Amy Hoy (via toldorknown):
Thinking about your thinking about your thinking doesn’t create world peace, but it does create better work, and better people. And better people create better work. And better people also create more better people, at least in theory. It’s a cycle of awesomeness.
This is interesting, because a recent theme that’s emerged on this blog has been the opposition to the above idea. Hoy also writes:
First you have to observe what you’re thinking. Then you have to think about it. And then you have to think about your thinking about your thinking.
I think you have to think at least 4 levels deep before you get anywhere interesting.
No, no, no. Please. Four levels of abstraction deep lies some of the most profound thoughts in human history. Side by side with a shit-ton of neuroses. “You have to think at least 4 levels deep before you get anywhere interesting”? Unless you’re so extremely intelligent, lucky, or relentless that you’ve somehow stumbled on one of the very few paths of abstraction that lead somewhere good, a generous estimate would be that interestingness as a function of the level of abstraction is inversely exponential. Every (1/nn)th thought is interesting at level n. So four levels deep, 1/44 = 1 out of every 256 thoughts is interesting. (Did I just pull that formula out of my ass? Absolutely. You cannot give a formula for this. It’s just a fancy way of illustrating how fast interestingness decays when you abstract, and abstract, and abstract away ever more — when you venture far up in the hierarchy of abstraction, away from concrete particulars and everyday reality.)
Four levels of abstraction deep, you will most likely have built a castle of air. Think about it. Do you think that thinking about thinking about thinking about your thinking is going to lead anywhere useful? At that point, you are most likely in full neurosis (is this thinking about my thinking about my thinking about others’ thinking about me good for me?), or near climax from the furious intellectual masturbation you must be doing. An ode to an ode to an ode to itself is not a good thing. I’ve written so much about this recently that, considering writing about it is a symptom, I probably ought to refrain from adding more.
I don’t think I’m that much better than everyone else at analyzing my own thoughts. Insofar as I embody Hoy’s advice, I consider it bad thinking, not good advice. Here’s some very simple advice in the spirit of “thinking should be a question mark, not a period”: so, you’re thinking something. When you are, consider this: is that a good idea? Is that true? Is your plan the right way to do what you’re trying to do? Simply that. Always, but simply that. Do not be tempted to consider whether considering if it’s a good idea is a good idea. Don’t dare to step up to the next level of abstraction. Don’t, don’t, do not even consider that. It’s very dangerous: it will damage your mental health or push you into delusions. You’ll either fail to see reality or you will obsess about seeing reality from the perspective of seeing reality from the perspective of seeing reality. Yes, some intellectual achievements lie on higher levels of abstraction; no, the solution to most problems isn’t there — it’s here, closer to the ground.
Critical thinking 101: always consider if your first reactions and momentary thoughts are right. Never “think about your thinking about your thinking”. One level of meta is enough. You can consider every kind of perspective that matters to the problem at hand without also considering the considering.
I’m hoping, for your own good and for the good of the world, that you don’t take Amy Hoy’s advice. I’m convinced that you will either become very anxious and unhappy, or, if you’re stronger than me, you’ll take up residence in the clouds of abstraction, making you either an intolerable ass or a naïve, clumsy dreamer. None of those are desirable.
This isn’t a cycle of awesomeness, it’s a cycle that very quickly spirals away from whatever you’re really concerned with. According to Amy Hoy, it’s on the metacognitive, thinking-in-a-box-of-thinking-about-the-box-of-thinking-you’re-thinking-in level that breakthroughs happen. Maybe so. But the solution to most problems isn’t a breakthrough, it’s old wisdom we have forgotten or never understood in the first place. And most people won’t break through old barriers no matter how hard they try, but they might be able to create something that solves their problem even if theoretically, there’s a better solution. Practice beats theory, every time. No one is able to make breakthroughs on most problems: even the most intelligent, out-of-the-box, creative, breaking-through-mental-barriers and all around awesome thinkers of the world don’t make more than a few breakthroughs in the course of their life. And finally, trying to create a general solution to a specific problem, or a generalizing truth when a specific one will do, is likely to lead you away from the simpler, more specific solution or truth concerning whatever led you on the “mind-expanding” journey through abstraction in the first place. In short: although I agree that there’s some interesting stuff to be seen on high levels of abstraction, in general that path will 1) not solve your original problem and 2) create new problems. So it’s not sound advice in general.
Hoy’s post seems to be inspired by a desire for more critical thinking, which I’m all for, but unfortunately, I think her recipe for it is completely wrong.
Not wanting to expend even more anxious meta-thought about the issue, I’ll refer to what I’ve said before about this (I simply assert stuff in this post that I’ve argued before): here and here, among others.
