Osaatko ajatella?

Koska olet viimeksi ajatellut? Siis oikeasti ajatellut eli ottanut aikaa ajattelulle tekemättä mitään muuta. Istunut, keskittynyt ja ajatellut. 

Me kuvittelemme ajattelevamme paljon, tekevämme oikein ajatustyötä, mutta todellisuudessa ajattelemme aivan liian vähän. Itse heräsin tähän todellisuuteen lukiessani Henry Hazlittin teosta Thinking as a Science. Luen ja kirjoitan paljon, mutta ajattelen liian usein vain pinnallisesti, en systemaattisesti ajan kanssa ja keskittyen. Liian usein ihminen tarttuu ensimmäiseen ajatukseen, eikä ratkaise ongelmia ajattelemalla systemaattisesti läpi vaihtoehtoja ja siten parantaen ratkaisujaan. Teemme ja touhuamme, mutta emme ajattele. 

Ajatteletko, oikeasti?

Mitä on ajattelu?

Mitä sitten on kyky ajatella? Se on kyky yhdistää asioita mielessä. Se on kykyä keskittyä. Se on järjestelmällistä ongelmien ratkaisemista mielen avulla. Mitä suurempi ja laajempi tieto- ja kokemuspohja, sitä suurempi "tietopankki" henkilöllä on ja sitä parempi on hänen kyky ratkaisujen löytämiseen monipuolisesti. Lopputuloksena on laajempi ratkaisuvalikoima. Asiaa voi kuvata siten, että tietopankki on ihmisen kovalevy. Toisilla on kovalevyllä tallennettuna enemmän tiedostoja kuin toisilla. Ajatteleminen on näiden tiedostojen hakemista kovalevyltä, tiedon prosessointia, ajatusten yhdistämistä ja uusien ajatusten eli ideoiden synnyttämistä.

Kannattaako lukeminen?

Lukeminen on hyödyllistä. "Lukeminen kannattaa aina" sanotaan. Lukeminen on toisten ajatuksiin tutustumista. Se on tietopankin täyttämistä tiedostoilla. Lukeminen saa usein ajattelemaan, mutta lukemisen vaarallisuus piilee siinä, että oma ajattelu lähtee liiaksi seuraamaan lainattuja ajatuspolkuja. Lukeminen voi lukittaa omaa ajattelua. Siispä tietyn tietotason jälkeen Hazlitt suosittelee lukemisen lopettamista tai ainakin rajoittamista ja saman ajan käyttämistä mielummin ajattelemiseen tai kirjoittamiseen. Hazlitt vaatii myös lukemisen suunnittelua ja varoittaa lukemisen vaaroista. Olet sitä mitä luet, joten huonojen kirjojen lukeminen on sekä ajanhukkaa että suuremmassa määrin saastuttaa omaa ajatteluasi. Mieti siis mitä luet. 

Kannattaako kirjoittaminen?

Kirjoittaminen on hyvä tapa prosessoida ajatuksia. Kirjoittaminen tekee ajatukset näkyviksi ja antaa niille muodon. Kirjoittaminen myös dokumentoi ajatukset, jolloin niihin on helpompi myöhemmin palata. Mutta kirjoittaminen myös rajoittaa. Se on usein hidasta ja kaavamaista. Kirjoittaessa joutuu keskittymään enemmän muotoiluun ja sanojen valintaan, mikä on pois lennokkaalta ajatuksenjuoksulta. Siispä toisinaan on kirjoittamisen sijasta hyvä vaikka puhua nauhurille. Puhua ajatukset auki. Antaa ajatusten tulla. Pölistä.

Lue Henry Hazlittin Thinkin As a Science ja ota aikaa ajattelulle!

Hazlittin kirja on täydellinen ajatustenherättäjä. Se muuttaa omaa tapaasi ajatella ja lukea. Se pakottaa ajattelemaan. Lue se niin ymmärrät! Kirjan voi ladata ilmaiseksi PDF-muodossa tai tilata täältä Mises Insituutin sivuilta.

