Why is he talking like a Russian figure skating coach?
See, this is why our theological amateurism is so lamentable. It’s pure zeal without knowledge, to borrow from Nibley’s brilliant observation. I know we take pride in being stupid, but it’s pride all the same. – RJH
When I read this comment by RJH last week on BCC, it immediately resonated. The Spirit testified of its truthiness. There’s a long-standing tradition of pitting “spiritual” knowledge against “secular” knowledge, (or religion against science) and yet, when our spiritual knowledge is just gut feel mixed with guess work, it frequently contradicts reality. For example, the Onion recently used a Deseret News article as straight up humor, no embellishment required. When confirmation bias and heuristics are driving the bus, expect shortcuts. Why are we so proud of being ill-informed?
To go back to Nibley’s excellent essay “Zeal Without Knowledge,” he decries our tendency to dull the mind through repetition:
Underperformance, the job that does not challenge you, can make you sick: work which puts repetition and routine in the place of real work begets a sense of guilt; merely doodling and noodling in committees can give you ulcers, skin rashes, and heart trouble. God is not pleased with us for merely sitting in meetings
The original Hipster. The Nibster?
Then he goes on to talk about the mind’s need for knowledge, a need so great that invented knowledge and folklore will substitute as the junk food for a mind starved of real information:
The penalty we pay for starving our minds is a phenomenon that is only too conspicuous at the BYU: Aristotle pointed out long ago that a shortage of knowledge is an intolerable state and so the mind will do anything to escape it; in particular, it will invent knowledge if it has to. Experimenters have found that “lack of information quickly breeds insecurity in a situation where any information is regarded as better than none.” (11) In that atmosphere, false information flourishes and subjects in tests are “eager to listen to and believe any sort of preposterous nonsense.’ [1]
Nibley turns his sights on church culture in this scathing rebuke:
giving their young people and old awards for zeal alone, zeal without knowledge–for sitting in endless meetings, for dedicated conformity, and unlimited capacity for suffering boredom. We think it more commendable to get up at 5:00 a.m. to write a bad book than to get up at nine o’clock to write a good one [2]–that is pure zeal that tends to breed a race of insufferable, self-righteous prigs and barren minds. One has only to consider the present outpouring of “inspirational” books in the Church which bring little new in the way of knowledge: truisms, and platitudes, kitsch, and cliches have become our everyday diet.
Ouch! Deseret Book’s ears are burning. He mentions two different minds at work:
Plainly, we are dealing with two orders of minds. “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are . . . my thoughts than your thoughts.” (Isaiah 55:8-9.) But why this crippling limitation on our thoughts if we are God’s children? It is precisely this limitation which is the essence of our mortal existence.
If you barely skimmed this, you were using System 1.
I’ve noticed this tendency to conflate “gut feelings” with spiritual knowledge in a way that should give us pause. At times I’ve been suspicious of leaders’ ability to discern–the more confident they are, the more suspicious it seems. For example, is it discerning someone’s unworthiness in an interview when they appear nervous or is the member simply nervous because they are humble or shy or uncomfortable around that person? As missionaries, we often made a wild guess about the next thing we should do, and if it worked out, it was the Spirit, and if it didn’t, we could easily dismiss it. Mormons like to identify the Spirit, but we forget the times that we followed our gut and it didn’t work out (or we believe that it just worked out in some unseen bigger picture way).
And yet, time and time again we hear in church the value of instinctual feelings over logical thinking. Even Oliver Cowdery took his lumps for this one (D&C 9: 7-8):
7 Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me.
8 But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right
We have this tendency to assume our feelings (the burning in the bosom, even when it is in lieu of studying it out) are the right answer. And we are quick to associate our feelings (which are often mixed up with our desires, our fears, our hopes) with the Spirit and the will of God. Acting on gut instinct and feelings without taking the time to think leads to heuristic errors. And thinking does take time.
When Nibley referred to “two minds,” it reminded me of a book I’ve been reading by Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman called Thinking Fast and Slow. He describes two thinking systems our minds use.
System 1: Fast, automatic, frequent, emotional, stereotypic, subconscious
System 2: Slow, effortful, infrequent, logical, calculating, conscious
It looks like someone threw up on System 1 here.
Kahneman also talks about the difficulty of using both systems at the same time, which is why when we are doing a simple task, something mentally quick, our ability to do a more thought-provoking task is greatly diminished. Instead we rely on heuristics. We look for how new information is like old information, and we use that familiar pattern to conclude the right course of action. And this is one of the key ways we make mistakes in our decisions or in how we perceive the world. The book specifically outlines and labels several key problems in our thinking:
Anchoring. We are easily influenced by random numbers. If we are presented a higher number, we make higher assumptions. If we are presented with a lower number, we make lower assumptions. We incorporate these random suggestions into our assessment of the information.
Availability. The easier it is to see the consequences of something, the more likely those consequences seem. The more complex or indirect or unfamiliar the consequences are, the less we consider them.
Substitution. We substitute a more complex question for a simpler one, which sounds backwards, but it is our lazy way of dealing with more information than we can quickly process. Rather than cutting through the information to simplify, we lazily incorporate it all into our answer while ignoring the actual question.
Optimism and Loss Aversion. People fear losses more than they value gains, so they have overconfidence about the ability to control their lives and avoid losses. The mind assumes future events will mirror past events. The mind also assumes it understands the world rather than a small set of contradictory observations about the world.
