions in America are usually hospitable enough, +while they even attempt to seize upon the students who are sufficiently +unresisting and permanently to “wave” their minds, the results are +often unsatisfactory. In education the passive attitude is hopeless. + +The problem of learning how to think is, then, first of all one for the +learner himself to solve. Perhaps this little book may be read by some +high school and college pupils who are dissatisfied with the narrowness +of their teachers, disappointed that they cannot come into contact with +more stimulating minds. Ah, but narrow-mindedness and stupidity have +lessons to teach, too. Sometimes it is better not to be influenced +unduly by the wise: there is a certain tendency to swallow their +conclusions whole. Many people accept Emerson’s theory of compensations +at face value because it is Emerson’s, who would grin cynically at the +same idea propounded by Dr. Frank Crane. + +All our heroes should be honored distinctly this side of idolatry, if +we are to think for ourselves. Of course we adapt them to ourselves in +any case. “Every philosopher has his own Kant,” Henri Bergson is said +to have remarked once, when Kant’s authority was invoked against some +teaching of his own. We know how Jesus is made to argue for both sides +of every question. He turned water into wine at the wedding feast in +Cana, we are told. Yet Sheldon’s clerical hero walking “In His Steps” +thought it incumbent upon him to destroy the saloons. + +It is not the truth which makes one free, but the self-discovered +truth. Yes, it might be replied, but the important things have already +been found out. We know how the strainers after novel truths are +reduced to paradoxes which they display with pride in their mere +contrariness. + +Here there are two replies to be made. In the first place, the truth +which one laboriously digs out for himself may be either old or new. +Or it may be both: the ancient idea, as it is discovered by one who +lives in the modern world, fits properly into his own environment. It +is no longer Plato’s thought or Aristotle’s, but the new thinker’s. If +it is true that there is nothing new under the sun, it is also true +that there is nothing old. I am not what I was yesterday. Neither is +the street which runs beside my house. Certainly there can be no exact +replica of Plato or of any Platonic idea in the United States and in +the twentieth century. + +I would not seem to say that the truth is any more true because it +contradicts old ideas. We are justified in pouncing upon every paradox +to discover how many fallacies the glitter may hide. The paradoxical +writers are chiefly valuable because they do make us examine their +thoughts carefully. It does us little good to have the conventional +ideas repeated, even when they happen to be true. We are not easily +tempted to analyze them unless we are naturally of a skeptical +disposition. But when the ancient idols are rudely brushed aside, we +are aroused by the noise of the crash. We rush up, perhaps to punish +the delinquents, perhaps to examine the gods on our own account. + +Some, of course, feel that falling upon the iconoclasts is answer +enough. There have always been people able to answer ideas only with +blows. But the men and women who have it in them to think are likely to +pick up the shattered pieces of the idol, to determine for themselves +if it is worth the trouble of cementing together. If it has once been +truly broken, of course it can never be the same again. Perhaps the +bits of metal must be melted down to be cast into a new form. + +Just at present there is a great deal of argument, mostly excited, +about the question: Is war a necessary evil? This is not an “academic” +matter. Upon our answer depends our attitude to the League of Nations, +disarmament conferences, military training in the colleges, and various +other matters. As usual, most people feel qualified to say “Yes” +or “No” and to defend their opinions hotly. To answer the question +intelligently, a great deal of specialized knowledge is necessary. Is +there any fighting instinct in men? Do racial jealousies depend merely +upon misunderstanding and ignorance--or is there some deeper basis? +Does war assist in the advancement of culture and civilization? Do wars +promote manliness or do they weaken the race by killing off the brave +and the healthy, leaving the cowards and the defective individuals to +beget the next generation? + +Graham Wallas says we fight better than our ancestors knew how, for +we have better weapons. Yet we are not wiser than they, since we can +only let accident and inertia prevent a war from breaking out. We have +no positive means of controlling it, of being sure that international +peace will be kept. + +But we know that many wars have by no means been accidental. For +example, Bismarck carefully planned the Franco-Prussian War, making +the French appear to be the aggressors. Certainly most of the diplomats +of Europe expected the Great War to break out, and comparatively few +of them made any attempt to avert it. As for the masses of the people, +they cherished blind hatreds. They did not, of course, understand +international politics. + +Why did the United States join the Allies? Here is a question which +our historians have not been able to answer satisfactorily. As a +matter of fact, the question as stated is ambiguous. It calls either +for causes or for reasons. Perhaps one of the important causes was the +clever propaganda spread by the Allies, based to a great extent upon +deliberate falsehoods. One reason frequently given during the war was +that Germany was led by the godless philosophy of Nietzsche. This is +utter nonsense, although it is still repeated occasionally by clergymen +and Y. M. C. A. secretaries. + +In 1812, when the young republic was faced with the same problem of +aggression at the hands of both combatants, the United States declared +war against Great Britain, not against France. But there was no +definite alliance with the side which had also acted guiltily. Why did +things turn out differently in the Great War? + +The questions which I leave unanswered my readers may, if they will, +take for exercises. After all, we citizens of the United States are +supposed to be able to answer difficult political questions. Often we +must decide between two candidates for Congress, both of whom we know +to be unfit to hold such an office, on the ground of their attitude +for or against the World Court or tariff reduction or some other +complicated matter. + +The elementary textbooks of economics show that the “full dinner pail” +argument in favor of high import taxes is absolutely fallacious. Yet +this is relied upon by practically all Republican campaign speakers. +Again I am not trying to prove anything--except that stupidity is +widespread. Certainly it would be presumptuous and foolish for me to +try to settle the tariff question in a single paragraph. + +Sometimes, indeed, it seems that Hume was right when he said that +“reason has no original influence,” that it “is, and ought only to be, +the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office +than to serve and obey them.” Of course there is room for discussion +about the “ought only to be,” in any case. The passions make people +do ridiculous things: if the condition is hopeless, as Hume suggests, +we need not approve it. (Not that our approval or disapproval would +matter, if it were so.) + +But the attitude of this little book is not so pessimistic. I prefer to +consider reason something more than the art of inventing poor excuses +for worse conduct. At least in some few individuals and at some rare +times, intelligence is supreme. The implications of such a statement +are many. I do not think that it contradicts determinism, the doctrine +necessary to the scientific study of psychology that the condition of +the mind is fixed by anterior and exterior circumstances. But if we +admit that the rule of intelligence is ever possible, we are justified +in trying to learn how to think--not merely how to argue. + +Wallas says that thought “may start ... without an immediate stimulus +of an ‘instinctive’ impulse from the lower brain.” To discuss the +matter adequately, we should need first of all to consider the various +definitions of instinct. Yet it seems that there is always some sort +of stimulus from without. Thought does not arise spontaneously. First +there is a more or less unpleasant feeling of incompleteness. In other +words, there is a difficulty, a lack of adjustment to one’s environment. + +Thus, while we are wearing our gloves and see them on our hands, we +do not wonder where they are. But if they are lacking and we remember +having started out from home with them, we think at once: Where are my +gloves? If we have entered the Order of Jesus and successfully subdued +our reason according to the regular system of discipline, we never +think: Is there a God? But one who has entered a monastery without +fully subduing his ability to think for himself is likely enough to +wonder when his sexual impulses trouble him: Is the immortality we are +promised sure? Is there indeed a God? + +But what shall we say of a monk who is fully convinced that he will +enjoy everlasting bliss if he keeps his oath of chastity and is at the +same time unable to refrain from fornication? Surely he is ruled by +his instincts, not by his reason. Even where religion triumphs, the +victory seems to be won by the emotions, not by the intelligence. Often +we find a mystical union with God--or with Jesus or Mary, to make the +picture of heterosexual relations more definite--standing definitely in +the place of the ordinary manifestations of sex. + +At best, we cannot rate reason very highly in any description of +things as they are. Wallas, defending the originality and the power of +thought, yet says that some of the most important steps in the process +are unconscious or half-conscious. This means that they are largely +uncontrolled, so far as the will is concerned. The Freudian doctrine +tells us that complex formations actually develop as a result of +emotional suppressions. This much we know, that the ideas lying below +the level of consciousness are not arranged in any logical system which +the conscious mind can accept. Our dreams and reveries offer proof +enough of this. + +Flashes of insight, brilliant guesses which we attribute to intuition, +demand careful verification. It sometimes happens that a man leaps +out of bed in the middle of the night with the feeling that he has +made a wonderful discovery. In the morning, he may not remember what +it was all about. In this case he