Where are we going, how can we change?

an investigation into the motivations for human action
as applicable to a sustainable future

The Role of Common-Sense

To be sensible is not to have sense, but to use it.

Much of choice-making is done using a method, which although extremely useful, is being increasingly discounted, in lieu of purely mythological or scientific points of view. This method of decision making is known as common-sense. The dictionary defines common-sense as: ‘sound practical judgment that is independent of specialized knowledge, training, or the like; normal native intelligence.’¹ Common-sense, although differing from scientific or mythological argument, is used to provide the underpinning for these two, and helps to support the value of either. It provides the kernel from which a scientific or mythological question may be postulated. It is also the principle means to understand rules of design, formal logic, and appreciation of art and quality. It is enhanced by: the strengthening of perception through education, the basic non-technical teaching of one’s environment, and the maintenance of an open-mind. Similar to science and mythology, common-sense provides a means for making future decisions. It should be emphasized that here we are concerned with contemplative decisions. This is decision-making used to temper and modify impulse-action. It is at a higher level than pure impulse-action.

Action undertaken merely on impulse represents the lowest form of thinking, whereas, decision-making involves a conscious choice between different possible responses. The key difference is choice. Impulse-action is the survival method most relied upon by the lower forms of animals such as reptiles. This is basic reaction triggered by desire. Mammals, and humans who act like animals, exhibit the retention of this lowest form of thinking and the difficulty with tempering it. For instance, when certain breeds of dog see a squirrel, they impulsively seek to chase it. Decision making does not enter in. There is no ‘either-or’ that enters the mind. Even after having mistaken a skunk, for a squirrel on previous occasions, with negative results, his impulse action will still not be tempered. It can be modified with some success through teaching from his owner and verbal reminder, at the time of stimulation, to refrain from chasing. For some dogs, the human is still needed to discern the possibility of a skunk. However, with the application of verbal reminder, the dog can achieve the ability to make a decision.

The higher forms of mammals exhibit more control over impulse-action and have the ability for contemplative decision making. This is coupled with an increased ability for learning. A dolphin for example can teach it’s young not to swim near the propellers of passing boats because they have learned the risk. The dolphin is able to sense the boat or propeller and make a judgment that it poses a risk. The young dolphin is taught, presumably through association of the recognition of the sensation of the boat and motor, the risk involved.² For the young dolphin, this does not need to be learned through trial and error, however, the first negative association with the propeller blade was. The first dolphin, witnessed to be harmed by a propeller, or who lived to tell about it, was necessary for the teaching that continues to be passed down. This is not scientific reasoning but indicative of what is called here common-sense. Common-sense thinking can readily comprehend cause and effect because the relationship is so clearly verified by the senses. This does not require an extensive technical knowledge or higher level of application of abstract logic. However, common-sense does involve education both to heighten awareness and to pass down teaching of cause and effect, so that new trial and error need not be experienced.

Awareness is increased by a strengthening of perception. Perception allows common-sense to be applied. The dolphin can not be taught to stay away from propellers until it first recognizes and then understands through perception what is represented. This is reliant on the senses.

Common-sense involves that which is readily evident to be sensed. It is publicly accessible. Included here are those lessons which are commonly available and can be passed along through basic perception and knowledge of cause and effect. Sense can make known that which can be seen, heard, felt, smelled, or tasted. Because senses are available to everyone in greater or lesser degree, except to the most physically impaired, cause and effect relationship is easy to believe through association with similar circumstances. Firm evidence through testing does not need to be displayed because there is an easy envisioning of similar cause and effect. This, however, is not, in all cases, effective. Science has been effectively employed to disprove what was erroneously thought to be true by common-sense. Such was the belief that the world was flat. This was enforced by the limitation of perception of the eye and the mythological teachings promoted at the time. Common-sense is thus only practically effective when the full extents of a condition can be perceived within the limitations of the five senses. Although it has limitations, for which the scientific method can then be made useful, it is extremely valuable for many practical situations encountered in the every day world.