Minulle tämä kirja oli toistaiseksi kaikkein inspiroivin lukukokemus eikä ideoiden pulppuamisesta meinannut tulla lukemisen aikana loppua. Kirjani sivut ovat täynnä lukiessa syntyneitä ajatuksia ja ratkaisuja moniin alitajuntaisiin ongelmiin. Otin myös kirjasta opiksi: aiemmin luin kaikki junamatkat, nykyisin käytän matkasta puolituntia tai tunnin pelkästään ajatteluun. Katson junan ikkunasta ulos, pidän muistivihkon esillä ja keskityn ajattelemaan ratkaisuja esille nousseisiin ongelmiin. Tämän seurauksena ratkaisuni ovat ainakin omasta mielestäni parantuneet. Usein lopputuloksena on toimintatapa, joka ei alkuun tullut mieleenikään. Toisinaan tämän prosessin jälkeen huomaa, kuinka ideat tai ratkaisut syntyvät yön aikana alitajunnassa ja aamulla asian voi kirjoittaa paperille ratkaistuna. Suosittelen kokeilemaan!

Poimintoja

• When I use the word thinking, I mean thinking with a purpose, with an end in view, thinking to solve a problem.
• I beg no one to get frightened. Science does not necessarily mean test tubes and telescopes. I mean science in its broadest sense; and in this sense it means nothing more than organized knowledge.
• For our purposes, all sciences may be divided into two kinds: positive and normative. A positive science investigates the nature of things as they are. It deals simply with matters of fact. Such a science is physics, chemistry, psychology. A normative science is one which studies things as they ought to be. As the name implies, it seeks to establish a norm or pattern which ought to be adhered to. It studies means of reaching desired ends. To this class belong such sciences as ethics, education, agriculture.
• I object to the term "art" to designate any set of organized rules for doing a thing, because "art" also means the actual doing of that thing. And this thing may be done, and often is done, in total ignorance of the rules governing it. A man may possess the art of swimming—he may be able to swim— without any previous instruction, without any knowledge of how he ought to hold his body, arms and legs; just as a dog may do the same thing.
• The science of thinking, then, if such a science there be, is normative. Its purpose is to find those methods which will help us to think constructively and correctly.
• Before considering methods of thinking, however, it would be well to ask ourselves what thinking is. As stated before, the term is loosely used to cover a wide range of mental processes. These processes we may roughly divide into memory, imagination and reasoning. By "thinking" I mean reasoning.
• Modern psychologists tell us that all reasoning begins in perplexity, hesitation, doubt. "The process of reasoning is one of problem solving. . . . The occasion for the reasoning is always a thwarted purpose.' It is essential we keep this in mind. It differs from the popular conception even more than may appear at first sight. If a ma/n were to know everything he could not think. Nothing would ever puzzle him, his purposes would never be thwarted, he would never experience perplexity or doubt, he would have no problems. If we are to conceive of God as an All-Knower, we cannot conceive of Him as a Thinking Being. Thinking is reserved for beings of finite intelligence.
• We cannot think on " general principles. " To try this is like attempting to chew laughing gas. To think at all requires a purpose, no matter how vague. The best thinking, however, requires a definite purpose, and the more definite this purpose the more definite will be our thinking. Therefore in taking up any special line of thought, we must first find just what our end or purpose is, and thus get clearly in mind what our problems are.
• Our first step, then, is to get our problem or problems clearly in mind, and to state them as definitely as possible. A problem properly stated is a problem partly solved.
• Our next move was to classify. This is essential not only to systematic reasoning but to thinking of any kind. Classification is the process of grouping objects according to common qualities. But as almost all objects differ in some qualities and almost all have some qualities in common, it follows that, contrary to common belief, there is no one classification absolutely essential to any group of objects.
• One method applicable to almost all problems is what we may call either the deductive or the a priori method. This method reaches a conclusion without observation or experiment. It consists in reasoning from previous experience or from established principles to particular facts.