Framing. Our willingness to choose something is biased by framing. For example, being told there is a 90% survival rate results in more people choosing surgery than being told there is a 10% mortality rate. Framing has a significant impact on decision-making.
Sunk-cost. People desire to avoid regret and will continue to throw good resources toward bad projects, to invest in what already has not paid off rather than admit their mistake and deal with the feeling of lost opportunity.
Kahneman further describes the “remembering self” which means that we don’t really conceive of our experiences as they are, but we remember an experience only for its peak feeling and its outcome. We are not capable of being aware of our experiencing self. [3]
“Odd as it may seem, I am my remembering self, and the experiencing self, who does my living, is like a stranger to me.”
System 1, lazy-town express. System 2, lonely-ville.
When I think about the two systems, I am also reminded of Pres. Uchtdorf’s caution to “doubt your doubts.” Doubts can be a byproduct of system 1 (an emotional, automatic response) or a byproduct of system 2 (logical, conscious skepticism). If it’s the former, doubting your doubts is probably a good idea (as is doubting your beliefs). If it’s the latter, the doubts are the studied evaluation of your assumptions, so inherently, you should be skeptical of your conclusions. Both doubt and faith are too simplistic in their natural state. Both need to be tested by a more rigorous system 2 thinking process.
To summarize these two systems of thinking, Jag Bhalla said:
Feeling is a form of thinking. Both are ways we process information, but feeling is faster.
We talk a lot about “search, ponder and pray” in church, but when it comes right down to it, I see and hear a lot of scriptural illiteracy. Why is it so hard to take our time when it comes to pondering the paradoxical teachings of Jesus? Certainly, there’s enough there to create a lifetime of study and thinking. Hugh Nibley would say “life gets in the way”:
whenever anyone begins to talk about serious matters at the BYU, inevitably someone says, “I would like to spend my time thinking about such things and studying them, but I cannot afford the luxury. I have to think about the really important business of life, which is making a living.”
We often quote the following scripture from 2 Nephi 9: 29:
But to be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of God.
Why am I surrounded by question marks?
And yet, the context in which it is often quoted implies that to be learned is in fact not good because it prevents people from hearkening to the counsels of God. It seems to me that this reading of it is a lazy excuse for criticizing scholars as being unteachable when we have sometimes unqualified people in a leadership role making judgments about things they haven’t spent time to understand. I refer here to issues like leaders who unknowingly mixing personal or political views with doctrine [4], who rely too heavily on correlation or church leaders above them to do the thinking rather than seeking their own knowledge and revelation, or who want to be commanded in all things and seek approval from authority rather than doing good works on their own. These are all examples of heuristics or lazy thinking. E. Oaks cautioned against this mistake in his talk about the two lines of communication or revelation (the need for both personal revelation and priesthood revelation):
If personal religious practice relies too much on the personal line, individualism erases the importance of divine authority. If personal religious practice relies too much on the priesthood line, individual growth suffers.
As I’ve said before, being a “yes man” shouldn’t be a qualifier for Godhood. I don’t want to be living on the planet run by some idiot who can follow orders and cries at touching commercials but can’t do a weighted average. Call me crazy; the bar should be a bit higher than that. There may be math on the God test. I certainly hope there is. How else are you going to get your firmament to divide your waters from your waters?
Not all system 2 thinking is math, though. It’s also logic, analysis, and disciplined process; these are things found in the social sciences and humanities, not just in the hard sciences. Yet, even when our church systems are in place to slow down our thinking [5], to insert a space for pondering and reflection, how often do we still rely on gut instinct and call it the Spirit? And how often is it really just relying on easier, lazier thinking or substituting emotion for thought and calling it inspiration?
Discuss.
[1] Anybody else love that he calls it “the BYU”?
[2] I’m looking at you, Early Morning Seminary.
[3] I’ll try to remember that one next time I’m at the gym.
[4] Hello, philosophies of men mingled with scripture!
[5] Slowing down to the point of total inertia at times, or so it would seem.
It’s a wonderful thing when a culture reaches a point of productivity where all those getting up in the morning to do boring things can hire a philosopher to get up late and tell them how lame they are.
Hasn’t done much good lately, has it…..?
Back about 1842 or so, our Beloved Prophet was ‘axed’ how he kept a handle on the burgeoning LDS Church…to which, in an expression of “Stupid-Smart (or is that “Smart-Stupid”, I can’t keep up with the catchphrases the kiddies use nowadays), he replied, “Oh, I don’t govern the members of the Church. I teach them correct principles, and let them govern THEMSELVES.” Based on what I’ve seen in some 36 years of membership, many a GA or Stake President or Bishop would have a pink fit if that concept was actually applied.
“Is this (Church) not so good? Vould you leave it if you COULD?” Not that I’m wavering in testimony at all, but the concept has familiarity with a contemporary country, within the past century, where the leader can’t be voted out of office…
And another piece where a Jewish actor (Lou Adler) portrays Hitler (briefly), but with decidedly less comedy than Mel Brooks…
Great article.
John Mansfield is correct. Critical thinking, reflective leadership and innovation require time and energy. It’s only because Eli Whitney already had clothing that he had the luxury to think hard and long, and invent the cotton gin. So, yes, we owe a debt of gratitude to those who labored inefficiently to produce the clothes he wore while thinking.