That which is bitter to the taste is bitter to the taste to most people. A bitter cup of coffee is understood by people with the capacity to taste. Those who enjoy this flavor will continue to drink this type of coffee. Those who do not like this type of coffee will not continue to drink it. Liking varying degree of bitterness in coffee can be influenced by the learned habit or personal taste. It is thus subjective in its interpretation of strength or its impression of good or bad. Common-sense is affected by education, upbringing, and strength of perception.

The great value of common-sense, and why it has been so important for human survival, is its immediacy. If the burner is hot, don’t touch it. One may learn this through education or through trial and error. Obviously, education is more beneficial. One does not need a dissertation on why the burner causes pain in the hand and an evaluation of the findings for positive and negative effect, nor is a myth of a fire-breathing animistic stove necessary.

A child is taught how to cross the street safely in the same common-sense manner as the young dolphin is taught to proceed safely around boats. The human adult has been taught and understands the risk involved in coming in the path of an automobile as does the adult dolphin with the boat. It would be ridiculous that each child should not be taught easily understood, non-technical, and non-highly abstract lessons. Many valuable lessons do not need to be learned by trial and error or by relying on an innate superior gift for higher sensitivity and ability for logical extension.

A child learns many things that involve the use of mechanical things which have been improved through technical understanding. The toilet is such an example. Toilet training involves technique that would not be considered highly technical or abstract and would fall under the domain of teaching of common-sense. Without instruction, the child may defile his pants. However, through education from the parents, it will learn to use a receptacle for his feces which will have a better overall sensory outcome. By learning proper bathroom etiquette, the child will be better appreciated by society and will have a higher degree of success within the global marketplace. As well, the proper use of the toilet is recognized by the majority of people to be of a higher level of quality than the pants, the floor, or the street, for public health. It appeals to the values people have placed on common perceptions of the environment. These are inherent values instilled in our genetic make-up. We do not need a scientific study of toilet benefits or a mythology of the toilet to make the simple decision on what is the preferred cause and effect outcome. However, even the ingrained common-sense understanding of quality can be influenced by cultural influence that teaches us to place a higher value on things that would not be readily understood by way of simple cultivation of perception and application of logic.

In certain East Island tribes, the ceremonial value of a potted breadfruit mixture concoction is highly prized. Much effort is expended on the preparation of the breadfruit into a large ornamented pot. This container is buried underground during a ceremony and remains under earth for a period of years. The pot will be dug up in an elaborate celebration and then served. The keeping of the pot underground and the extent of time and exertion expelled in the ritual are of great importance. The rarity of the item and public demand for the object make it highly valuable. For Westerners, who have witnessed the ceremony of the final dis-embalming of the bread fruit mixture, they have described the quality of this breadfruit-pudding, when served to them, as being not dissimilar to the defiled pants of the child.³

In our culture, perception is, as well, highly influenced by the values of the society. Additionally, perception, by necessity, is compartmentalized. When driving, the road and items immediately around the road are sensed in rapid succession with only the most critical reaching the realm of perception. This is resultant from the speed of travel and necessary recognition of those items influencing the safe travel of the car. Compartmentalizing of perception based on cultural values has a similar effect. For instance, the need for greater professional specialization, to succeed in the global market place, has accustomed people to perceive items in a selective fashion. They tend to notice items more relatable to their field of specialty, which will not reach the level of cognizance for those outside the field. The architect will perceive items of design in the built landscape more readily, the doctor those applicable to medical practice, and the lawyer those relatable to jurisprudence. The valuation of what is important has been reinforced by education. This compartmentalizing effect is enforced by the general cultural valuation of some sensations or objects over others. Here, perception is meant to imply cognition of what can be sensed. Many things may be sensed in the environment but do not reach the level of cognizance. One recognizes what is meant here when traversing the same ground over and over again in the course of daily routine and suddenly noticing or paying attention to an element that had always been there. Although the item may not have been consciously recognized before, its sensory effect had been assimilated into the overall perception of the environment. For instance, one may perceive one area of town as being nicer than another but may be only able to recall and describe a few items accurately. Perception has taken place at the overall level and has been assimilated into an overall valuation of quality without cognizance of discreet elements.

