The Paucity of Critical Thinkers

I wish I had spent a lot more time studying history (anthropological history to be exact). If I had, then maybe – just maybe – I could better understand whether my generation’s inability to, or disinclination for, engaging in critical thought is an historical aberration, par for the course or something in between. I just don’t know.

When I read American history I get the sense that the public (or at least the propertied class) in the 17^th and 18^th centuries had a much deeper understanding of their world -- politically, economically and culturally. They somehow seemed smarter, cognitively more developed than us. For example, the Federalist Papers (generally rich, provocative and well-reasoned essays) were published in the newspapers and pamphlets and widely read. They actually swayed public opinion on grave issues through serious intellectual engagement. I can't imagine that happening in this generation.  Now, regrettably, it’s mostly oft-repeated sound bites and pundit hooks that pass as evidence of time spent critically thinking about anything, but especially in our political, economic and culture discourse. And here I’m not referring to the “unlearned” classes. Among today’s professional class (save, perhaps, the academics), hundreds of whom I know personally, the percentage of folks who engage intellectually critically in the times’ most important issues is inconsiderable.

The early citizens of the nation also seemed to have a greater appreciation for their collective well being, which is not surprising given how the nation was spawned and the real threats posed by its youth and inexperience as a new nation. So in this sense, maybe people then were more engaged because they discerned a more vested interest in doing so than perhaps is the general contemporary conviction? I wonder.

I have spent the last decade and a half deeply interwoven among the “learned” class (at least they are on paper) and while my experience is anecdotal, I hardly suspect that it is an anomaly. The question I yearn to understand is “why?”

Some Preliminary Thoughts

While I have not examined this issue at great length, I suspect in part it has to do with at least two key phenomena. First, the gradual development of part of our collective (and false) identity as a nation of free-marketers, putatively based on Adam Smith-derived economic principles, has led to mass avariciousness and steadily increasing overconsumption. Second, we have subtly transformed from knowledge producers into information receivers. Both of these factors, combined with others not addressed here, I believe have served as disincentives to engaging in critical thinking for many. Let me explain.

The American Identity

Adam Smith is revered in America, and rightly so. In large part, however, we have misunderstood Smith. Conventional American wisdom recognizes Smith as the father of modern economics, and by extension, American capitalism. To be sure, Smith investigated important concepts in what we now call economic theory and was an advocate for “genuine” free-market principles (not the state-sponsored private profit centers that dominate our economy and masquerade as captains of capitalism)[1]. However, his greatest work and ideas, which are in the area of moral philosophy, predated and buttressed his populist-oriented free market advocacy, as expressed in both The Theory of Moral Sentiments and An Inquiry into The Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations.

Because the American psyche has conflated and confused Smith’s concept of  “the invisible hand” (which, tellingly, first appeared in The Theory of Moral Sentiments as opposed to The Wealth of Nations) with a narrower concept included therein – serving one’s own best interest – we have ultimately missed his greater philosophical point.

Succinctly, Smith argued that (1) all humans seek self-gratification; (2) the optimal way to obtain such gratification is through exchange with other humans; (3) the product of such exchanges accrue to the betterment of all; and (4) because of the utility of these exchanges, systems (including government) should promote such exchanges (i.e., free trade).

The key to really understanding Smith’s argument, at least as I see it, is to understand that point (2) above is not limited to the exchange of goods and services, as is commonly misunderstood, but rather encompasses ALL exchanges (e.g., gifts, favors, sympathy, etc.). One of the consequences of not appreciating the breadth and depth of point (2) has been the gradual formation of a national political and economic worldview wherein the attainment of material goods and money through the pursuit of one’s self-interest is justified by the putative sanction of Smith’s doctrine. Given this backdrop, it becomes easy to see how this worldview (combined with, and fostered by, other flawed notions of capitalism that I won’t address here) leads to avariciousness, overconsumption and, by extension, inadequate compassion for the well being of others.

Knowledge Production vs. Information Receipt

My thinking on this topic is even more underdeveloped than that of the preceding.

In summary, my sense is that the earliest American generations were much more actively engaged in trying to understand the world around them and their place in it than the last few generations have been. My hypothesis is that, in large part, this is due to a combination of technological advancements and the perceived station of the U.S. as the preeminent geopolitical power. Prior to the advent of what is now commonplace telecommunications media (i.e., TV, radio, Internet, etc.), people spent a lot more time reading, writing, studying the human condition and examining nature (e.g., consider the early American influence on the natural and social sciences in juxtaposition to the more recent significant contributions from foreign leaders of field (and the corresponding lack thereof from contemporary Americans)). In other words, they lived a life of the mind much more so than is common today. It appears that to a substantial degree the American masses reached a psychological tipping point that has descended from a focus on (a) knowledge pursuit and production to (b) enjoying the fruits of past generations’ intellectual labor and the fortuitousness of our birth timings through consumption of goods, services and information, irrespective of the quality of such information.

Perhaps this is the human cycle. I just wish I had spent a lot more time studying history.

---

[1] Here I am not referring to the recent bailouts and stimulus plans, but rather the nation’s long, tacit history of public spending on major research and development initiatives, primarily funded through the federal budget (e.g., the Internet was developed through federal monies provided to institutions like MIT and Carnegie Mellon and later privatized; many pharmaceutical products are the result of research insights gained in public university labs through hundreds of billions of dollars in NIH and other federal grants; much of aerospace and automotive development was sponsored by the Department of Defense and later privatized, and so on and so on).