You’re Not So Sure of Yourself, Are You? Good! Skill of Thought , Part 3

It seems like people value confidence and correctness. We hate to admit we are wrong. We trust people who convince us that they really know what they are talking about. When someone wavers, we see it as a lack of expertise. We wonder if we should believe their opinion. 

That’s unfortunate because doubt is the sign of both wisdom and knowledge. 

Each year, I would ask my comparative religion students to tell me something on which they thought everyone could agree. They struggled. Often, we came down to something like 2 + 2 = 4, although George Orwell might disagree. 

There is a reason why we can’t agree on much and there is nothing wrong with that. It is because questioning, doubt, skepticism, and thinking from multiple perspectives are crucial to strong thinking. 

This does not mean that everything is unknowable. Quite the reverse, one way that we do know things is because we doubt them, test them, rethink them, and apply them. This way we discover what is true and then test it when new questions arise. 

When someone says they hold something as true and have no doubts, I hope the real statement is that they have no doubts right now. They had some once and resolved them. They know that it is likely that they will have doubts again. They are in between doubts. They are checking out doubts about other things and this particular thing will have to wait its turn. 

There is a proverb that says that a fool has no doubts and a wise person has too many. Doubt can be crippling. It can prevent us from taking important action. However, the lack of doubts can make us rush in where even fools fear to tread. When we have no doubts, we may be overconfident and impulsive. A person who has no doubts probably doesn’t know enough – or is denying their doubts. 

Sometimes, we have doubts, but we wish we didn’t. We want something to be true. We need it to be true. We wish it were true – really, really badly. We swallow and silence our doubts because listening to them erodes our fragile beliefs. We know that what we think cannot stand up to scrutiny and we wish it could. That’s a sign that our thinking needs strengthening. That’s just wishful thinking. 

When people change their minds, our politicians “flip” their views, or scientists update or alter what they consider fact, we should celebrate! Wrong is a fact of life. Change is the nature of the universe. Growth is the opposite of death. It is good to doubt and question these and all other ideas. 

Silencing the nagging voice in our head that asks, “What about…?” does only one thing: it marries us to our current way of thinking. Sometimes that works. Sometimes, it is inaccurate, out of date, or just plain wrong. If nothing else, our own humility should compel us to ask ourselves, “How might I be wrong? What is the downside here? What is an alternative way of thinking?” 

Doubt is the seed of learning and growth. Questioning is the road to truth. It is more comfortable to ignore complexity and ambiguity in favor of consistency and simplicity. Yet, our growth as a society comes directly because great minds have challenged current conventions and beliefs and moved us all from darkness into the light. 

If you doubt the truth of this: good! Ask the questions, seek the answers, and keep learning – forever! 

Twenty Years Ago: December 2003

For so many years, December was the most challenging month of the year. The weather turns colder, the weeks of school between Thanksgiving and winter break are hectic, and there are many holiday celebrations. I am not sure this got any better as my children got older. Thus, my level of busy was at its peak, “My school computer froze on me yesterday and it is sitting in the tech office. I have a haircut, interdepartmental lunch, I’m teaching Humanities solo and I need the laptop cart in the computer lab. It is going to be one hell of a day. Oh, and did I mention there is an FAC meeting after school. Oh yeah, need to call the kids’ doctor to set up a nasal spray session for them.”

The dog was still waking us up early – but not enough. He was leaving us smelly surprises, too. He was nearly blind, but had an operation on his eyes that was helpful – and time-consuming. 

We celebrated Hanukkah with family and at temple. I was also getting ready for a special family trip for winter break! We had never been on such a long plane flight as a family. Boarding a dog with significant medical needs was challenging. I kept waiting for the kennel to tell me it was too much. They didn’t say that in December – but they did say it later. 

I noted that, although a lot was going on at school, it was the portion of the day over which I felt like I had the most control, “Teaching is a challenge today, but that was the easiest part of the day.”

Packing for ten days out of town with young children was stressful, “We are going to schlep a ton of bags. We have four small bags, several as little as one of our carry-ons, one large Pullman, a car seat, three backpacks (carried on), and one rolled-on carry-on. Thank goodness we do not have a connecting flight; with so many pieces of luggage, the odds of getting one misplaced are way too good. Unlike my usual strategy, two of the bags primarily have the kids’ stuff and three have mostly our stuff.” It was clear to me, even then, that we overpacked. Oh, well. 

One theme of this retrospective of 2003 is that we had lots of colds. December was no different. One of my children almost always had a cold and either my wife or I would share it. However, this was the first time that our children got a flu shot. That helped! 