The architect Frank Gehry has pointed out a good example of selective perception common in American society. In the case of a chain-link fence, its absence or its replacement by a design of higher intrinsic quality will be sensed in the overall valuation of environment, even if not recognized in itself. The typical swimming pool or tennis court is surrounded by a chain-link fence. The swimming pool and tennis court are items valued by society as symbols of status and representative of an ability to pay. They are known to be associated with the leisure activities of a higher class and are additionally prized by the trend towards greater cultural value placed on recreational and competitive sports. The effect of placing greatest value on the pool or tennis court has the effect, for many people, to perceive these items while simply not perceiving the fence around them. The chain-link fence is a construction of low quality which influences the overall perception of the environment in a negative fashion even if it does not reach the level of individual cognizance. For some, the inherent values of practicality and usefulness will outweigh any negative effect in quality by lack of craftsmanship, skill and care of design. However, this does not mean that those traits, more indicative of higher quality, are not inherent to human values, only that they have been de-emphasized due to mis-education.

The intrinsic ability to appreciate quality has been well presented by Pirsig and others but should be mentioned briefly as it has great importance in the application of common-sense. Quality, which is composed of such components as: skill, craftsmanship, and care is inherently recognized by the human species.⁴ It is a trait, of the most primitive origin, for humans to distinguish and appreciate relative levels of quality. Through the influence of the global economic system, the importance of: quantity, size, speed of production, price, newness, and waste, in the valuation of that which is better, has superseded other more primary aspects of quality such as: craftsmanship, care, skill, longevity of use, aesthetic affect, and sustainable impact. These more primary components of quality are of course still highly valued by the more discriminating. However, to those with a lesser cultivated appreciation of quality, the characteristics promoted by the needs of the predatory global economic system, have taken priority.

The interpretation of quality is to some degree influenced by the cultural taste and that which is placed in a position of importance by education or mis-education. Even accepting these subjective influences, it is still possible for a group of people to come to a consensus on rank of quality. Without this genetically available ability to appreciate quality, society would not have the basis for placing value on many things. Reasoning by determination of quality is accepted in trial by jury, where the judgment of a panel of peers is found to be the most equitable way of determining justice, even if not guaranteeing a correct judgment. The quality of the argument and evidence is here what is being judged, and the one of more convincing nature will win the jury’s favor. Similarly, the awarding of medals in skating or gymnastics competitions relies on quality judgment. The judgment is most fairly formulated on the average opinion of a panel, just as in a trial by jury. In sports competition, the judges are expert at distinguishing elements of the performance which help to guide their determination of relative value. Their perception has been trained to recognize those factors which lead to an overall performance of higher quality. The untrained audience, even without specialized knowledge of scoring, but who is familiar with the sport, can perceive an overall impression of quality, normally not far off from the judges, in evaluating rank order. If untrained judges, such as bystanders with no knowledge of the sport, were used, the identification of quality would be much more difficult to ascertain. The same need for an increased awareness of salient identifying characteristics is accomplished in the jury trial by the presentation of evidence and lawyers’ arguments which highlight the points to be considered. It is required for a better judgment of quality for the scorer to have cultivated the necessary ability to identify its distinguishing marks. The valuation of quality is most successful when delivered on an average by a number of well-educated judges. An average helps to minimize the effect of cultural bias.

Currently, common-sense decision making is under attack in favor of decision making based purely on a mythological or a scientific method. It is agreed that science is a valuable tool for explaining and providing predictions for that which can not be readily sensed or might be contradicted by common-sense. However there are some fields, mainly those influenced by perception and the ability to evaluate quality, which are not helped by the application of either a scientific or mythological decision making process. In the United States, there can be seen a marked effect from the lack of emphasis placed on perception and the ability to distinguish the traits of quality. The lack of value on these skills has entrenched itself in the society due to the promotion of several common beliefs.