John’s insight also make me wonder if the Soviet Union isn’t a great example of a civilization falling because of pride. Not the type of pride seen in the Book for Mormon, adorned in riches and fine apparel. But rather the type of pride taught by President Benson, “pride from the bottom looking up.” Who does this critic think she is, suggesting there’s a better way of doing things?
Trouble is that discussions like this (and especially the quote that inspired this post), seems to be of the attitude of “they” need to do more thinking. “We” of course are brilliant, and never have to worry about this.
What can “we” do to encourage more thinking in us all, rather than lamenting that “they” just don’t get it and complaining to the choir how our singing is unappreciated?
I really appreciate this article Hawkgrrrl. It plainly lays out many of the thoughts I have been having in my quest for more knowledge. The real clincher is…the more I know, the more I realize how little I know. I thought I knew a lot before and felt somewhat superior in my vast knowledge. Now that I have opened up a whole new avenue of learning I realize the things I thought I knew were not knowledge at all but rhetoric and heresay. Now I realize I know very little. It is indeed humbling and whets my appetite to know more.
I think its true that God gave us duelling thinking systems. But along with that, he also gave us duelling cultural philosophies: religion/faith/obedience/sumissiontoauthority AND humanism/science/reason/democracy/individualism.
I don’t think you can subject the religion to reason. It is by nature unreasonable, calculated to be a stumbling block, a rock of offence, rule by “weak things,” the “foolishness of God.” These things are designed to challenge the “wisdom of men.”
Likewise, science is not science when subjected to emotional analysis.
I disagree somewhat with apologists like Nibley and C. S. Lewis who try to mix the two, quoting Aristotle and Nephi in the same breath. True, both systems have value, but like a marriage of opposites, they must compromise and cohabit together, living with sometimes irreconcilable differences.
I don’t think the scripture “study it out in your mind” refers to using reason. What kind of “study” could Joseph Smith do with his heirogliphics? He didn’t know anything about them. He had no dictionary, no Rosetta Stone. The only kind of “study” he could possibly have made is the study of his own invention, his creative and emotional side. How did the hieroglyphics make him feel, how did they inspire his imagination? What ideas sprung to his mind, and how did they feel spiritually? It is all process 1, not 2.
Nate: Consider a different type of example then, a disciplinary procedure. Reading through the exchange that John D published with his SP (let’s not go into whether it’s cool to publish such an exchange – I tend to think not).
It’s very clear in the exchange of letters that his SP is a well-intentioned man who knows almost nothing about what he’s talking about, and who isn’t even sure what the offense is that John has made that’s gotten people tied up in knots. Is it supporting gay marriage or Ordain Women? Is it advocacy? Is it apostasy and loss of testimony? Is it something he said in a podcast? He’s incapable of explaining it, and he comes across as looking like he’s just marching to someone else’s orders. He (the SP) would characterize it as following the spirit when it’s really just doing what he thinks his patriotic duty is. He may have been right to take the action he did, but he cannot articulate it in a way that demonstrates he knows what he’s talking about or that he’s taken appropriate thought in making such a difficult decision. He readily admits he’s not as scholarly as John, but that doesn’t mean he couldn’t read up a bit or ponder the subject. He could listen to the podcasts in question. As Hugh Nibley points out, it does take time. I recognize that a drawback of a lay clergy is lack of time to really delve into things.
Why is it lauded to follow your gut rather than to crack open a book, read a little, and then pray about it? It seems like we approve of shortcuts and simplistic thinking, and we punish people for talking over our heads.
And anyone who has cracked a book and sought knowledge, understanding and wisdom knows better than to be proud of it. The only true wisdom is knowing that you know nothing.
Hawk, that link is SOOOOOOO disappointing, but I can envision the exact same thing in my ward. I was released for using a non-KJV Bible, and most leaders around here aren’t interested in interesting discussions or scholarship. Just teach out of the damn manual and don’t rock the boat by using LDS.org or non-KJV Bible. Just sit there, shut up, and don’t make my life harder by having someone else complain to me!
MH brings up an excellent point, one also raised by the John D example I gave. How much of our antagonism of those who do read the actual scriptures (or Heaven forbid, books) is because of complaints from average ward members who find questions unsettling? It’s one thing to choose to be ill-informed, but it’s the zeal for burning books (or attacking those who read them) that seems to be behind a lot of the anti-intellectualism, and it originates with lazy thinkers and lands on the doorstep of our overworked lay leaders who likewise haven’t had time to crack a book and just need the noise to stop, to make their jobs workable. It can be a tyranny of tattle-tales.
To me, a perfect example of this lazy thinking and relying too heavily on gut feelings is evolution.
I can’t tell you how many people I have tried to talk about evolution with whose response is something like: the idea of descending from apes (or fish) doesn’t sit well with me, so I don’t believe it.
Sigh.
Not believing in evolution bothers me. But a refusal to even crack a book about it, or think about it, or watch a documentary, DRIVES ME INSANE. This is especially vexing when you realize that people who have STRONG opinions about the subject don’t know anything about it. As if Jerry Coyne’s book, Why Evolution is True, is somehow an “anti-Mormon” book, whatever that means.
People rely on their “gut” when the feeling is convenient for what they want to do or believe anyway, and this feeling lets them justify refusing to open their minds at all on whatever the subject might be. It’s sad.
By the way, I was shocked when you mentioned Thinking Fast and Slow. That book is sitting right next to my computer!