is certain that he has missed +something extraordinary by reason of his failure to have a pad and +pencil at hand. If he has taken notes, however, he is very likely to be +disappointed in them. Either they are valuable but yet require much +laborious amplification or they are palpably worthless. + +Robert Graves explains poetic inspiration thus: “When conflicting +issues disturb his mind, which in its conscious state is unable to +reconcile them logically, the poet acquires the art of self-hypnotism, +as practiced by the witch-doctors, his ancestors in poetry.... On being +interrupted, the poet experiences the disagreeable sensations of a +sleepwalker disturbed and later finds it impossible to remember how the +early versions of a poem ran.” + +The important thing for us to consider here is that the poet, even if +he considers his work inspired, nevertheless makes corrections in it. +Sometimes the defects are small, sometimes they are so great that the +whole work is worthless. Any interested reader may see what Robert +Graves did with the later drafts--those he could remember, that is--of +“Cynics and Romantics.” These he gives in his book _On English Poetry_ +in the chapter called “Surface Faults, an Illustration.” + +The four stages in thinking, according to Graham Wallas, are +preparation, incubation, illumination, and verification. The two stages +referred to by Graves are illumination (or “self-hypnotism”) and +verification or correction. + +Perhaps _education_ would be a fair synonym for _preparation_. For one +thing, “the ‘educated’ man can ‘put his mind on’ a certain subject +and ‘turn his mind off’ in a way which is impossible to an uneducated +man,” as Wallas tells us. In other words, he possesses volitional +control. But if education, between inverted commas, means attendance +at a university or at least a good school of secondary grade, the +statement is only half true. Some self-educated men do lack the ability +to concentrate upon an intellectual problem. Others do not. The main +difficulty is to know when to stop thinking about a difficulty. When is +it truly solved? + +When we have found an algebraic X, we can test it, usually without any +trouble. But sometimes the solutions which flash upon us are not so +easily tried. For example, I may discover some important new principles +of government. Yet, not being a professional politician, I have no way +of introducing even a slight innovation. Shall I test my discovery +by its conformity to the laws of political science? But there is no +such science, in any strict use of the word. Well, I may write a book +explaining my discovery. Thus I should be following the course of +Plato, when he came to the conclusion that the philosophers should rule +the state. + +Putting one’s ideas into a writing which is published often brings +about its verification by others. Einstein worked out his theory of +relativity and tested it as well as he could. Yet his own tests are not +considered nearly so important as those made by certain astronomers and +physicists soon after his theory was made public. + +Illumination is the only one of Wallas’s four stages which cannot +easily be controlled. Yet many poets and thinkers have been able to +use alcoholic beverages and even narcotic drugs to good advantage. If +the ideas won’t come, sometimes there is nothing to do but wait. + +But illumination may fail because the incubation is defective. “We can +often get more result in the same time,” says Wallas, “by beginning +several problems in succession, and voluntarily leaving them unfinished +while we turn to others, than by finishing our work on each problem at +one sitting.” The associations come up, as it seems, of themselves, +although voluntary effort fails. If waiting is necessary, perhaps +another difficulty may meanwhile be attacked. + +Or some exercise, like walking, which involves no exceedingly complex +mental demands of its own, may arouse the fugitive ideas. Idleness as +well has its uses in the incubation of thought. There is such a state +as that of being too busy to think. But performing some simple task +all day, for instance, operating a sewing machine, need not prevent +constructive thinking. The ordinary workingman of today, doing over and +over again the same piece of work, is in this respect better off than +the medieval laborer who made the whole pair of shoes or the whole cart +by himself. If it is in him to think, his thoughts can incubate during +his working hours. Moreover, he has a great deal of leisure in which to +verify his conclusions or to gather material for thought. + +He can read books and magazines and newspapers after he is through +with his work. Yet the man who reads much does not necessarily think +efficiently. He must leave time for his thoughts to develop and he must +acquire the art of reading critically: else his reading probably does +him more harm than good. + + + + +SOME COMMON FORMS OF STUPIDITY + + +There is, says H. G. Wells, an “empty gulf in quality between the +superb and richly fruitful scientific investigations that are going on, +and the general thought of other educated sections of the community.” +Graham Wallas points specifically to the lack of perfection in +politics, jurisprudence, and economics, as well as to deficiencies in +the coördination of biology, physics, politics, and