The first of these is the promotion of teaching based on left and right brain personalities. The common understanding is that individuals are pre-disposed to either a scientific ability or an artistic ability. This has gone beyond a belief in an individual’s inclination to gravitate towards either the pursuits of logic or the pursuits of the sensibilities, and has led to an unhealthy forced promotion of one with the cultivated disregard or lack of interest for the other. The value of identifying individuals to be predisposed to either left or right brain pursuits is reinforced by the specialization required for success within the global market place. It is common to have individual’s today who accept that they may have great aptitude in the abstract logic of the sciences but feel they have little strength of reasoning for evaluating relationships conveyed by the senses. The reverse condition is true for those who have been labeled a right brain personality.

The effect is not only strengthened by the value for specialization but has gone beyond this to de-emphasize the values of sensory perception. These faculties have been lumped into the general understanding and domain of the person with sensibility, but not rationality. Rationality has been equated with application in the sciences and has been removed from the design related fields in the public consciousness. At the same time, the American school system has placed an increased emphasis on abstract learning involved in the left brain fields. For instance, advancing to a level of trigonometry or Calculus is considered normal for a high school student. However, the value in practical application of this learning will be essentially none for the vast majority of non-specialists who study these subjects. At the same time, basic courses on the strengthening of perception, logic of design, appreciation of art and architecture, and perception of the physical environment are not offered. A student may be able to perform differential equations but have no understanding of formal relationships or even have cultivated the sensibility to accurately describe the physical traits of his town and the factors that created its character. For the vast majority of human-beings, who do not specialize in the sciences, any understanding of mathematics beyond Algebra and Geometry is of no practical value. This is not to disparage the value of strengthening the brain in exercises of higher mathematics, but simply to recognize that specialized learning in higher math has been promoted at the expense of basic perception, quality evaluation, and choice-making skills that are fundamental to the well-being of the individual and of the most practical every-day value.

It is apparent that general consciousness, in the United States, has disassociated the common-sense skills of perception, design appreciation and evaluation of quality from rational logic. The general public now believes that any competency in these areas has been instilled by chance. A person with knowledge of design may be referred to as ‘having a good eye’ or a ‘gift for art’. Those who have not had good instruction in the design fields can often be oblivious to the fact that there are teachable rules of design logic. Even within some art and architecture schools, this viewpoint is maintained. In schools that stress that artistic aptitudes are outside the realm of rational evaluation, it is often acceptable to evaluate the worth of creation simply on the basis of “I like it” or not. This type of critique is emblematic of general public perception that design aptitude is a gift from god but essentially un-learnable. This type of criticism underscores the belief that design is merely a matter of whimsical choice and an expression of the personal sensibilities whose conveyance can not be honed by logic.

This misunderstanding that fields involved in the appreciation and arrangement of items affecting the senses can not be taught through a pedantic process has caused noticeable effect on the environment. Evidence of this can be seen in the fad of home improvement television shows where individuals are given the task of improving the design of spaces. On some of these shows, more trained individuals are employed and show a relative preponderance of success in achieving a higher degree of overall quality from before. However, other shows, relying on un-trained or little-trained individuals to make design decisions, have lesser predictability of favorable outcome. The basic cultural desire for newness, size, and quantity are normally placated by the new design but the overall quality level is often lower or unimproved from the original.

Often the appreciation of the need for synthesis of design effect is commonly ignored by the designer with lack of knowledge or the do-it-yourselfer. This is coupled with a lower level of craft in the final built product, than could have been achieved by a skilled tradesperson. Both of these items are inherently sensed, even if not actively known, by the general public, and are necessary for the work to have achieved an adequate level of perceived quality.

The overall effect of design is more commonly know as style. The choice of style, although most culturally satisfying when it is mandated by structural logic and the limitations imposed by environment and material, is also of value in the psychological effect it conveys. For instance, a gothic work may impart a feeling of the sublime, a classical one, the beautiful, and a modern one, the enhanced freedom from restriction. These feelings can be subjective and are influenced by cultural awareness and transference of the association of one effect of symbol for another. However, it is generally recognized, that when styles are indiscriminately mixed without regard for either the appropriate historic accuracy or full comprehension of the conflict of "affect" their juxtaposition imparts, the design will be recognized as diluted of potency and in bad taste. The "affect" referred to here is the feeling that is stimulated by the work in the beholder.⁵ To better illustrate this, one can recognize in film-making, the sets, wardrobe, acting, and dialogue must all be of one period and type to suspend all disbelief and transport one into the story. If any of these items is obviously incongruous, it will be noticed as out of character and the "affect" of the movie will be disturbed. The intent of the impression to be conveyed will be lost and the overall feeling will be one of incompleteness.