Thinking is not easy. Unless one just circles the wagon round and round like my dog chasing her tail. One doesn’t grow or learn more. I had a friend ask me long ago why I read so much. I answered that I love learning, to which she gave me the I’m-appalled look and said learning is either too hard or too boring so she doesn’t go there. I wouldn’t survive long if I couldn’t learn. I mean, reading opens the mind to worlds without end right inside our own minds. Glory……what a treasure a mind is, and I’m sorely sorry for every wasted moment of apathy toward discovery. Such foolish loss that is…..
Yet I’ve learned much from those who love the life creed of “keep it simple, Stupid”. Thinking gives them a headache they say, and I surely don’t want them to suffer. They love moving along the journey with the basics for survival. There is no hunger or thirsting for learning or discovery at all. But they’re mostly quite content with it. They seem rather happy to let someone else tell them what to think, feel, and do. I’m glad they’re content……but there would be no growth, or progress, or overcoming, or discovery without the deep thinkers who study, learn, process and create. God bless and keep them because it’s not always safe to be such a person. We all learn and grow far more from them.
PS: I think my fast thinking has been eaten away. I miss it. And my slow thinking is quite slow now. It’s very difficult being old. But I cherish the wisdom that mercifully remains as it’s the greatest of all treasures.
There are clearly benefits to both System 1 and System 2 thinking. While moost people lean towards one or the other, the ideal would be a merging (or happy collaboration) of the two.
Christ was a thinker, but he also acted in response to feelings at times (healing the Gentile woman’s child, deciding to stay longer with the Nephites in the Book of Mormon rather than leaving as he planned). Honestly, I think true wisdom is knowing which system to go with in any given situation.
Part of the benefit of fellowship with other church members is that each individual’s spiritual gifts benefit the group as a whole. System 1 thinkers can definitely learn a lot from those who lean toward System 2, but benefit can also be found with System 2 thinkers learning from System 1 people. Valuing emotional “gut feeling” decisions can co-exist with valuing intellectual decisions. It is unwise to denounce one or the other.
This is very thought provoking, but a few points…
In Malcolm Gladwell’s book Blink he argues that quick thinking can be more effective than a longer more detailed analysis. He offers example after example of how this plays out in real life, that the doctors at Cook County Hospital improved the accuracy of their diagnoses by collecting less information, not more. And while more detailed studies did finally prove the forgery of a painting, an expert could say that in a glance.
Also, let’s not put science up on a pedestal as the model of rationality. They are just as prone to laziness of tradition and belief as the rest of us. An excellent example is Lee Smolin’s readable book The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next.
And I could tell story after story from medicine of when people’s long-held beliefs got in the way of data and thoughtful analysis. One of the most blatant is the idea that peptic ulcers are caused by H. pylori bacteria rather than stress or any of those popular earlier theories. The seminal paper was published in 1985 but the American Academy did not accept the treatment until the early/mid-2000s (which means that USAmerican health insurance companies would not cover the treatment). Because the research was from a backwater (Australia) rather than Harvard and the investigator took the radically “unethical” step of infecting himself as a trial, many physicians refused to look at the numbers seriously.
Just two years ago I was in a multi-cultural counseling training class at university in Portland Oregon. The professor popped into a VCR a VHS tape of a college professor preparing a group of students to go on an international trip. It eventually is made clear in the video that it was filmed at BYU. The advice the professor gave was really interesting. He told the students to be careful of equating the nervousness or anxiety they will naturally feel when in a situation that is different as being the antithesis of the spirit. He said all too often his students will immediately label something as being wrong or evil because they function with their gut reaction. They are falsely assuming that anything that makes them feel uncomfortable is wrong. The problem is often the unknown makes people feel uncomfortable and the unknown is often the better way.
A perfect example of what your talking about Hawkgirl was in the SLTrib this week–a youth instructor was released because a student asked why the Nigerian mentioned in the lesson couldn’t attend the temple. He referenced the R&P essay on lds.org to help answer the question and was released. The bishop says it’s because the Spirit prompted him that such material isn’t fit for Sunday School! http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/2475803-155/mormon-bishop-dismisses-teacher-for-using?fullpage=1
Naismith: “In Malcolm Gladwell’s book Blink he argues that quick thinking can be more effective than a longer more detailed analysis. He offers example after example of how this plays out in real life, that the doctors at Cook County Hospital improved the accuracy of their diagnoses by collecting less information, not more. And while more detailed studies did finally prove the forgery of a painting, an expert could say that in a glance.” Great reference. Actually, I think Gladwell’s point is in agreement with what Kahneman is saying, specifically as relates to the Substitution heuristic. Too much information is confusing, so people still use their System 1 thinking and don’t actually evaluate it to simplify. They get bogged down in all the information.
Rather than saying the “thin slice” was more effective or the gut instinct was more accurate, Gladwell’s studies often showed that the gut instinct was no different than an assessment with more information, and that the reason was that a person had already decided, and new information didn’t change their perspective but rather was viewed selectively through confirmation bias to achieve the same result. I’m specifically thinking of the study in which professors were evaluated after 2 months and the result was the same if they were evaluated after mere seconds of observation.
In both cases, people are too lazy to use System 2. Having more information doesn’t mean you actually use it properly! In fact, they are now seeing that a lot of millenials struggle with this. They can google information in a few seconds, but they often lack the skills or perseverance to do real research and to evaluate the quality of the information. (And I’m sure that’s true of all generations – the article was just about hiring millenials and that for all their tech savvy they have some real blind spots).