• And now we come to a whole host of effective methods, all of which may be classed as comparative. The comparative method is as old as thought itself, but it is strange that even scientists did not begin to use it consciously and consistently until almost the present generation. Nowhere is it better illustrated than in modern psychology. Most of the so-called branches of psychology are merely different forms of the comparative method of treatment " Abnormal psychology" is merely a comparison of abnormal mental types with normal mental types for the light they throw on each other. And none of these methods is of any value except in so far as it makes use of comparison.
• Often consciously used in the consideration of problems is the so-called historical method. This method, as its name implies, consists in obtaining knowledge of a thing by considering its past record. The word history is popularly used in so narrow a sense, however, being restricted only to the history of nations, and often merely to the political history of nations, that we can avoid confusion by calling this method the evolutionary. In the final analysis the method is comparative, for it really consists in comparing a thing at one period of development with itself at another period.
• Nowhere is the evolutionary method more strikingly seen than in biology. Since Darwin's great theory was promulgated the science has gone forward by leaps and bounds. We have derived untold benefit from a comparison of man and animals in the light of this hypothesis; even study of the development of individual man has been aided. The discovery of the fact of evolution constituted an incalculable advance, but the method for study which it furnished was of even greater importance.
• We are often exhorted to "observe." Presumably we are to do this '' on general principles. " Such advice is about as foolish as asking us to think on general principles. The absurdity is obvious. If we started out merely to observe, with no definite purpose in mind, we could keep it up forever. And get nowhere. Nine out of every ten observations would never be put to use. We would be sinfully wasting our time. To observe most profitably, just as to think most profitably, we must have a definite purpose. This purpose must be to test the truth of a supposition.
• The suggestions or suppositions are tested by observation, memory, experiment. Supposition and observation alternate.
• We are often aided in the solution of a problem by asking its opposite.
• The method of analogy likewise encourages suggestions. Analogy consists in noting certain likenesses between things, and assuming that they also possess other common qualities.
• Empirical observation. Empirical, at least for our present purposes, means merely that which comes within experience. But the term is generally opposed to scientific. This, however, is not what I mean to imply by the term empirical observation. I mean rather thinking on the basis merely of facts which occur in the natural course of events, which have not been systematically produced by ourselves or others for the purpose of solving a problem. Logicians usually call this method simply observation, and oppose it to experiment. But I object to calling this simply observation because experiment itself is really observation, only in one case we observe merely events which happen to occur, and in the other we observe the results of events which we have made occur. The true way of distinguishing these two methods would be to call one empirical observation, and the other experimental observation. This empirical method—if indeed I am justified in calling it a method—is the most common in all thinking.
• Empirical observation is used where experiment is impossible—often, unfortunately, where experiment is merely inconvenient. But valuable as empirical observation is, and often as we must use it, it should never be employed when we can experiment. When the empirical method is rightly used allowance always has to be made for certain irrelevant factors. But "making allowances" is always sheer guess work. The experimental method consists not in making allowances for certain factors,but in eliminating those factors.
• To make the experiment of any use we should first take two groups of pupils—the 
  larger the better. For it is obvious that if we take a great number of pupils and place them 
  in two groups the differences between the individuals will tend to offset one another.
• The experimental method has been well summed up by Thomson and Tait in their Nat
  ural Philosophy: "In all cases when a particular agent or  cause is to be studied, experiments should be arranged in such a way as to lead if possible to results depending on it alone; or, if this can- not be done, they should be arranged so as to increase the effects due to the cause to be studied till these so far exceed the unavoidable concomitants, that the latter may be considered as only disturbing, not essentially modifying the effects of the principal agent.''
• Every problem should be dealt with as many methods as possible. 
• 
  