If one thinks of primitive built environments, it may be recognized that these represent a lesser knowledge of technology and symbol of status in the global economy but would not be considered in bad taste. A teepee on the American plain, a pueblo in The Arizona Desert, or an igloo in Alaska, are recognized as primitive, and may have a culturally low value because they do not represent monetary success, but they are not un-beautiful. This is because their effect is perfectly congruous with their setting and historic association. No part of the work is out of place with any other. There is a synthesis of overall affect. It is now common to see the mixing of historic styles in one construction not employed because of any emotional connotation beyond symbolizing an ability to pay. An American Victorian house might be modified to include Tudor detailing at the gable, wood ornament implying stone coining at the corners, a Mediterranean-influenced tiling of porch walls, Modern door handles, and the Victorian form all at once. The effect is highly disturbing and incongruous.

Because craftsmanship, which encapsulates the traits of care and skill of the creator, is also inherently appreciated by people, when it is lacking due to the hand of the unskilled do-it-yourselfer, it adds to a feeling of disappointment. The overall affect of wasted effort is too often the end result, when sufficient design knowledge or construction skill is not available, even if good intention and expenditure are in abundance.

This anyone-can-do it attitude has, as well, led to an overall cultural devaluation of those truly knowledgeable in the design fields. Design ability is not particularly valued, except amongst those with the more discriminating tastes. Many design professionals are now valued simply for their professional licensure, required for construction permits by states and municipalities, and their ability to orchestrate the practical and technical aspects necessary to build things, with little regard for their knowledge and skill of design. If design was always carried out by these specialized knowledgeable individuals, the quality of the environment might be improved. However, this is today impractical because of the prohibitory cost for small home improvement projects. Typical home improvements are undertaken by the property owner by necessity. Because no training or extra capacity for quality appreciation has been given by the general education system, these do-it-yourselfers are left to fend for themselves. Some towns may have set up design review boards. However, most normally, the predominant decision makers on such review boards are politically motivated types who themselves suffer from a general lack of knowledge of the rationality of design. The opinions of untrained individuals on these boards are felt to be beneficial because of the overall lack of valuation of design logic by the community and expected out of design professionals. Much of this de-valuation has been self-inflicted by the lack of design rationality amongst professional designers and schools of design. One can better understand the disrespect for these design professionals, by such community review boards, if envisioning a board of clinical medicine, formed to evaluate possible patient treatment options, made up of three politicians, three neighbors, two business people, and a doctor.

Beyond design issues, the strengthening of perception can help to make use of common-sense to arrive at good decisions, which may be supported by science but does not require it. One item prevalent in the current consciousness which is argued increasingly under scientific terms without much help from a common-sense perspective is smoking. This is not to lessen the useful importance of scientific explanation, in explaining the harmful effects of smoking. However, many people have decided not to smoke purely through common-sense. They have observed that those who smoke may have: stained teeth and fingers, skin with a grey pallor, a voice which is less mellifluous; they may suffer from coughing, sniffling and wheezing, have hair that is graying, and the smell of cigarettes on their clothes. The appearance of those who smoke may appear aged compared to those who do not. Similarly, it can be understood, that the general inclination when surrounded by smoke is to avoid inhaling it as it makes breathing difficult. They may also observe that time and money can be saved and applied to other things if not spent on cigarettes. This is what is known as critical thinking. It does not necessarily need to be validated through science for one to be comfortable in a decision not to smoke. Science, however, can help reinforce that which is understood by common-sense decision making. For instance, science helps humans definitively understand longer term effects of smoking, such as lung cancer, and to know what is not readily sensed, such as the appearance of the lungs, heart, and tissues in individuals who smoke compared to those who do not.