I was realeased as Primary President for something similiar to what MH did. I called the Bishop ( and others involved) religious fascist zealots. Yes, face to face. The others got word of what I called them. Ha!
Information overload can certainly be a problem, which is why companies go to so much effort to manage a brand. The brand name can be short cut in decision making.
The fate of the primary teacher linked is really disappointing.
One thing I wish is that leaders would be able to forget things they were told in training meetings however many years ago, that don’t feature in the current handbook, because rules and procedures have changed. Instead they seem very often to try and incorporate a new handbook of instructions on top of everything they ever been told before, rather than seeing it as a replacement. I wish it could be said in no uncertain terms that this handbook replaces whatever you may have been told in training meetings previously, and that they would believe it. It seems to be a case to me of not thinking things through properly.
I agree that information overload can be problematic. Certainly not every member can handle the truth of our LDS history or the deeper doctrines. I do wish that there were a separate Sunday School class designated specifically for those who would like to bite into the “meat” and really get into some heavier topics that have been glossed over in our normal classes. The teacher would have to be someone willing to go where no man has gone before and would require intensive prayer and study.
Former Sheep, I would love to see a Sunday School class like that, but I doubt it will happen. The minute someone starts to feel a little uncomfortable with the subject (especially a leader), it’s a high likelihood that the entire effort would be abandoned (see the excellent comment #18). Becoming uncomfortable is equated with an absence of the spirit, and tough issues will inevitably make at least a few people in the room uncomfortable. I suspect this played a big role in the bishop dismissing the youth Sunday School teacher in Hawaii.
Discussion of difficult issues has a much higher chance of success in environments where System 2 thinking (slower, logical) is expected and encouraged, like blogs, institute classes, etc. Sunday meetings foster System 1 thinking (emotional). Seminary lessons could go either way depending on the teacher.
I think any person called to be an instructor should be at liberty to reference any citation on lds.org as a reference to answer a question from someone in the class.
I used the essay on race for a 1st Sunday lesson in my HP group meeting and the members in my class were enthusiastically supportive of the information in the essay. Though, come to think of it…I was released as HPGL a few weeks later. Hmmm. No–couldn’t be a connection. If that was the action that helped me get released, I regret not having done it a year sooner!
On a more serious note, I appreciate you Frank Pellet on this discussion and the other one on the Book of Mark at BCC for bringing up the issue of tone. I don’t believe that everyone who teaches a lesson straight out of the church-approved manual does so because they are unenlightened, naïve, lazy, or scripturally unengaged. I am all of those things, but others are strictly dedicated to the sustained leadership of the church and employing faith in that sustaining.
“In both cases, people are too lazy to use System 2.”
Wow, “lazy” the only possible reason, huh?
In the case of the Cook County physicians, there was a lot of pushback and training and quality assurance that went into the process of teaching/requiring/forcing them to use that quick approach when many would naturally follow the other.
And the issue of training is true for a lot of professions from pilots to surgeons…. Or take driving a car: It may start out as a very thoughtful, considered task that takes all of our attention–so much that some places prohibit new drivers from even having music playing. But after time, it becomes more subconscious, that we cannot remember who was next to us at the last stoplight.
I tend to agree with Mary Ann, that there is a place for both, and for both on a team that is trying to do something. Also, there are certainly more than two.
When I first design a research study, I spend a lot of time considering various theoretical frameworks, how to operationalize concepts, what variables to include. But when the research is carried out, I want uniform exposure as much as possible, absolute adherence to rules.
And interesting that scripture would use a scientific word, “experiment,” to discuss a spiritual concept that cannot be measured by external data.
Well, “lazy” is basically why I do it. I suppose someone could be mentally challenged or whatever. Yes, there are real distractions in life (as Nibley points out), but we prioritize whatever we prioritize. I think we rationalize not prioritizing taking time to think deeply on things.
Sunday school classes like those mentioned above occur on non-sundays at mormon history association and sunstone conferences. They are awesome meetings. (There are some faith-demoting sessions too, but i have a better idea now who to aVoid.)
Forgive me as I once again must defend science.
Naismith, you said, “[L]et’s not put science up on a pedestal as the model of rationality. They are just as prone to laziness of tradition and belief as the rest of us.”
Some scientists might be prone to the problems you point out, but those are individuals. They are not science. Science is beautiful and wonderful.
SCIENCE RULES!
Talmadge used a different Bible than the King James. Just FYI.
Wheat & Tares 
It’s a wonderful thing when a culture reaches a point of productivity where all those getting up in the morning to do boring things can hire a philosopher to get up late and tell them how lame they are.
Hasn’t done much good lately, has it…..?
Back about 1842 or so, our Beloved Prophet was ‘axed’ how he kept a handle on the burgeoning LDS Church…to which, in an expression of “Stupid-Smart (or is that “Smart-Stupid”, I can’t keep up with the catchphrases the kiddies use nowadays), he replied, “Oh, I don’t govern the members of the Church. I teach them correct principles, and let them govern THEMSELVES.” Based on what I’ve seen in some 36 years of membership, many a GA or Stake President or Bishop would have a pink fit if that concept was actually applied.
“Is this (Church) not so good? Vould you leave it if you COULD?” Not that I’m wavering in testimony at all, but the concept has familiarity with a contemporary country, within the past century, where the leader can’t be voted out of office…
And another piece where a Jewish actor (Lou Adler) portrays Hitler (briefly), but with decidedly less comedy than Mel Brooks…
Great article.
