DANGER: IT’S DESIGNED SO YOU DON’T THINK

When Joshua Epstein of the Brookings Institution wrote about making decisions. Yet he also noted that “society is formed largely to the end of removing that need” (namely, to make decisions) and if that’s the case, then removing the need to think). To explain he then wrote this: “Many social norms exist simply so that we no longer have to think about other options. We structure society so as to keep the need for thought to a minimum. We are compelled to make a decision only when no social convention prescribes it. The stronger the norm, the less we as individuals need to think about it. ... As people familiarize themselves with the rules, they also learn how much [they need] to think about how to behave.” (pp. 306-7, italics added)

Now isn’t that amazing? Here Epstein offers yet another perspective on the role and function of society and culture— by establishing the “rules” for how we do things around here, the rules become hidden frames which determine what to think. So we defer to others and to the rules that they have created. We look around to see what they are doing, how they are doing things, then instead of thinking, we conform. We conform to the norms set by the “rules” that were created in former times by someone who thought that would be a good thing to do. This saves us from the effort of thinking today. It makes things easier. And that’s right, isn’t it?

Yes but it comes with a price. Here’s what I’ve learned from that. Whatever induces us to conform, or to be compliant, simultaneously induces us to stop thinking individually and to use (and default to) the thinking of the group.

Then as members of a community, we learn to operate on the principle of doing as little thinking as possible. Conversely, if we started to think, then we would start asking questions: “Why do we do things this way?” “What if we did it in another way?” “Do we have to do it this way? Could we change this?” And, of course, to ask such questions is to be a heretic to the old ways, a disturber of the peace, and an activist who seems to be looking for trouble.

Now our brains, are by their very nature, social in nature. We learn from each other, our mirror neurons (10% of brain cells) are always looking to what others are doing and we all have a strong urge inside to get along, to conform, to be accepted, to belong, etc. Our brains are also thinking machines— designed to question things, explore possibilities, solve problems, anticipate what will happen, create new ways of doing things, innovate, etc.

With these conflicting drives—no wonder that we can get into conflict with ourselves and with

others! It’s inevitable. On the one hand, we want to think—imagine, reason, draw our own conclusions, figure things out, discover, etc. and on the other hand, we want to rest our brains, come to a conclusion, find closure, belong, be loved and accepted, fit in, etc. Being both mindless and mindful lures us into each day.

In the training on Cognitive Make-Over, I put “norm thinking” in the category of “Borrowed Thinking” which was one of the six stages of Not-Thinking or Mindlessness. This means that instead of engaging in the authentic activity of thinking, we defer to “think the thoughts of others who came before us.” They did the work. They expended the energy and we are living off of their endeavors as we think their thoughts. It saves us from the effort of thinking— of questioning, exploring, checking, etc. Now we can live from the norms, that is, from the rules.

In language “rules” shows up in the Meta-Model distinction in several ways. There are the modal operators of necessity that indicate personal or family or social rules as indicated by need, should, must, have to, etc. These words code a demand or a rule and with that, thinking ends.

“I need to finish my plate.” “You should say ‘please’ and ‘thank you.’” “They must learn how to drive more carefully.” “You have to eat more.”

With such statements, one doesn’t have to think. Thinking is ended and a “mode of operating” is induced as a rule is stated as an absolute statement. Then there are Lost Performatives— a statement is made without any connection to whoever said it. It’s a lost map: “Boys shouldn’t cry.” “Have a stiff upper lip.” So ask, “Who invented that rule? When and for who? Is it still applicable today? Under what conditions?”

It is far too easy to stop thinking. And there are many other linguistic distinctions that can stop thinking. An over-generalization can (“You know how men are!”), labeling, either/or descriptions, etc. So if you think you think— think again. Maybe you aren’t. Maybe you are conforming to thinking that was done by others centuries ago. Maybe it is time for some fresh thinking. If you discover that, in fact, most of the time you are not thinking, that discovery itself enables you to begin thinking afresh.