And another thing…

I have a number of problems with thought. The way it is used is often lazy and the way it is expressed is often simplistic. Now, I am of the opinion that we humans should attempt to make everything as simple as we can, in fact there is a long history of some of the greatest thinkers, the human race has ever produced, proclaiming that simplicity is a virtue worth striving for.

Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.

Often attributed to Einstein

Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication

Attributed to Leonardo Da Vinci

Life is really simple, but we insist on making it complicated.

Attributed to Confucius

Beauty of style and harmony and grace and good rhythm depend on Simplicity.

Attributed to Plato

But, and this is an important caveat, there is a clear distinction to be drawn between that which is simple or simplified and that which is simplistic.

The important point in the quote attributed to Einstein is the clause at the end of the sentence “but not simpler”. This is imperative to the idea of something being simple but not being simplistic. To understand the difference we can look at the definitions for simple and simplistic:

Simple (adj):

• plain, basic, or uncomplicated in form, nature, or design; without much decoration or ornamentation.
• easily understood or done; presenting no difficulty.

Simplistic (adj):

• treating complex issues and problems as if they were much simpler than they really are.

So, we can take from these definitions that to make something more simple is to reduce the complication and present it in it’s most uncomplicated form. To make something simplistic in nature is going further than that and removing meaning which can present misunderstanding.

What does this mean for the way we think?

As a species we have created patterns of thinking that are extremely well set out and can help us to gain clarity on any given subject and innovate in ever more inventive ways. A problem occurs when we do not use our power of thinking fully and we become lazy in our thoughts. We can forget to use our critical thinking when we are forming opinions about things that truly matter, such as how we form our societies and treat other human beings. Some of the most telling ways we can see this is through our use of language.

There are phrases that I see in discussion forums and social networks so often that they are seemingly accepted language and many people do not think at all critically about what is being said when these phrases are used. For example take the idea that people are “triggered” during a discussion. This is seemingly used to present the idea that one side of the argument has caused the other to lose their temper and is an attempt at insulting that person, but this is entirely contextual as in most cases I see it is used because somebody offers a counter argument. This is then being used to ignore the content of that counter argument. But what if we look at what being triggered really means, to trigger a response, well any thesis will elicit a response either in agreement or as an antithesis so this is not really anything to concern anyone other than it being part of the progression of a discussion. The use of the word “triggered” allows the person who posited their thesis to, as mentioned, ignore the content of the response and in effect is them communicating that they are not wishing to be put into a debate setting on this, this is an indication that they may not be so sure of their argument.

I will acknowledge that people can be “triggered” in other ways such as when people do not take what they have said seriously to which they may have an emotional response. Again, if we as a species used our critical thought patterns well we could remove the initial emotive reaction by exploring the reasons for that or by trying to communicate our thesis in a different way.

Let us look at another phrase I often see used “virtue signalling”. Now virtue signalling is used to describe somebody’s actions as being good but not for the correct reasons. The definition of virtue signalling I found online is:

• the action or practice of publicly expressing opinions or sentiments intended to demonstrate one’s good character or the moral correctness of one’s position on a particular issue.

The way I often see this being used is in situations where one party has done something for the good of others or they have changed their mind on something. An example that came about recently was the band Guns ’n’ Roses dropping the song One in a Million from the reissue of the Appetite for Destruction album due to the lyrical content of the song. One comment I saw on this opined:

I bet they don’t regret the millions they made off of it, Oh well, at least they’re virtue signalling now, that’s all that matters

Regardless of whether they don’t regret the millions they made from the song over the 30 years since the original release, to dismiss the action the band have taken as virtue signalling is interesting to me in that it is seems designed to point out that it is wrong due to the intention of the action being primary and the action itself being a by product. What is implied in this is that the action is only being undertaken because the person/group wants to be perceived as being virtuous. This is insidious as it allows someone to negate a person/group’s actions without them being party to the reasons for the action being taken. That negation is a soft attack on our freedom of thought and action and should be ignored for the straw man reasoning it closely resembles.

There are many other examples where we can look at the language used and investigate it to simplify what is being said to us or about us and critically assess the actual meaning of that language. The importance of Keep It Simple Stupid as a design principle can be used in our everyday communications too.