The Trick To Thinking Clearer and Better

Via Medium

The late historians Will and Ariel Durant spent four decades of their life studying, compiling, and writing the history of Western civilization.

The product of their efforts, The Story of Civilization, went on to fill four million words, across 10,000 pages, divided into 11 separate books.

After finishing the last one, they then took on an arguably more daunting task: to summarize all they had learned into a 100 pages in The Lessons of History. It’s an incomplete and generalizing attempt, no doubt, but it is also one of the most densely-packed sources of modern wisdom available to us.

There are many trends and patterns to be found in the past, and the Durants do a commendable job of highlighting them. The essence of their view, however, can be summarized by the following sentence from their short book:

“The only real revolution is in the enlightenment of the mind and the improvement of character, the only real emancipation is individual, and the only real revolutionists are philosophers and saints.”

In many ways, the Durants believed that despite all that has and continues to change in our external environment, the real battle is still internal, and real change isn’t produced until we face our minds and our thoughts.

There is a fair degree of nuance that needs to be accounted for with a statement like that, and it ties into larger questions of what progress is and how subjects relate to objects, but the fact that our thoughts — and their ability to change our minds — play a pivotal role in our experience of reality is self-evident in ways that are common-sense.

How we think affects everything from our ability to solve problems to how we understand meaning and value and purpose. The Durants made it their life’s work to improve this ability in the average person by disseminating information — mostly history and philosophy — in culture.

But information alone doesn’t make our thinking better; we also have to understand and update the way that the mind processes this information.

A Mind That Is Stuck in Habit Loops

Based on popular psychology literature, some thinkers have codified the way that we form habits into a simple loop: a trigger, a routine, and a reward.

We first see something in our environment that sets off the trigger; the trigger leads to a routine we have internalized based on our past interactions in such an environment; finally, a reward at the end reinforces said routine.

If you observe this in your daily life, you’ll see that it’s roughly right. Our brain is a pattern-seeking survival machine, and habits are how it ensures that we don’t always have to think too hard about what to do when familiar situations arise, letting us conserve energy.

When it comes to the human mind, there are still no concrete theories of how thought emerges, but we know that it plays a pivotal role in facilitating how we interact with the information that the Durants, for example, were trying to impart on us. It has different forms and different shapes.

In the same way that we form habits of action relating to our environment, we also form habits of thought when it comes how we think about the world.

We are all born into a reality in which — at first, at least — we can’t even distinguish between our own separateness from the world.

With time, however, we start to recognize patterns around us, and we internalize these patterns — like we do habits — so that we can reuse them in the future. Usually, if a pattern persists in our mental habits, it means that it is valuable in some sense. But this is only the case if we apply that pattern to the right information.

One of the reasons that it’s so hard to change our mind about things is that our brains are stuck in these mental habit loops, which only look at the information from a singular point of view. They have learned something in one context, and they mistakenly apply it to other ones, mixing up the triggers that lead to routine thoughts.

We are all capable of overpowering these habit loops, of course, but it’s very easy and productive to always have them operating as the default mode.

To think well, our job is to be aware of their limitations and not to let them.

Diversifying Your Thinking Patterns

Each of us face different challenges, at different times, in different ways, based both on our biology and our unique cultural upbringing.

No two people think exactly the same way because no two people have lived exactly the same lives. We are all a product of the different thinking patterns that emerged as a result of our experience of interacting with reality.

In fact, these different thinking patterns (mostly produced from our mental habit loops) are, in large part, what makes you, you; me, me. The identity we each have is born from the convergence of all of these patterns. They create what we call our subjective experience.

One of the things that the Durants are presumably getting to with their quote is that even though we have continued to see so much external change throughout history, it doesn’t truly make a difference unless we calibrate our internal, subjective experience with that objective, external environment.

Our subjective experience is limited and using it — and the thinking patterns that create it — as the baseline for understanding the world is a limited way to go through life, and it biases us in the wrong direction.