As we got closer to winter break, I found I was more and more desperate for the time off, – “I just need some downtime. I just need some time to turn off the real world.” Recently, one of my children felt the same way. These trips are now more about being together than relaxing and decompressing – but that was not the case twenty years ago.  

When we finally left, the kids were great on the long flight “Both took naps, both watched DVD, both nibbled and read and played chess. They are awesome.” They were and are great travelers. I sat between them with lots of activities and things to eat. The trip there was laden with anticipation, which helped. 

The trip itself was wonderful. I think that getting away from Chicago’s gray and cold weather is healthy and helpful. A change of scene is also a great way to feel renewed and see things differently. However, we do make the distinction between a trip and a vacation. While there were some vacation elements, such as the children going to the resort’s kids club, this was most certainly a trip. 

One child had an issue with water in the ear that necessitated a house call from a doctor. We learned that, after a day of play, the kids might literally fall asleep at dinner if we ate too late. One fell asleep and I had to carry him back to our room. 

We celebrated Hanukkah and enjoyed the resort’s Christmas activities. My parents traveled with us, and have over winter break since the kids were born. It was great to be together. I have always been so grateful that my parents have been such an integral part of my children’s lives – and are to this day. 

On the way home, the kids were tired. Yes, they slept, but they were also out of sorts. No one was looking forward to going back to the cold – or regular life. And then we moved on to 2004, as we now move into 2024: with hope, with conviction, with anxiety, and with renewed resolve. 

Happy everything to everyone! 

The Emotional Fallacy: The Mirror in the Media

I was introduced to the idea of the emotional fallacy when studying literary criticism in college. The idea was that, instead of evaluating a work on the characteristics and qualities of the work itself, people sometimes respond to their own emotional response to the work. Thus, we are analyzing our individual and personal reactions and not parts of the work. 

For example, few people regard those highly sentimental movies about lovers, one of whom gets a terminal disease, and we watch their relationship grow as one of them dies, as great art. However, someone suffering from an illness or whose lover, mother, or friend had a similar situation might be touched emotionally. They would identify with the characters and situations in the movie. Their evaluation, therefore, might be a function of their response and not a result of the quality of the writing, acting, cinematography, editing, or other pieces of the craft of movie-making. They like the work because they relate to it. 

Yet, people judge works based on their own emotions all the time. They like things that make them feel good, inspired, or uplifted. They recoil from works that challenge their firmly held beliefs or make them think too hard. Sometimes, they miss the real art, skill, and beauty of the work because they are too caught up looking at themselves. Instead of examining the work, they see a mirror that reflects parts of themselves. 

We identify with a character and then that character becomes a stand-in for us. We think we know how they feel. We know how this plot goes because we have encountered situations like this in our lives. The work feels authentic and rings true because it mirrors our experience. 

Or our values. A work that confirms and supports our view of the world can be more appealing than one that challenges us to see a different perspective. A work that is simple and sweet goes down easier than one that is complicated and depends a great deal on the craft of storytelling. We like pretty pictures more than complex puzzles. 

Have you ever talked to someone who read a book you read or saw a movie you saw and thought to yourself, “Did we see the same thing?”  They may make a minor character into the protagonist because they see themselves in that character. They may impose their view of the world on the world of the story. They embellish the work with their values and experiences and transform it into an extension of themselves. Their response to it is no longer about the work.

Of course, creators want their audiences to connect with their works. They rejoice when their characters and situations are real to people. However, when the response centers on the viewer to the detriment of the work, we are no longer focused on the work – but on the viewer. 

It is not difficult to play with people’s emotions using words, images, music, or story. Advertisers, politicians, and propagandists frequently use anecdotes and compelling tales to manipulate their audiences. They are so good at this that their audiences rarely look behind the curtain to evaluate the vehicles themselves. They only see their images in the mirror. 

They see themselves in the characters and rewrite the story to fit their world, values, experiences, and prejudices. Think about the responses to the first Hunger Games movie when a Black woman was cast as Rue. The book made it clear that Rue was Black. However, many people who claimed to love the book rewrote that fact in their minds. They brought their bigotry to the novel and, when its explicit features were turned into a movie, it no longer matched what they recalled from the book – and they got mad! 

We recast the world in our own image. We rewrite the story to fit our values, wishes, and worldview. We think we know who are the oppressors and who are the victims because of course they reflect what we have seen and experienced in our world. 

And if it is not the same, if the story is not our story, we sometimes ignore those aspects of the text and rewrite it to reflect us. We create a confirming and comforting carnival mirror instead of analyzing the work itself. 

But the real story, the real movie, the real world doesn’t change. It isn’t just a mirror of us – and that can be difficult and uncomfortable to accept. It can make us the pawns of manipulators and Machiavellians. It can make us allies with evil.