John Mansfield is correct. Critical thinking, reflective leadership and innovation require time and energy. It’s only because Eli Whitney already had clothing that he had the luxury to think hard and long, and invent the cotton gin. So, yes, we owe a debt of gratitude to those who labored inefficiently to produce the clothes he wore while thinking.
John’s insight also make me wonder if the Soviet Union isn’t a great example of a civilization falling because of pride. Not the type of pride seen in the Book for Mormon, adorned in riches and fine apparel. But rather the type of pride taught by President Benson, “pride from the bottom looking up.” Who does this critic think she is, suggesting there’s a better way of doing things?
Trouble is that discussions like this (and especially the quote that inspired this post), seems to be of the attitude of “they” need to do more thinking. “We” of course are brilliant, and never have to worry about this.
What can “we” do to encourage more thinking in us all, rather than lamenting that “they” just don’t get it and complaining to the choir how our singing is unappreciated?
I really appreciate this article Hawkgrrrl. It plainly lays out many of the thoughts I have been having in my quest for more knowledge. The real clincher is…the more I know, the more I realize how little I know. I thought I knew a lot before and felt somewhat superior in my vast knowledge. Now that I have opened up a whole new avenue of learning I realize the things I thought I knew were not knowledge at all but rhetoric and heresay. Now I realize I know very little. It is indeed humbling and whets my appetite to know more.
And I think #4 a lot.
This story is unfortunately all too familiar. What a timely case in point: http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/2475803-155/mormon-bishop-dismisses-teacher-for-using
I think its true that God gave us duelling thinking systems. But along with that, he also gave us duelling cultural philosophies: religion/faith/obedience/sumissiontoauthority AND humanism/science/reason/democracy/individualism.
I don’t think you can subject the religion to reason. It is by nature unreasonable, calculated to be a stumbling block, a rock of offence, rule by “weak things,” the “foolishness of God.” These things are designed to challenge the “wisdom of men.”
Likewise, science is not science when subjected to emotional analysis.
I disagree somewhat with apologists like Nibley and C. S. Lewis who try to mix the two, quoting Aristotle and Nephi in the same breath. True, both systems have value, but like a marriage of opposites, they must compromise and cohabit together, living with sometimes irreconcilable differences.
I don’t think the scripture “study it out in your mind” refers to using reason. What kind of “study” could Joseph Smith do with his heirogliphics? He didn’t know anything about them. He had no dictionary, no Rosetta Stone. The only kind of “study” he could possibly have made is the study of his own invention, his creative and emotional side. How did the hieroglyphics make him feel, how did they inspire his imagination? What ideas sprung to his mind, and how did they feel spiritually? It is all process 1, not 2.
Nate: Consider a different type of example then, a disciplinary procedure. Reading through the exchange that John D published with his SP (let’s not go into whether it’s cool to publish such an exchange – I tend to think not).
It’s very clear in the exchange of letters that his SP is a well-intentioned man who knows almost nothing about what he’s talking about, and who isn’t even sure what the offense is that John has made that’s gotten people tied up in knots. Is it supporting gay marriage or Ordain Women? Is it advocacy? Is it apostasy and loss of testimony? Is it something he said in a podcast? He’s incapable of explaining it, and he comes across as looking like he’s just marching to someone else’s orders. He (the SP) would characterize it as following the spirit when it’s really just doing what he thinks his patriotic duty is. He may have been right to take the action he did, but he cannot articulate it in a way that demonstrates he knows what he’s talking about or that he’s taken appropriate thought in making such a difficult decision. He readily admits he’s not as scholarly as John, but that doesn’t mean he couldn’t read up a bit or ponder the subject. He could listen to the podcasts in question. As Hugh Nibley points out, it does take time. I recognize that a drawback of a lay clergy is lack of time to really delve into things.
Why is it lauded to follow your gut rather than to crack open a book, read a little, and then pray about it? It seems like we approve of shortcuts and simplistic thinking, and we punish people for talking over our heads.
And anyone who has cracked a book and sought knowledge, understanding and wisdom knows better than to be proud of it. The only true wisdom is knowing that you know nothing.
Hawk, that link is SOOOOOOO disappointing, but I can envision the exact same thing in my ward. I was released for using a non-KJV Bible, and most leaders around here aren’t interested in interesting discussions or scholarship. Just teach out of the damn manual and don’t rock the boat by using LDS.org or non-KJV Bible. Just sit there, shut up, and don’t make my life harder by having someone else complain to me!
MH brings up an excellent point, one also raised by the John D example I gave. How much of our antagonism of those who do read the actual scriptures (or Heaven forbid, books) is because of complaints from average ward members who find questions unsettling? It’s one thing to choose to be ill-informed, but it’s the zeal for burning books (or attacking those who read them) that seems to be behind a lot of the anti-intellectualism, and it originates with lazy thinkers and lands on the doorstep of our overworked lay leaders who likewise haven’t had time to crack a book and just need the noise to stop, to make their jobs workable. It can be a tyranny of tattle-tales.
To me, a perfect example of this lazy thinking and relying too heavily on gut feelings is evolution.
I can’t tell you how many people I have tried to talk about evolution with whose response is something like: the idea of descending from apes (or fish) doesn’t sit well with me, so I don’t believe it.