At its core, a thinking pattern is an implicit rule of thumb for the way we connect the different aspects of the reality around us. Given the complexity of this reality, the more diverse our trained thinking patterns and the better refined the associated triggers, the more accurately we will be able to interact with the information around us.

Because thinking patterns emerge from the mental habit loops we form as a response to experience, the only way to diversify them is to seek out new and conflicting encounters, whether that be through books, unfamiliar environments, or even hypothetical thought-games.

Outside of extreme external circumstances, any time we are struggling to solve some problem or lacking a sense of satisfaction and meaning, it’s due to the fact that the current thinking patterns that we are using to interact with reality are not adequately suited for the job.

Instead, we have to remodel the form and the shape of these patterns so that they can better fit with the form and the shape of the issue at hand.

The Takeaway

At birth, our memory is mostly a blank slate. We are born with our biological machinery, but we don’t come with complete knowledge of how to use it.

As time goes on, however, bit by bit, things start to make more sense. We realize what food is good for us, we learn to avoid things that are painful, and we start to get attached to those who take care of us.

With even more time, we develop fully concrete distinctions between the different objects around us and how we, as subjects, are to interact with them.

What keeps this process going is our pattern-seeking brain. It forms both habits of action and habits of thought that it embeds into our conscious and subconscious memories to reduce cognitive load.

One of the problems with this, however, is that it’s really easy for us to get stuck in mental habit loops that don’t accurately assess the situation at hand, leading to both problems of comprehension and satisfaction.

To counteract this, we have to be intentional in diversifying our thinking patterns. We have to learn to recognize when we are falling into a mismatched pattern of thought, and we have to then use that information to update how we make connections between the objects in our environment.

To say that all issues can be solved with a shift in thinking patterns ignores the larger picture, but there is a truth to what the Durants learned from history:

How we think about what is happening around us is arguably more important than what is actually happening around us.

 

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

You can add images to your comment by clicking here.

17 Comments
pyrrhus
pyrrhus
September 21, 2018 1:51 pm

“At birth, our memory is mostly a blank slate. We are born with our biological machinery, but we don’t come with complete knowledge of how to use it.”

Not really..Babies are born with a huge array of survival based instincts, like identifying with people who look like them and reacting to stimuli in certain preset ways…All behavior is at least 50% genetic, and mostly much more than that. There is no blank slate.

pyrrhus
pyrrhus
  pyrrhus
September 21, 2018 1:54 pm

The problem with the Durants is that they do have a naive “blank slate” approach to the world, in line with their other Enlightenment based values…But at the mass level, those beliefs are simply false.

Thunderbird
Thunderbird
  pyrrhus
September 21, 2018 7:13 pm

pyrrhus,

You are talking out your ass. You have no clue what the Durants are talking about. your posts show that. And who ever up ticked you are in the same boat.

Sorry to be so harsh. But it would be better for you not to comment on something you have no experience with.

pyrrhus
pyrrhus
  Thunderbird
September 21, 2018 7:16 pm

Why don’t you tell me where I’m wrong, instead of just blowing smoke?

Thunderbird
Thunderbird
  pyrrhus
September 21, 2018 8:51 pm

Why should I tell you, you are wrong when you don’t know what you are saying? That would be counter productive.

These people are on a different level than you. That is why you don’t understand what they are saying.

If I told you there were homo erectus walking among us would you believe me? Probably not. But if you google homo erectus pictures and look at them and then look out at the world of people around you then you should be able to spot them. Then you would have to say to yourself yes there are homo erectus among us.

This is my point. Our view points come from what we are fed by others around us and our spoon fed educational system. When someone comes along with a different point of view than us we want to judge them at the mass level. Just as you have done. If we want to learn we have to see other points of view other than our own. If we don’t understand it only means we have to work harder to understand.

Get my point. I’m not blowing smoke.