sociology. + +That which is truly scientific is precise. Some of the attempts to make +the social sciences exact have failed because of undue simplifications. +Human behavior is a very complex matter, and it cannot accurately be +set forth with any short formula--or with any long formula that is at +present available. + +The science of psychology, although it is now worthy of the name, is +yet loosely established. We must remember that all the sciences are +subject to revision. Einstein appears pretty much to have upset the +laws of Newton, which have been looked upon with almost religious +reverence for tens of decades. When we wish to find the truth, we do +not hesitate to attack the errors to which the names of old authorities +are attached. Moreover, the man who has the scientific spirit in him +recognizes that the truth he discovers is very likely relative, that it +may be overturned by another truth-seeker. + +Darwin was a great man. Yet the scientists of today, who accept his +theory of organic evolution, do not hesitate to criticize his account +of the machinery bringing about evolution--that is, natural selection. +So it happens that the ignorant can declare Darwinism discredited, with +the implication that organic evolution is denied. + +Truth which is relative, which is constantly in a state of flux, is +hard for the lazy-minded to accept. But scientific truth (which is, +of course, erroneous to an indeterminable extent, which probably will +never be entirely accurate) is yet infinitely more truthful than any +fixed dogmas like those of the theologians. So long as scientific +method remains in use and there are eager workers in the field, we can +be certain that the truth of the scientists will approach closer and +closer to absolute truth. + +The warfare of science with theology is not yet ended. Where once the +battleground was in the fields of physics and astronomy, now it is in +the fields of biology and psychology. When the soul finally goes, what +will be left for the ministers? Probably a thin residue of ethical +teachings. + +At present the clergy are all more or less afraid of the new biological +and psychological doctrines. Either they deny them or they attempt +to adjust their opinions to them, but they cannot help suspecting +attacks upon their vested interests. Worse still, perhaps, would be the +uncovering of their own ignorance--an ignorance of great profundity, in +some instances. + +A great many agnostics dislike to see Christianity attacked because +they believe that religion keeps the masses out of mischief. No matter +how thoroughly the doctrine of “Whatever is, is right” has been +spread, however, there have always been criminals and rebels. There +is no evidence available showing that unbelievers are more ready than +Christians or Jews or Mohammedans to murder and rob and forge checks. + +To set up two standards of truth--one for the “upper” or the more +intelligent classes, one for those who are regarded as inferior--is +stupid and dangerous. Absolute truth is supposed to be important +according to the religious teachings as well as the principles of +science. When the members of a congregation suspect the minister’s +agnosticism, their own faith is likely to be troubled. When there is a +slave morality as well as a separate morality for masters, it must be +based upon something more tangible than rewards and punishments after +death. It has usually been maintained with the whip. + +But in our civilized communities it seems to be necessary to maintain +masters and servants without too frequently bloodying backs. I do not +wish to set forth the Marxian doctrine that there is a great gulf +between the capitalists and the proletarians. Yet it is obvious that +some people have power and unlimited luxuries while others go hungry +on occasion. It is not mere perversity or stupid ignorance, then--as +James Harvey Robinson and others of his school sometimes appear to +imply--which causes all sorts of obstacles to be laid in the way of +the frank teaching of the social sciences. It is the fear that valuable +privileges will be lost. + +It does not seem to me that there is any likelihood in the near future +of a Bolshevistic revolution in the United States. Those who possess +intelligence and the qualities of leadership feel that they cannot +be the gainers by any such overthrow. But a feeling that something +is being suppressed, that a censorship of ideas exists, if it once +gains ground, may cause certain individuals to join the revolutionary +movement. + +The present capitalistic system, although it is in many ways palpably +defective, yet has the merit of working. It is certain that the sudden +change to a socialistic, syndicalistic, or anarchistic state would, +at least for several generations, bring about famine and a general +breakdown in various complex organizations which we consider essential +for our civilization and culture. Perhaps we may gradually pass into +socialism. A number of paternalistic tendencies (which I, personally, +regret) suggest that we are on the way. The importance or lack of +importance of the Socialistic Party makes no difference. Just now, +when the Unitarian Church is diminishing in importance, all the old +doctrines of the Unitarians are being taken over by the religious +leaders who call themselves modernists. + +But if we are in a transition stage, it is well that we should +know what we are doing. Our fears for vested interests and special +privileges must not hold us back. All attempts (conscious or +unconscious) to make ignorance into a Chinese wall are bound to be +futile. That sort of wall is undermined with dynamite before it is +erected. + +At present, indeed, the free study of sociology seems to mean no more +than the liberty to exhibit that reason which justifies the actions +brought about by passion. That is, very little intelligence has been +brought to bear on the problem of the relations between men. Those who +argue have opinions which seem to arise out of their own temperaments, +not out of any objective study of the problem. Thus they would justify +Hume’s view of reason. + +James Harvey Robinson (_The Mind in the Making_) says: “I mean by +social science our feeble efforts to study man, his natural equipment +and impulses, and his relations to his fellows in the light of his +origin and the history of the race.... Human affairs are in themselves +far more intricate and perplexing than molecules and the chromosomes. +But this is only the more reason for bringing to bear on human +affairs that critical type of thought and calculation for which the +remunerative thought about molecules and chromosomes has prepared the +way.” He goes on to say in the next paragraph that exact scientific +results, like those formulated in mechanics, are “of course” out of the +question. + +But we have seen that there is no absoluteness about the laws of +mechanics. The accepted doctrines of chemistry have been and still +are being overthrown to a considerable extent. It may be that two or +three centuries from now the laws of sociology will be as exact as +those of physics. That is to say, they will be respected until further +investigation makes it plain that they must be revised. + +Precisely as psychology must be founded upon physiology and +biochemistry, sociology must depend upon psychology. Just at present +the study of human behavior is in an interesting but somewhat uncertain +state. The psychoanalysts, Freud especially, have brought in about as +much new matter as was previously contained in the science. Much of it +is immediately useful, some of it is worthless or even harmful, a great +deal will be found useful when it is digested. In a somewhat different +direction, the experimental behaviorists (not all of whom have +called themselves by this name) have contributed much to psychology. +They, too, have made some assumptions which at present seem to be +unwarranted, but they appear to be working in the right direction. +The new contributions came just when psychology seemed to be in a +hopeless state. The teachers had nothing to offer but definitions, and +originality meant either the invention of new words or the use of the +old ones in new senses. + +Right now we perhaps stand too close to the recent developments +to understand their full purport. Yet we are justified in feeling +a certain amount of optimism about the future of psychology and +consequently about the formation of a genuine science of sociology. +Only we must take an open-minded attitude, we must not try to draw +conclusions which will justify our prejudices. That amounts to the +stupid destruction of unborn knowledge, perhaps also of unborn wisdom. +Intellectual abortion is never justified and--at least one would like +to suppose so--never permanently successful. It is healthier to think +freely, to pursue truth without fear. + +After all, we need make no special effort to woo stupidity. It will +be only too much with us, despite our best efforts to be intelligent. +Those four “idols” or types of error of which Bacon wrote long ago in +the _Novum Organum_ still beset the human mind. + +The “idols of the tribe” arise out of sensory deficiencies common to +all men and women. “The human mind,” according to Bacon, “resembles +those uneven mirrors which impart their own properties to different +objects, from which rays are emitted and distort and disfigure them.” + +We may notice in passing that Bacon here takes up definitely the +scientific point of view. According to some philosophers, objects have +no existence except as the senses bring them to the minds of men. If we +were to agree with them, we might not speak of “uneven mirrors” except +in the case of those individuals who have sensory deficiencies peculiar +to themselves. + +These are, to use Bacon’s fanciful term, “idols of the den.” More +particularly he applies the term of predilections and prejudices caused +by the special trend of an individual’s education or by the emotions +under whose sway he at the moment stands. These warping influences are +such that we may with Bacon approve the thought of Heraclitus: “that +men search for knowledge in lesser worlds, and not in the greater or +common world.” + +The “idols of the market” are the errors arising in social intercourse, +largely through failure to use words in the same precise sense. Even +in spite of the careful definitions set up by men of science, this +condition exists. Sometimes, in fact, the scientific definitions +aggravate the idols of the market; as in those cases where a word used +in ordinary language is also employed for a somewhat different meaning +in a field of science. + +The “idols of the