  
  

  John Stuart Mill, in an essay on Jeremy Bentham, pointed out that the secret of the lat
  ter's strength and originality of thought lay in his method, which "may be shortly described as the method of detail; of treating wholes by separating them into their parts, abstractions by resolving them into things,—classes and generalities by distinguishing them into the individuals of which they are made up; and breaking every question into pieces before attempting to solve it."
• 
  
  
  

  Knowledge furnishes problems, and the discovery of problems itself constitutes an intellectual advance.
• 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

  Method is essential to good thinking. 
• 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

  The two most prominent errors made in classifying are (1) not making classifications mutually exclusive, (2) not making them cover all the objects or phenomena supposed to be classified.
• 
  
  
  
  Consider the classification of constructive methods into comparison,  observation, and experiment. It is apparent that these methods overlap. We cannot compare without observing, much of our observation involves comparison, when we experiment we 
  must of course observe the results obtained, and the results are usually always compared. All three methods could be classed under observation.
• We cannot overlook the excellent counsel of Blaise Pascal. He urges that we not only define our terms, but that whenever we use them we mentally substitute the defini
  tion.
• The quickest way to detect error in analogy is to carry it out as far as it will go—and fur
  ther. Every analogy will break down somewhere. Any analogy if carried out far enough becomes absurd.
• And in thinking, when we leave one method and take up another, we should try to forget entirely the first conclusion and begin on the problem as if we had never taken it up before. After we have taken up all the applicable methods, then, and then only, should we begin to compare conclusions.
• If the deductive method is to be checked up by experiment, and the results of the experiment are always to be taken, why not experiment first, and omit theory altogether? Leaving aside the fact that theory is the best guide for experiment—that were it not for theory and the problems and hypotheses that come out of it, we would not know the points we wanted to verify, and hence would experiment aimlessly—a more serious objection is that experiment is seldom if ever perfect, for it nearly always involves some unverified assumption. 
• Experiment and deduction are not the only methods which can be checked up against each other. We can do likewise with the comparative and the experimental, the historical and the theoretical—in fact, all viewpoints applicable to any one problem.
• What is essential is that all suggestions be tested out, either by memory, observation or experiment, in all their implications, and that the tendency be resisted to accept the first solution that suggests itself.
• Thomas A. Edison says he always rejects an easy solution of any problem and looks for something difficult. But the inventor has one great advantage over any other kind of thinker. He can test his conclusion in a tangible way. If his device works, his thinking was right; if his device doesn't work, his thinking was wrong. But the philosopher, the scientist, the social reformer, has no such satisfactory test. His only satisfaction is the feeling that his results harmonize with all his experience.
• The science can receive justice only in a book devoted entirely to it.
• What is the hardest task in the world? To think. —EMERSON.
• Few people will admit specific faults in themselves of any kind, especially if these happen to be intellectual.
• Any train of thought is made possible by previous connections of ideas in our minds. 
• No thought can enter our minds unless it is associated in some way with the previous thought. Psychologists have traditionally classified associations into four kinds: association by succession, by contiguity, by similarity and by contrast.
• Any attempt to show why the mind acts in this way, any explanation of the way in which the different kinds of association are made possible, would bring us into physiological psychology, would involve a study of the brain and the nervous system. For our purposes it is sufficient to keep in mind that such associations do take place. Without them no idea can occur. Without them thought is impossible.
• But when we are thinking with a purpose, in a word, when we are reasoning, we reject all associations which have no bearing on our purpose, and select only those which serve it.
• Concentration does not, as popularly supposed, mean keeping the mind fastened on one object or idea or in one place. It consists in having a problem or purpose constantly before one. It means keeping our thought moving toward one desired end. Concentration is often regarded as intense or focused attention. But the fact is that all attention is focused attention. Psychologists are fairly well agreed that we can attend to only one thing at a time. Mind wandering, and so called distributed attention, is really attention directed first to one thing, then to another, then to another; or first to one thing, then to another, and then back again to the original object, resting but a few moments on each idea.
• Concentration may best be denned as prolonged or sustained attention. It means keeping the mind on one subject or problem for a relatively long period, or at least continually reverting to some problem whenever one's thoughts momentarily leave it.
• But if most men were so convinced that concentration is such an unquestionable virtue, they would practice it a little more. At least they would make greater efforts to practice it than they do at present. The truth is that concentration, per se, is of little value. The value of concentration depends almost entirely on the subject concentrated on.
• But if you immediately abandoned every problem you started to think of, whenever you came across one which you imagined was just as important, you would probably never really solve any big question.
• Our attention is guided by interest. If a man merely allows his thoughts to flow at random, thinking only of those things which spontaneously arouse his interest, he may or may not attend to things worth thinking about. All will depend upon the path in which his natural interests run.