One knows through common-sense that drinking bleach is bad. It will either kill or cause long term negative health. One could surmise that if bleach was poured into the water supply, the amount will be diluted but there will still be some harmful effect. Even if public opinion maintained, that because there is not a thorough scientific study on this subject, the negative effect can not be known, it can still be stated with certainty, that with greater trace amounts of bleach in the water supply greater harm would be done. The scientific study can help to reinforce what should be understood by common-sense and also provide the knowledge of what percentage of bleach becomes a serious health risk, in comparison with all environmental health risks and the life-span of the typical human-being, so that water testing can be an effective benefit to the community.

Common-sense may have, prior to the public availability of pictures of the Earth from space, led people to assume that the extent of the Earth was so large as to be infinite. The Earth appears large to the individual and can not be fully comprehended with either the eye or even a telescope held on the Earth. Its spherical shape cannot be appreciated by the naked eye and this fact adds to the appearance of an infinite extent, as no end can ever be seen from the vantage point of standing on the Earth. For this reason, the finite extent of the Earth could not previously be understood through common-sense. However, photographs are now commonly available which have made the fact of a spherical and finite Earth within the realm of common-sense. Over-optimists believe that the supply of food, water, and fossil fuels can be considered infinite. However, common-sense would say that the Earth is a finite body, with a finite land mass and finite amount of material, (controlling even in the ultimate amount of food which can be grown) so that all of these resources must be considered finite. Instead of accepting this, the general cultural consciousness believes we must wait for a conclusive scientific study to prove the finite reality of these resources.

The previous illustration is emblematic of a, perhaps mainly inadvertent, boost given to common-sense by advances in technology. The creation of devices which make available for perception evidence of the past is of great benefit. A perceivable record of evidence is more believable than a written or spoken historic record. We know that history and story-telling is subjective and prone to biased presentation and limitations of memory. This is why hard physical evidence, such as DNA, blood, and the murder weapon are the most conclusive in a court of law. Written histories are often refuted. However, perceivable evidence is hard to refute. Individual’s memories can certainly recognize the expansion of the man-made environment and sprawl into areas previously uninhabited, or of less-dense human habitation. Everyone has the sensation of having, in the past, more un-built environments close-by. This should be obviously perceivable by anyone in their lifetime. When one is presented with a photographic record of how the environment looked, it only helps to strengthen what they knew by memory. Old photographs of neighborhoods and cities can show what it looked like one hundred years ago or more and are good evidence of communicating what it really was like. The loss of natural environments and the advance of human activity can even be seen in old movies. When watching a movie known to be shot on location, it is interesting to see the changes that have occurred in extremely short amounts of time. From the driving scene in The Graduate, it is perceivable to notice the increased density along the California coast since the late 1960’s. Roman Holiday gives a look at what the automobile traffic of Rome was like in the 1950’s. Examples like this are available for anyone to perceive, in old television shows, films shot on location, documentaries, still photographs or old sound or visual documents, and help support or refute the environmental changes that are felt to have happened during, or prior to, one’s lifetime.

Human-beings do not only think rationally but also irrationally. Irrationality is most commonly known in the realm of dreams and surreal thought. Artistic expression can address that which is commonly-sensed by all humans, but can not be clearly articulated within the realms of the logic of matter-of-fact writing, or scientific reasoning. Some of devotional practice is involved in dealing with irrational concepts. However, art is the field which mainly deals with the realms of expressions of feeling and the irrational. Logic and rationality are applied to art in order to make feelings understandable to others. This is the part of art to which logical reasoning is involved. It is beyond the scope of this writing to address the field of art, only to maintain that the expression of feeling in the manner of art is an intrinsic necessity to the human. Regardless whether training or value is given to artistic expression, it will arise spontaneously as a more immediate method of conveying feeling. Art is a more direct method for conveying feeling than non-poetic writing for example or scientific equation.