theater” depend upon the peculiarities of various +systems of philosophy. It seems to me that these are largely “idols of +the market,” although the errors described by Bacon under the first two +heads are also among them. + +Of course not all differences in opinion are based upon the varying +uses of words. If, in a group of one hundred intelligent men, fifty men +say that they believe in God and fifty that they do not, there may be +five in each group who really do not disagree. These ten people may all +believe in some sort of life force which can be called either a vital +impulse or God. Of course the necessity to answer either “Yes” or “No” +deprives some of the chance to say, “What way have I of telling?” + +In our imaginary gathering, we may suppose that there are Catholics, +believing in the Holy Trinity and certain that the details of dogma +are definitely settled by the Church. There are also Protestants of +various denominations, differing somewhat as to the conception of the +deity. There are Unitarians, with a still different notion. There is +a Mussulman, who has no doubt that Allah revealed himself to an Arab +named Mohammed. There are deists and pantheists and spiritualists and +agnostics and atheists. Also there are people who seldom think about +religion, but who call themselves “Baptists” or “Jews” or “Unitarians” +when an inquiry is made. + +Certainly it is not possible to grade people’s intelligence by the +answers they make in a religious census. There is some evidence that +the average believer in revealed religion is more stupid than the +average doubter or unbeliever. Yet the most enthusiastic atheist must +admit that some who share his opinions are decidedly less wise than +some who subscribe to, let us say, the tenets of the Roman Catholic +Church. + +Whence arise the differences in belief? The beginning of the answer is +easy, the rest difficult. Most people belong to a certain religious +denomination because of the place where they were born and the +confession of their parents. John Smith is a Methodist because he was +begotten by James Smith upon Adeline Smith, who was then and who had +always lived in Atlanta, Georgia. Samuel Cohen is an orthodox Jew +because he was begotten by Saul ben Isaac Cohen upon Deborah Cohen +in Cracow. And so with the Buddhist, the Hindu, the American Indian +believing in a Great Spirit and various little spirits, or the +Catholic born in Dublin and going faithfully to mass. + +Do the countries which are predominatingly Mohammedan have other +religious needs than those of the predominatingly Christian countries? +Or is there a peculiar religious instinct inherited among the Turks +other than that which is inherited among the Irish? Lessing’s wise +Nathan expresses the view that since we can learn little about God +through direct experience, we should believe our parents and our +ancestors. Yet this is but a form of egotism, and a dangerous form, +too. Why should we consider our ancestors wiser than the ancestors of +our neighbors who belong to other ecclesiastical organizations? + +Robinson’s _The Mind in the Making_ is little more than an attack upon +this sort of ancestor-worship, although it does not particularly deal +with religion. But we can hardly help returning again and again to the +theologians when we discuss the stupidities which are honored chiefly +because of their antiquity. + +Of course, a change in faith, although it represents a revolt +against meaningless stereotypy, does not always indicate any special +intelligence. People sometimes change their religions merely as a +matter of convenience. (Here, of course, we are dealing with words +more than with genuine beliefs.) Samuel Cohen of Cracow may become +a convert to the Roman Catholic Church because it will admit him to +certain political or social advantages or because he cannot marry +Michalina Riboczech, whom he much loves, on any other terms. Or he +may come to America and find that he is unable to earn his living +except by becoming a Methodist minister. Perhaps he does not possess +enough knowledge of the Talmud to be acceptable as a rabbi, but finds +ignorance no barrier in a church where he can serve as a living example +of conversion to the true faith. + +What shall we say of the thousands of Japanese and Chinese who +become Christians without any ulterior motive? They find some sort +of emotional satisfaction in the new faith which they have not been +able to find in their ancestral religions. Why? I do not think the +question can be answered satisfactorily with our present knowledge of +psychology. Nor can we tell why one brother is a bishop and the other a +skeptic, except when there is an element of hypocrisy in one case. + +The religious attitude is one of belief based upon little or no +evidence. Beyond the field which we consider religious, we regard such +an attitude as stupid. As a matter of fact, though, we are influenced +everywhere by “such factors of belief as fear and hope, prejudice and +passion, imitation and partisanship, the circumpressure of our caste +and set.” William James, whose words I have thus employed, argues that +because these elements are universal, they are therefore justifiable. + +Because we have been considering absolute truth and because the +argument is ingenious, I will here quote some sentences from James’s +_The