Idiocracy: Common sense vs critical thinking vs analysis.

1.3K

• (edited ) (+6/-0)

The surest way to highlight the difference is to look at idiocracy. In it, besides it being the sloganeering reflex, we find the repeated phrase "brawndo has what plants crave."

"electrolytes" being the answer.

In their times this might be called common sense, or common knowledge.

The structure of this type of knowledge is 1. relatable to people's everyday lives and problems 2. takes the form of "call" and "response" 3. borders on a tautology. It's taken as "a given".

Here we see that the inherent 'logic' and self-evidence of the thing is assumed. Therefore common sense can be seen more as something that we do than something that we have. It is both a way of thinking, and a tool in a toolbox. A passive device by itself, one thats only active when we put it to use. "Use your damn common sense, boy!"

It is also self-consistent, in this case, only inasmuch as its not examined too closely.

I talked to a neighbor recently, about his diagnosis. He said he didn't overly trust the treatment but that he came around because "the man telling me about it was making a lot of sense". We see here, therefore that common sense is a plurality, it is taken not as one idea, but as a culture of ideas that reinforce one-another. The multiplicity of supporting ideas are the praxis by which they reproduce and support the acquisition of new ideas. In other words in order to talk to someone, you have to identity their culture of common sense, just as you would communicate in the language someone uses. Ideas are to culture, what words are to language. Even more precise, ideas are to grammar and syntax, what words are to language: the means by which we structure thoughts.

Beyond this, because systems are never wholly consistent (a consequence of no system being fully provably self-consistent within the bounds of its own axioms), the very self-consistency of common-sense is as much about what is excluded as included. It is as if the human mind works to naturally group ideas and ways of thinking, that are most similar and intra-supportive, and from there so derive what we may call "an ideology of everyday living", regardless the culture, religion, or time and place.

The utility of this idea can be derived by returning back to the example of idiocracy.

No one listened to the protagonist because he "talked like a fag." But how do we get to that point?

A breakdown of causal steps might look like:

experts are overpaid -> experts become alienated and indifferent to the "plebs" daily lives and the problems expert opinions cause -> therefore expert opinions begin to cause more problems, with ordinary people's quality of life being the "necessary sacrifice" -> people begin to hate the experts -> people ignore the reasoning behind expert opinions, as people get on with living and working around all the problems oblivious "retard" and "fag" experts cause -> as economics become worse, and overcrowding becomes worse, the world becomes more dangerous to compensate.

tl;dr "fag talk" was weak, and fag talk got people killed. It almost did in idiocracy, and we can see the same in real life places like chicago and NYC. Everyone thats not an overpaid expert, insulated by university or suburban life, has to work harder, and become more aggressive, just to survive. They have neither the time, nor luxury, to listen to anyone whos opinions sounds anything like the very people who have lead us to where society is today.

And so it goes.

We can see an example in idiocracy where one of the characters says "you want to put, water on the crops? Like out the toilet?" to which another responds "I never heard about no plants growing out of no toilet."

To them, this is common sense. Water is in a toilet, why aren't plants?

Immediately we can see the second character is smarter than the first. Her 'common sense' is "water comes from a toilet. We don't use toilets to water crops." Or "things are the way they are because thats how we do them." And you can see this in how she reacts incredulously. Where the first character thinks "Things are where they are because if they weren't, then they'd be different." There is no consideration of alternatives, the world to him is self-evident, that is it provides, from its very being, self evidence of its rightness. This is a guy completely comfortable, or at least complacent, in his world view.

And this only works precisely because he doesn't question it. In short, these are people, if not happy with the way things are, at least oblivious to any other better way. If they weren't, they would have fixed it themselves. Hence why common sense requires the exclusion of some ideas, to maintain internal self consistency.

CRITICAL THINKING

CT steps outside this box, to ask new questions, and because of this many critical thinkers are either highly argumentative or so very moderate in opinion as to come off as wishy-washy or undecided. Here self-consistency is discarded by refusing to exclude ideas that would otherwise solidify idealogy. Which makes me question, is there a "common sense" to critical thinking? Is there such a thing as a meta-idealogy?

ANALYSIS

Analysis takes critical thinking one step further, and instead of working from the inclusion of potential ideas--instead imagines alternative configurations of exclusions and inclusions, searching for systems that offer better explanations and predictive powers against some phenomenon or system.

This is essentially the practice and process of the formation and comparison of models. For many people this is mostly intuitive, as we encounter new information, and discard what doesn't work.

APPLICATIONS

In the example of Idiocracy, joe, the protagonist, failed again and again to communicate with the people around him. This was a world where rationality not only barely existed, but had come to represent weakness. A world where humanity was reduced, if not to a herd, than an angry, and easily excitable mob. He finally breaks through to them when they learn hes 'smart' and he lies to them that he can "talk to plants". This works because in a world where aggression, the immediate kind, is necessary to survive and thrive, people are taken at face value. We saw that this was the case in the court scene, where people reacted almost violently to what they believed were lies from the protagonist. In such a world, the answer to dishonesty is immediate violence. People were expected, on the bases of strength, to back up their opinions.

Joe's perception as smart, and the lie he told about "talking to plants" fit perfectly in the world of Idiocracy. Everything is taken as a given, at face value, and things are "just the way they are." And so joe's lie was self-consistent with common sense. Working from that basis we can come up with other examples. He could have told them "water is ALSO what plants crave." Or "plants crave water MORE than brawndo." And both of these would have also probably worked.

This has been a brief overview of the differences between common sense, critical thinking, and analysis. And don't forget, "BRAWNDO. It's what plants crave!"