Beowolf Blitzer
Beowolf Blitzer
  Thunderbird
September 22, 2018 2:51 am

“When someone comes along with a different point of view than us we want to judge them at the mass level. Just as you have done. If we want to learn we have to see other points of view other than our own.”

Point of order, Mr. Chairman: How do you square your critique of pyrrhus with your statement above? It appears to me you are doing the exact same thing, just feeling more self-righteous about yourself than pyrrhus appears to be.

Diogenes’ Dung
Diogenes’ Dung
  pyrrhus
September 22, 2018 9:46 am

You are right and wrong. No “value” system, whether it is found in tenets of “Enlightenment” or the “Spanish Inquisition” is a metric for clearer or better thinking. It really doesn’t matter if the “values” are true.

“How we think about what is happening around us is arguably more important than what is actually happening around us.”

That statement is both right and wrong also.

Thinking clearer and better has no basis in our “thoughts” about what is going on around us, because that matters not one bit if we don’t regularly spend time thinking about what is going on inside of us.

The best way I’ve found to move my thinking in a new direction (that isn’t an old rut/habit) is to become fluent in another language. Each language requires a different mental/cultural/thought orientation with the world.

Humility helps with clearer and better thinking, and most people who are successful at learning a new language start by talking like a toddler with a blank slate that is ready for new impressions based on different value systems.

The clearest and best thinkers have no problem cuddling with their cognitive dissonance.

Jack Lovett
September 21, 2018 5:37 pm

I need all the hep I can gets here.

MrLiberty
MrLiberty
September 21, 2018 6:16 pm

But if improving yourself and your own mind doesn’t work, you can always fall back on blaming whitey for all your problems and getting folks in government to pander to your whining.

EL Coyote
EL Coyote
September 21, 2018 7:01 pm

El Doggy suggested you can help women think better if you bend them over because they will be getting more blood to their head.

penforce
penforce
September 21, 2018 8:08 pm

B.F. Skinner had it right. It’s behavioral with genetic bias.

penforce
penforce
  penforce
September 21, 2018 8:13 pm

Christ Coyote, it’s like following Hendrix or something.

Mark
Mark
  penforce
September 22, 2018 6:54 pm

I actually tried listening to BF Skinner on cassette tape in the 70’s but I couldn’t get through the maze and then scurried on to EST.

Vixen Vic
Vixen Vic
September 21, 2018 10:22 pm

I own and have read the entire series “The Story of Civilization” by the Durants. I think the way they approach teaching history is the best, starting from the earliest times and moving to the most recent. This is how all history should be taught and presented, making it a continual building process from one time period to another. Instead of beginning history lessons with just dates of wars and other events and the name of famous people, it should show more detail, and that in itself makes history more interesting. The fact that they present what was going on in different areas at the same time is great, too, and delving into the different cultures, including religion and music, etc.

Thunderbird
Thunderbird
  Vixen Vic
September 22, 2018 8:45 am

Vixen Vic,

Seems like an interesting read. The presented article here has caught my curiosity. Maybe this will lead to my next reading project.

Another author that may interest you who has spent more than 40 years writing about the history of man is JG Bennett in his four volume series “The Dramatic Universe.”

Volume One – The Foundations of Natural Philosophy
Volume Two – The Foundations of Moral Philosophy
Volume Three – Man and his Nature
Volume Four – History

It seems from this article that the Darants share a philosophy similar to Mr Bennett and others like G.I. Gurdjieff , P.D. Ouspensky and A.R. Orage.

I look forward to investigating further into this work. Thanks for your comment. And as always Administrator puts out very thought provoking articles.

Vixen Vic
Vixen Vic
  Thunderbird
September 22, 2018 4:50 pm

Thunderbird, thank you for the suggestion. I’ll look up that series. Looks interesting.

KeyserSusie
KeyserSusie
September 22, 2018 11:45 am

This post provokes a memory of writing from a time past, yet to me at least, resonates with the topic of history at hand. Forgive my unoriginal contribution.
(And nice to see Diogenes’ Dung post again)

It includes thoughts from two thinkers, James Russell Lowell whose prefacing statement is required to understand the response from James Anthony Froude.