• The brain has no hidden mechanism by which it can separate the true from the false. To be sure, if we use no effort the most usual and strongest associations will be more likely to assert themselves, and it may be that often these will have more warrant than unusual and weaker associations. Outside of this, there is no superiority.
• As an experiment, then, the next time you come across a puzzle which you fail to solve at first tilt, write down all the unsatisfactory solutions suggested, and all the questions, difficulties and objections met with. You may leave this for a few weeks. When you return to it a few of the difficulties will look less formidable, and some of the questions will have practically answered themselves.
• It has been frequently said that many of the world's greatest inventions were due to accident. In a sense this is true. But the accident was prepared for by previous hard thinking. It would never have occurred had not this thinking taken place. It is said that the idea of gravitation came to Newton because an apple fell on his head. Perhaps. But apples had been falling ever since there were apple trees…
• Our subject is prejudice. Our object is to free ourselves as much as possible from our own prejudices…. Prejudice is often confused with intolerance. They are not the same. … The fact that a man is unprejudiced does not make his opinion right. And the fact that a man is prejudiced does not necessarily make his opinion wrong; though it must be admitted that if it is right it will be so only by accident.
• We desire an opinion to be right because we would be personally benefited if it were. Another reason why we desire an opinion to be right is because we already happen to hold it. ...To reverse an opinion is to confess that we were previously wrong. 
• The hypothesis maker has a specific form of fear of inconsistency.... The desire to prove hypothesis correct, simply because it is our hypothesis, or because it is a fascinating hypothesis. 
• An opinion is a habit of thought. 
• It is well known that the opinions of a man over forty are pretty well set. 
• We agree with others, we adopt the same opinions of the people around us, because we fear to disagree. ... Just as with fashions in clothes there are people who strive to imitate others, so there are people who devote themselves entirely to being "different."
• If you make originality and radicalness your aim, you will attain neither truth nor originality. But if you make truth your aim you will very likely get truth, and originality will come of itself.
• The distinguishing mark of the great thinkers of the ages was their comparative freedom from the prejudices of their time and community. In order to avoid these prejudices one must be constantly and uncompromisingly sounding his own opinions. Eternal vigilance is the price of an open mind.
• We think in order to have opinions. We have opinions in order to guide action; in order to act upon should occasion require.
• The doubtful attitude should be maintained only so long as you are actively searching for evidence bearing on a question. Maintained at any other time or used in any other way it means merely uncertainty, indefiniteness, vagueness, and leads nowhere.
• Next to being right in this world, the best of all things is to be clearly and definitely wrong, because you will come out somewhere. If you go buzzing about between right and wrong, vibrating and fluctuating, you come out nowhere; but if you are absolutely and thoroughly and persistently wrong, you must, some of these days, have the extreme good fortune of knocking your head against a fact, and that sets you all straight again
• Any decision would be better than no decision. 
• A good book should be read over and over again; and the art of reading is the art of skipping.
• Many learned men have read themselves into dreamy stupidity; men who know what everybody else thought, but who never have any thoughts of their own.
• Learning to think by reading is like learning to draw by tracing. … No man will ever become a great thinker by reading. It can never become a substitute for thought. At best, as John Locke says, "Reading furnishes the mind only with materials of knowledge, it is thinking makes what we read ours.
• The safest way to have no thoughts of one's own is to take up a book every moment one has nothing else to do. ...A man should read only when his thoughts stagnate at their source, which will happen often enough even with the best of minds. On the other hand, to take up a book for the purpose of scaring away one's own original thoughts is a sin against the Holy Spirit. It is like running away from Nature to look at a museum of dried plants, or gaze at a landscape in copperplate.
• A science is nothing more than the organized solution of a number of related problems.
• In mathematics, to understand is to agree.
• Every large subject has gathered about it a vast literature, more than one man can ever hope to cover completely. This literature may be said to consist wholly of two things: information as to facts, and opinions on those facts.
• The wording is never the thought. Strictly speaking, "thought" is something which can exist only in the mind. It can never be transferred to paper. ...The fact is that words, though they are not thought, are the associates of thought. 
• The more knowledge a man has the more problems he will have. 
• The best practice for boxing is boxing. The best practice for solving important questions is solving important questions. 
• We should plan our reading. If you cannot keep a list of books you intend to read, at least keep a list of books you have read. We should plan not only with regard to topics and subjects, but with regard to authors. Whether consciously or not, we tend to imitate the authors we read. This emphasizes the importance of reading the best books, and only the best books. Books are like your nutrition. 
• To quote Arnold Bennett: "Unless and until a man has formed a scheme of knowledge, be it but a mere skeleton, his reading must necessarily be unphilosophical. He must have attained to some notion of the interrelations of the various branches of knowledge before he can properly comprehend the branch of knowledge in which he specializes."
• Lay out some definite end, some big objective, to be attained; and before reading a book we should ask how that helps us to attain it.
• To think and act differently, merely for the sake of being different, is unprofitable and dangerous, all questions of ethics aside.
• To now is one thing; to do another. We do not act according to knowledge; we act according to habit. Knowledge used does not need to be remembered; practice forms habits and habits make memory unnecessary. The rule is nothing: the application is everything.