Sigh.
Not believing in evolution bothers me. But a refusal to even crack a book about it, or think about it, or watch a documentary, DRIVES ME INSANE. This is especially vexing when you realize that people who have STRONG opinions about the subject don’t know anything about it. As if Jerry Coyne’s book, Why Evolution is True, is somehow an “anti-Mormon” book, whatever that means.
People rely on their “gut” when the feeling is convenient for what they want to do or believe anyway, and this feeling lets them justify refusing to open their minds at all on whatever the subject might be. It’s sad.
By the way, I was shocked when you mentioned Thinking Fast and Slow. That book is sitting right next to my computer!
Thinking is not easy. Unless one just circles the wagon round and round like my dog chasing her tail. One doesn’t grow or learn more. I had a friend ask me long ago why I read so much. I answered that I love learning, to which she gave me the I’m-appalled look and said learning is either too hard or too boring so she doesn’t go there. I wouldn’t survive long if I couldn’t learn. I mean, reading opens the mind to worlds without end right inside our own minds. Glory……what a treasure a mind is, and I’m sorely sorry for every wasted moment of apathy toward discovery. Such foolish loss that is…..
Yet I’ve learned much from those who love the life creed of “keep it simple, Stupid”. Thinking gives them a headache they say, and I surely don’t want them to suffer. They love moving along the journey with the basics for survival. There is no hunger or thirsting for learning or discovery at all. But they’re mostly quite content with it. They seem rather happy to let someone else tell them what to think, feel, and do. I’m glad they’re content……but there would be no growth, or progress, or overcoming, or discovery without the deep thinkers who study, learn, process and create. God bless and keep them because it’s not always safe to be such a person. We all learn and grow far more from them.
PS: I think my fast thinking has been eaten away. I miss it. And my slow thinking is quite slow now. It’s very difficult being old. But I cherish the wisdom that mercifully remains as it’s the greatest of all treasures.
There are clearly benefits to both System 1 and System 2 thinking. While moost people lean towards one or the other, the ideal would be a merging (or happy collaboration) of the two.
Christ was a thinker, but he also acted in response to feelings at times (healing the Gentile woman’s child, deciding to stay longer with the Nephites in the Book of Mormon rather than leaving as he planned). Honestly, I think true wisdom is knowing which system to go with in any given situation.
Part of the benefit of fellowship with other church members is that each individual’s spiritual gifts benefit the group as a whole. System 1 thinkers can definitely learn a lot from those who lean toward System 2, but benefit can also be found with System 2 thinkers learning from System 1 people. Valuing emotional “gut feeling” decisions can co-exist with valuing intellectual decisions. It is unwise to denounce one or the other.
This is very thought provoking, but a few points…
In Malcolm Gladwell’s book Blink he argues that quick thinking can be more effective than a longer more detailed analysis. He offers example after example of how this plays out in real life, that the doctors at Cook County Hospital improved the accuracy of their diagnoses by collecting less information, not more. And while more detailed studies did finally prove the forgery of a painting, an expert could say that in a glance.
Also, let’s not put science up on a pedestal as the model of rationality. They are just as prone to laziness of tradition and belief as the rest of us. An excellent example is Lee Smolin’s readable book The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next.
And I could tell story after story from medicine of when people’s long-held beliefs got in the way of data and thoughtful analysis. One of the most blatant is the idea that peptic ulcers are caused by H. pylori bacteria rather than stress or any of those popular earlier theories. The seminal paper was published in 1985 but the American Academy did not accept the treatment until the early/mid-2000s (which means that USAmerican health insurance companies would not cover the treatment). Because the research was from a backwater (Australia) rather than Harvard and the investigator took the radically “unethical” step of infecting himself as a trial, many physicians refused to look at the numbers seriously.
Just two years ago I was in a multi-cultural counseling training class at university in Portland Oregon. The professor popped into a VCR a VHS tape of a college professor preparing a group of students to go on an international trip. It eventually is made clear in the video that it was filmed at BYU. The advice the professor gave was really interesting. He told the students to be careful of equating the nervousness or anxiety they will naturally feel when in a situation that is different as being the antithesis of the spirit. He said all too often his students will immediately label something as being wrong or evil because they function with their gut reaction. They are falsely assuming that anything that makes them feel uncomfortable is wrong. The problem is often the unknown makes people feel uncomfortable and the unknown is often the better way.
A perfect example of what your talking about Hawkgirl was in the SLTrib this week–a youth instructor was released because a student asked why the Nigerian mentioned in the lesson couldn’t attend the temple. He referenced the R&P essay on lds.org to help answer the question and was released. The bishop says it’s because the Spirit prompted him that such material isn’t fit for Sunday School! http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/2475803-155/mormon-bishop-dismisses-teacher-for-using?fullpage=1
Naismith: “In Malcolm Gladwell’s book Blink he argues that quick thinking can be more effective than a longer more detailed analysis. He offers example after example of how this plays out in real life, that the doctors at Cook County Hospital improved the accuracy of their diagnoses by collecting less information, not more. And while more detailed studies did finally prove the forgery of a painting, an expert could say that in a glance.” Great reference. Actually, I think Gladwell’s point is in agreement with what Kahneman is saying, specifically as relates to the Substitution heuristic. Too much information is confusing, so people still use their System 1 thinking and don’t actually evaluate it to simplify. They get bogged down in all the information.