The appreciation of quality of artistic expression would be classified in the realm of the commonly-sensed. As all people recognize emotional feeling and irrational thought, it would constitute what is generally sensed by the public. Attempts to apply the scientific method to art at the level of feeling, as apart from the logical rules of design helping to make the underlying feeling knowable to others, are unfounded. For instance, knowledge of music theory can help to facilitate the conveyance of an emotion, but is no help in the realm of initial feeling and its value to society. If feelings were relegated to science, their value to culture would be lost. The artistic conveyance of feeling occurs without prodding. The understanding of true artistic expression is unfortunately muddled by the profession of art whose purpose may simply be to present the articles of entertainment and amusement. Their truly artistic value is not necessarily directly proportional to the repute of museum or an award of distinction with which the work is associated.

Common-sense has its limitations. It does not help with what cannot be sensed. Things may be too large, such as the extent of the Universe, or too small, such as atomic matter, or perhaps beyond the limits of the human-senses. The realm of science and useful mythology can be affectively applied to things of this type. Science can create useful theories to explain common traits of differing natural phenomenon involving greater degree of abstract thinking. Long-term effects, difficult to discern without the passage of years, are often hard for humans to evaluate with common-sense as the human memory is often short and inaccurate and the lifetime is a mere blip relative to geologic time. However, for most, evidence that can be sensed will still be required to provide conclusive proof that a scientific theory is valid.

Common-sense is a skill which is cultivated. It is supported by the sharpening of the senses and perception. Its cultivation is essential to arrive at critical thinking. Both the sharpening of perception and the enhancing of critical thinking are enriched by education and deteriorated by mis-education and the delusions of over-optimism. The trait of open-mindedness can not be over-stressed in order for common-sense to be of value. The American society gives some lip-service to the open-mind. However, it mainly values a closed-mind manifested by the rigid point of view. For instance, politicians find it necessary to highlight that a resistance to change of mind is a positive characteristic of their personality. The political leader makes a point to not be seen to change his or her mind even in the face of new evidence. An alteration of course will be resisted at all costs. Change of mind is seen as a sign of weakness. It is true that often a stubborn stick-to-itiveness is necessary to accomplish a goal. This is the trait of persevering to see a task successfully completed. It is required to get through difficult situations. Giving-up is not regarded as a good trait. However, the stubbornness of point-of-view is confused in general culture for a value on disregarding new facts and not admitting miscalculation, even when acceptance would be of value to make the path toward success more direct. Some of the most influential world leaders openly changed their mind in regard to their point of view or promoted course of action for key issues. For example, Gandhi firmly believed he should constantly reevaluate his positions and look at them in a different light. He maintained the right to change his mind and was known to do so during his lifetime. This he believed was a sign of intelligence and critical thinking. To not ever change one’s mind would be either the sign of an extremely closed mind or an idiot. If wisdom is to be achieved, then learning by accessibility to new points of view must remain open. If a student was to constantly maintain that the two plus two equals five and be unwilling to change his mind, no matter what experts were called in to convince him otherwise, he would be considered a hopeless case. As well, a person at retirement, who has not changed his mind on any significant issue since grade school, should be considered an individual of dubious distinction indeed. However, our society continues to give high regard to this type of closed-minded pursuit. In the eulogizing of leaders, a member of an opposing party will stereotypically say that, although they did not agree with the basic principles or beliefs of the deceased, they always had a great respect for him because he stuck to his principles and fought relentlessly for what he believed in. He was not the type to be swayed by popular opinion and stood firm to his core ideologies throughout his career. This eulogy could just as easily be applied to history’s most fanatic dictators. The ability to change one’s mind should be recognized as a positive trait in the course of attaining the common goal of lessening suffering.

Notes

1. Webster’s Dictionary, New York: Gramercy Books, 1989, p.297.

2. Why Do Dogs Smile & Chimpanzees Cry, Documentary Movie, 1999. An overview of inherent emotional response is presented here.

3. From reading for ‘Plants and Civilization’ at Cornell University, 1987.

4. Robert M. Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry Into Values. Toronto/New York/London: Bantam Books, 1979. Refer to this book for an in depth investigation into quality.

5. The concept of design 'affect' was made clear to the author in a seminar by Jeffrey Kipnis, The Ohio State University, 1998.