Idiocracy: Common sense vs critical thinking vs analysis. The surest way to highlight the difference is to look at idiocracy. In it, besides it being the sloganeering reflex, we find the repeated phrase "brawndo has what plants crave." "electrolytes" being the answer. In their times this might be called common sense, or common knowledge. The structure of this type of knowledge is 1. relatable to people's everyday lives and problems 2. takes the form of "call" and "response" 3. borders on a tautology. It's taken as "a given". Here we see that the inherent 'logic' and self-evidence of the thing is assumed. Therefore common sense can be seen more as something that *we do* than something that we *have*. It is both a way of thinking, and a tool in a toolbox. A passive device by itself, one thats only active when we put it to use. "Use your damn common sense, boy!" It is also self-consistent, in this case, only inasmuch as its not examined too closely. I talked to a neighbor recently, about his diagnosis. He said he didn't overly trust the treatment but that he came around because "the man telling me about it was making a lot of sense". We see here, therefore that common sense is a *plurality*, it is taken not as *one* idea, but as a *culture* of ideas that reinforce one-another. The multiplicity of supporting ideas are the praxis by which they reproduce and support the acquisition of *new* ideas. In other words in order to talk to someone, you have to identity *their* culture of common sense, just as you would communicate in the language someone uses. Ideas are to culture, what words are to language. Even more precise, ideas are to grammar and syntax, what words are to language: the means by which we structure thoughts. Beyond this, because systems are never wholly consistent (a consequence of no system being fully provably self-consistent within the bounds of its own axioms), the very self-consistency of common-sense is as much about what is excluded as included. It is as if the human mind works to naturally group ideas and ways of thinking, that are most similar and intra-supportive, and from there so derive what we may call "an ideology of everyday living", regardless the culture, religion, or time and place. The utility of this idea can be derived by returning back to the example of idiocracy. No one listened to the protagonist because he "talked like a fag." But how do we get to that point? A breakdown of causal steps might look like: experts are overpaid -> experts become alienated and indifferent to the "plebs" daily lives and the problems expert opinions cause -> therefore expert opinions begin to cause *more* problems, with ordinary people's quality of life being the "necessary sacrifice" -> people begin to hate the experts -> people ignore the reasoning behind expert opinions, as people get on with living and working around all the problems oblivious "retard" and "fag" experts cause -> as economics become worse, and overcrowding becomes worse, the world becomes more dangerous to compensate. tl;dr "fag talk" was weak, and fag talk got people killed. It almost did in idiocracy, and we can see the same in real life places like chicago and NYC. Everyone thats not an overpaid expert, insulated by university or suburban life, has to work harder, and become more aggressive, just to survive. They have neither the time, nor luxury, to listen to anyone whos opinions sounds anything like the very people who have lead us to where society is today. And so it goes. We can see an example in idiocracy where one of the characters says "you want to put, water on the crops? Like out the toilet?" to which another responds "I never heard about no plants growing out of no toilet." To them, this is common sense. Water is in a toilet, why aren't plants? Immediately we can see the second character is smarter than the first. Her 'common sense' is "water comes from a toilet. We don't use toilets to water crops." Or "things are the way they are because thats how we do them." And you can see this in how she reacts incredulously. Where the first character thinks "Things are where they are because if they weren't, then they'd be different." There is no consideration of alternatives, the world to him is self-evident, that is it provides, from its very being, self evidence of its rightness. This is a guy completely comfortable, or at least complacent, in his world view. And this only works precisely because he doesn't question it. In short, these are people, if not happy with the way things are, at least oblivious to any other better way. If they weren't, they would have fixed it themselves. Hence why common sense requires the exclusion of some ideas, to maintain internal self consistency. CRITICAL THINKING CT steps outside this box, to ask new questions, and because of this many critical thinkers are either highly argumentative or so very moderate in opinion as to come off as wishy-washy or undecided. Here self-consistency is discarded by refusing to exclude ideas that would otherwise solidify idealogy. Which makes me question, is there a "common sense" to critical thinking? Is there such a thing as a meta-idealogy? ANALYSIS Analysis takes critical thinking one step further, and instead of working from the inclusion of potential ideas--instead imagines *alternative* configurations of exclusions and inclusions, searching for systems that offer *better* explanations and predictive powers against some phenomenon or system. This is essentially *the practice and process of the formation and comparison of models*. For many people this is mostly intuitive, as we encounter new information, and discard what doesn't work. APPLICATIONS In the example of Idiocracy, joe, the protagonist, failed again and again to communicate with the people around him. This was a world where rationality not only barely existed, but had come to represent weakness. A world where humanity was reduced, if not to a herd, than an angry, and easily excitable mob. He finally breaks through to them when they learn hes 'smart' and he lies to them that he can "talk to plants". This works because in a world where aggression, the immediate kind, is necessary to survive and thrive, people are taken at face value. We saw that this was the case in the court scene, where people reacted almost violently to what they believed were lies from the protagonist. In such a world, the answer to dishonesty is immediate violence. People were expected, on the bases of strength, to back up their opinions. Joe's perception as smart, and the lie he told about "talking to plants" fit perfectly in the world of Idiocracy. Everything is taken as a given, at face value, and things are "just the way they are." And so joe's lie was self-consistent with common sense. Working from that basis we can come up with other examples. He could have told them "water is ALSO what plants crave." Or "plants crave water MORE than brawndo." And both of these would have also probably worked. This has been a brief overview of the differences between common sense, critical thinking, and analysis. And don't forget, "BRAWNDO. It's what plants crave!"

(post is archived)