Will to Believe_: + + Our belief in truth itself, for instance, that there is a truth, + and that our minds and it are made for each other--what is it + but a passionate affirmation of desire, in which our social + system backs us up? We want to have a truth; we want to believe + that our experiments and studies and discussions must put us + in a continually better and better position towards it; and on + this line we agree to fight out our thinking lives. But if a + pyrrhonistic skeptic asks us _how we know_ all this, can our logic + find a reply? No! certainly it cannot. It is just one volition + against another--we are willing to go in for life upon a trust or + assumption which he, for his part, does not care to make. + +But if this be unanswerable, then it destroys the system which James +is trying to erect. If _truth_ has any meaning at all, it must not be +applied to that which is unproved and seemingly unprovable. If we are +to think with any accuracy, of course we must recognize that _truth_ +and _proof_ are not absolutes. This recognition gives us no cause for +returning to the physiology and astrology of the Middle Ages or for +postulating God and immortality and free will, when these conceptions +seem to be unnecessary for modern scientific thought. + +James wrote _The Will to Believe_ as an attack upon the attitude +represented in _The Ethics of Belief_ by William Kingdon Clifford. Of +Clifford’s viewpoint there is a brief summary in his own words: + + + We may believe what goes beyond our experience, only when it is + inferred from that experience by the assumption that what we do not + know is like what we know. + + We may believe the statement of another person when there is + reasonable ground for supposing that he knows the matter of which + he speaks and that he is speaking the truth so far as he knows it. + + It is wrong in all cases to believe on insufficient evidence; and + where it is presumption to doubt and to investigate, then it is + worse than presumption to believe. + +These seem to be principles which we can apply. Certainly there +exists no general need to believe whenever intellectual options +present themselves. Often, as we have seen, we are expected to act +on insufficient information. Thus, the man who declares that he does +not know whether there is or is not a God who wishes to be worshipped +must either attend church--as though he believed in this sort of +divinity--or stay away--as though he did not. Or, though he conceives +the possibility that Jehovah wishes to be praised, he may refrain from +church attendance and prayer because he has no way of knowing what may +be the proper manner in which to go about the matter. + +It is not what one believes that matters, except as this is shown in +what one does. Therefore a deficiency in will power is at the bottom of +much stupidity. Our worldly hells are paved with good intentions. “It +is in human nature,” according to Anatole France, “to think wisely and +to act in an absurd fashion.” + +The shrewdest of business men are caught unaware and imposed upon +by swindlers. Many of the tricks commonly employed depend upon the +victim’s readiness to share in a doubtful deal. He is made to feel a +great joy at the thought of his own acuteness, which joy occupies him +to such an extent that his intellectual powers are impaired. Moreover, +the victim is given to suppose that great haste is required. At last, +when he discovers that he has been beswindled, his vanity usually makes +him keep silent. He would be loath to have people know that he is +neither as honest nor as wise as he is reputed. Egotism is one of the +chief causes of folly, as we have already had occasion to notice. + +Some people who are not conspicuous for direct vanity yet show the vice +indirectly, through their blind preferences for their own families, +their own parties, their own causes. “Wrong or right, my country,” is +no wiser a saying than “Right or wrong, my prejudices.” The recent +attempts to make out a case for Germanic or Nordic supremacy are +entirely ridiculous. As a matter of fact, most Englishmen are racially +about the same as most Frenchmen. + +It is by no means so evident as it once seemed that the white race is +far superior to those of a darker hue. There are even Europeans and +Americans who declare the Chinese and the Japanese are wiser than we. +As to the negro race, there is but little evidence that it stands on a +low intellectual level because of organic limitations. A few colored +people of pure blood have performed outstanding achievements. We have +reason to believe that their accomplishments are exceptional only +because the negroes have had few educational opportunities. The colored +people living in the north seem to be more alert and less stupid than +those working in the fields of Mississippi and Florida. + +Woltmann declares that the negroes are inferior because they attain +the age of puberty sooner. At this time, according to some students of +the matter, brain development ceases. If this were the case, and if the +rate of brain development while it lasts were the same in all races, +then we should be able to grade intelligence among races according to +climate. We should expect the Eskimos, to whom nubility comes late, to +be far more intelligent than the Spanish and Italians, to whom it comes +early. But we have no reason to come to any such conclusion. + +Otto Ammon, after studying the people of Baden, came to the conclusion +that the Nordics (with long heads, blue eyes, and blond hair) are +superior to those of Alpine derivation (with short heads and dark +hair). But he and the writers in Germany and other countries who +agree with him have assumed rather than proved their conclusions. By +way of rebuttal, Loewenfeld declares that the two greatest German +philosophers, Kant and Schopenhauer, were both short-headed. Goethe, +whatever shape his skull may have had, certainly possessed dark hair +and eyes. The assumption of Nordic superiority is based upon prejudice +rather than upon scientific evidence. + +Is stupidity more common among the poor than among the rich? Of course +we are unable to answer such questions accurately because of the lack +of dependable criteria. But we know that most persons want to become +wealthy and we may reasonably infer that those who acquire fortunes +do excel in certain intellectual characteristics. That these traits +or general mental superiority is transmitted to rich men’s children +is sometimes asserted. Of course they are likely to have special +educational facilities. Besides this, they have unusual opportunities +to show what they can do in positions of responsibility. + +And yet they often prove to be inferior in business or in the +professions to the children of the poor. Often they have failed to +acquire habits of industry. Or else they are anxious to do no work +which might seem menial or undignified. + +There can be no question that most dynasties have been founded by +men of unusual ability. Nevertheless, the kings and queens of Europe +are in most cases persons of merely average intellect. Psychoses and +neuroses are not rare among them. Perhaps a partial explanation of +royal degeneration is to be found in their inbreeding. The mixed fruit +of royalty and the common people is almost always declared illegitimate. + +Very few great men have had children gifted with genius. So far, +the laws of heredity explain comparatively little about the sudden +appearance of remarkable traits. But the children of intelligent people +are likely to be less stupid than those whose parents are fools. The +factors of original nature and of education are both in favor of the +former class. + +Forms of stupidity vary much with time and place. The tendency to do +as one’s fellows do is a strong one. Especially in a mob, it sometimes +appears that the prevailing level of intelligence is that of the most +stupid members. But mob psychology deals in general with states of +excitement. Sometimes actions are attributed to mere numbers which are +due to emotional stress felt by all the individuals in the crowd. + +For intelligence is no guarantee against impulsive action. Love and +hate and fear and jealousy and sympathy make normally wise people do +exceedingly foolish things. The mob is capable of killing innocent +persons. So is almost any man, when his hate is aroused. + + And all men kill the thing they love, + By all let this be heard, + Some do it with a bitter look, + Some with a flattering word. + +These verses of Oscar Wilde’s are justified. The passions do not exert +themselves in a definite and controlled direction. Therefore love can +slay about as well as hate. Probably better, for the opportunities are +greater. + +Physical ill health is at the bottom of much stupidity. Although the +direct influence upon the higher nervous centers may be little, there +are all sorts of indirect effects caused by illness. Frequently the +patient is in a constant state of suppressed anger. Any trifle makes +him find fault with his physician and his attendants. + +Sometimes, indeed, the patient does not become angry with his +nurse. He may fall into an attitude of dependence upon her. This +occasionally--especially in the case of men just entering the first +stage of senile dementia--leads to foolish marriages. + +Old age, like childhood, is more or less the scene of folly. +Comparatively few individuals are as intelligent in the 70’s and 80’s +as they were in the 30’s and 40’s. Most men are physically strongest at +about the age of 25. The height of mental power comes later, perhaps +at about 45. After that the memory tends to decline. The other mental +traits become impaired usually in the 60’s. + +The folly peculiar to youth depends largely upon lack of experience. +Deficiency in self-control is also an important element--one, to be +sure, that frequently lasts through life. Child prodigies usually show +a one-sided development. Though they may be quick thinkers, they seldom +probe deeply. + +The thinker is immature until he has a supply of experiences and +ideas at his service. These will come, if he only learns to apply the +principle of order. This is the instrument with which we make the most +of our minds. When we learn how to use order, we become as gods. For +then we can take the chaos about us and build it into a universe. + + + + +Transcriber’s Notes + + +In the .txt version, surrounding characters have been used to indicate + _Italics_ +Minor typographical and spelling errors have been corrected +p. 29 retained unchanged the sentence beginning “The educational + critics” + + +*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 78906 *** |