Rather than saying the “thin slice” was more effective or the gut instinct was more accurate, Gladwell’s studies often showed that the gut instinct was no different than an assessment with more information, and that the reason was that a person had already decided, and new information didn’t change their perspective but rather was viewed selectively through confirmation bias to achieve the same result. I’m specifically thinking of the study in which professors were evaluated after 2 months and the result was the same if they were evaluated after mere seconds of observation.
In both cases, people are too lazy to use System 2. Having more information doesn’t mean you actually use it properly! In fact, they are now seeing that a lot of millenials struggle with this. They can google information in a few seconds, but they often lack the skills or perseverance to do real research and to evaluate the quality of the information. (And I’m sure that’s true of all generations – the article was just about hiring millenials and that for all their tech savvy they have some real blind spots).
Also, just an interesting tip, Gladwell relied heavily on another book The Tell (if you like these sorts of books). Here’s my review of it at Goodreads: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/17290716-the-tell
@Hawkgrrrl: thanks for the link to article.
I was realeased as Primary President for something similiar to what MH did. I called the Bishop ( and others involved) religious fascist zealots. Yes, face to face. The others got word of what I called them. Ha!
Information overload can certainly be a problem, which is why companies go to so much effort to manage a brand. The brand name can be short cut in decision making.
The fate of the primary teacher linked is really disappointing.
One thing I wish is that leaders would be able to forget things they were told in training meetings however many years ago, that don’t feature in the current handbook, because rules and procedures have changed. Instead they seem very often to try and incorporate a new handbook of instructions on top of everything they ever been told before, rather than seeing it as a replacement. I wish it could be said in no uncertain terms that this handbook replaces whatever you may have been told in training meetings previously, and that they would believe it. It seems to be a case to me of not thinking things through properly.
I agree that information overload can be problematic. Certainly not every member can handle the truth of our LDS history or the deeper doctrines. I do wish that there were a separate Sunday School class designated specifically for those who would like to bite into the “meat” and really get into some heavier topics that have been glossed over in our normal classes. The teacher would have to be someone willing to go where no man has gone before and would require intensive prayer and study.
Former Sheep, I would love to see a Sunday School class like that, but I doubt it will happen. The minute someone starts to feel a little uncomfortable with the subject (especially a leader), it’s a high likelihood that the entire effort would be abandoned (see the excellent comment #18). Becoming uncomfortable is equated with an absence of the spirit, and tough issues will inevitably make at least a few people in the room uncomfortable. I suspect this played a big role in the bishop dismissing the youth Sunday School teacher in Hawaii.
Discussion of difficult issues has a much higher chance of success in environments where System 2 thinking (slower, logical) is expected and encouraged, like blogs, institute classes, etc. Sunday meetings foster System 1 thinking (emotional). Seminary lessons could go either way depending on the teacher.
I think any person called to be an instructor should be at liberty to reference any citation on lds.org as a reference to answer a question from someone in the class.
I used the essay on race for a 1st Sunday lesson in my HP group meeting and the members in my class were enthusiastically supportive of the information in the essay. Though, come to think of it…I was released as HPGL a few weeks later. Hmmm. No–couldn’t be a connection. If that was the action that helped me get released, I regret not having done it a year sooner!
On a more serious note, I appreciate you Frank Pellet on this discussion and the other one on the Book of Mark at BCC for bringing up the issue of tone. I don’t believe that everyone who teaches a lesson straight out of the church-approved manual does so because they are unenlightened, naïve, lazy, or scripturally unengaged. I am all of those things, but others are strictly dedicated to the sustained leadership of the church and employing faith in that sustaining.
“In both cases, people are too lazy to use System 2.”
Wow, “lazy” the only possible reason, huh?
In the case of the Cook County physicians, there was a lot of pushback and training and quality assurance that went into the process of teaching/requiring/forcing them to use that quick approach when many would naturally follow the other.
And the issue of training is true for a lot of professions from pilots to surgeons…. Or take driving a car: It may start out as a very thoughtful, considered task that takes all of our attention–so much that some places prohibit new drivers from even having music playing. But after time, it becomes more subconscious, that we cannot remember who was next to us at the last stoplight.
I tend to agree with Mary Ann, that there is a place for both, and for both on a team that is trying to do something. Also, there are certainly more than two.
When I first design a research study, I spend a lot of time considering various theoretical frameworks, how to operationalize concepts, what variables to include. But when the research is carried out, I want uniform exposure as much as possible, absolute adherence to rules.
And interesting that scripture would use a scientific word, “experiment,” to discuss a spiritual concept that cannot be measured by external data.
Well, “lazy” is basically why I do it. I suppose someone could be mentally challenged or whatever. Yes, there are real distractions in life (as Nibley points out), but we prioritize whatever we prioritize. I think we rationalize not prioritizing taking time to think deeply on things.
Sunday school classes like those mentioned above occur on non-sundays at mormon history association and sunstone conferences. They are awesome meetings. (There are some faith-demoting sessions too, but i have a better idea now who to aVoid.)
Forgive me as I once again must defend science.
Naismith, you said, “[L]et’s not put science up on a pedestal as the model of rationality. They are just as prone to laziness of tradition and belief as the rest of us.”
Some scientists might be prone to the problems you point out, but those are individuals. They are not science. Science is beautiful and wonderful.
SCIENCE RULES!
Talmadge used a different Bible than the King James. Just FYI.