Alas! not everybody has the genius to be a Bobbin-Boy, or doubtless all
these also would have chosen that more prosperous line of life! But
moralists, sociologists, political economists, and taxes have slowly
convinced me that my beggarly sympathies were a sin against society.
Especially was the Buckle doctrine of averages (so flattering to our freewill)
persuasive with me; for as there must be in every year a certain
number who would bestow an alms on these abridged editions of the
Wandering Jew, the withdrawal of [your] quota could make no possible
difference, since some destined proxy must always step forward to fill
[your] gap.
Just so many misdirected letters every year and no more!”
James Russell Lowell

“In our estimate of the past, and in our calculations of the
future–in the judgments which we pass upon one another, we
measure responsibility, not by the thing done, but by the
opportunities which people have had of knowing better or worse.
In the efforts which we make to keep our children from bad
associations or friends we admit that external circumstances have
a powerful effect in making men what they are.

But are circumstances everything? That is the whole question. A
science of history, if it is more than a misleading name, implies
that the relation between cause and effect holds in human things
as completely as in all others, that the origin of human actions is
not to be looked for in mysterious properties of the mind, but in influences which are palpable and ponderable.

But are circumstances everything? That is the whole question. A
science of history, if it is more than a misleading name, implies
that the relation between cause and effect holds in human things
as completely as in all others, that the origin of human actions is
not to be looked for in mysterious properties of the mind, but in
influences which are palpable and ponderable.

When natural causes are liable to be set aside and neutralized by
what is called volition, the word Science is out of place. If it is
free to a man to choose what he will do or not do, there is no
adequate science of him. If there is a science of him, there is no
free choice, and the praise or blame with which we regard one
another are impertinent and out of place.

I am trespassing upon these ethical grounds because, unless I
do, the subject cannot be made intelligible. Mankind are but an
aggregate of individuals–History is but the record of individual
action; and what is true of the part, is true of the whole.

We feel keenly about such things, and when the logic becomes
perplexing, we are apt to grow rhetorical about them. But
rhetoric is only misleading. Whatever the truth may be, it is best
that we should know it; and for truth of any kind we should keep
our heads and hearts as cool as we can.

I will say at once, that if we had the whole case before us–if we
were taken, like Leibnitz’s Tarquin, into the council chamber of
nature, and were shown what we really were, where we came
from, and where we were going, however unpleasant it might be
for some of us to find ourselves, like Tarquin, made into villains,
from the subtle necessities of ‘the best of all possible worlds;’
nevertheless, some such theory as Mr. Buckle’s might possibly
turn out to be true. Likely enough, there is some great ‘equation
of the universe’ where the value of the unknown quantities can be
determined. But we must treat things in relation to our own
powers and position; and the question is, whether the sweep of
those vast curves can be measured by the intellect of creatures of
a day like ourselves.

As the stars recede into distance, so time recedes with them, and
there may be, and probably are, stars from which Noah might be
seen stepping into the ark, Eve listening to the temptation of the
serpent, or that older race, eating the oysters and leaving the
shell-heaps behind them, when the Baltic was an open sea.

There will remain yet
Those obstinate questionings
Of sense and outward things;
Falling from us, vanishings–
Blank misgivings of a creature
Moving about in worlds not realized–
High instincts, before which our mortal nature
Doth tremble like a guilty thing surprised.

There will remain
Those first affections–
Those shadowy recollections–
Which, be they what they may,
Are yet the fountain-light of all our day–
Are yet the master-light of all our seeing–
Uphold us, cherish, and have power to make
Our noisy years seem moments in the being
Of the Eternal Silence.”

James Anthony Froude

edit, sorry for the disjointed display, it results from my copy and paste from a pdf. I tried to fix it but cannot in the edit mode.

Discover more from The Burning Platform

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading