Intro to Extralogical Reasoning 2: Knowledge (alone) isn't Power

Contrary to common “wisdom,” knowledge isn’t power—only knowledge supported by wisdom and understanding.

Extralogical reasoning’s primary axiom: No set of concepts and models of reality, yourself, or other people can possibly be so powerful they nullify the need for good observation, fact-gathering, logical analysis, and good management of your own thinking and psychology. In other words, active critical thinking and thinking and decision-making wisdom are more important than knowledge. Even if this isn’t always the case--given the World’s evolved to accommodate smart’s people’s comparative lack of wisdom--it remains the more useful belief, or belief POLICY. 

In the Information Age, few distinguish between KNOWING about something and actually UNDERSTANDING it. Knowing means knowing the parts/facts; understanding means knowing how they FIT IN WITH EACH OTHER; PROFICIENCY means knowing what to do with them (which often requires knowing how they fit in with OTHER facts); and WISDOM is KNOWING WHAT THEY ALL ARE (including how they fit in with each other). More specifically, wisdom is a measure of one’s understanding of the foundational nature of knowledge, thinking, and decision-making. Naturally, knowing the facts without a corresponding sense of how they fit together makes knowledge prone to misapplication, especially if someone doesn’t know what knowledge is or how to use it in the first place (here I’m using knowledge in the EXCLUSIVE sense, meaning fact-based knowledge that’s more substantial than information but doesn’t necessarily reflect genuine understanding). Even if you have some degree of genuine understanding, merely having a level of familiarity that vastly exceeds it can, likewise, be dangerous. It becomes more dangerous still if your CONFIDENCE exceeds your understanding. Hubris is more dangerous than ignorance. 

Knowing always precedes understanding, but understanding doesn’t follow from it as readily as many would prefer to believe. Just because B is always preceded by A doesn’t necessarily mean B AUTOMATICALLY follows from it (extralogical reasoning calls this the precursor fallacy). Equally few appreciate how easy it is to overestimate one’s understanding. Knowing important parts can easily trick someone into extrapolating a very false whole. It’s very easy to mistake a piece of knowledge for the whole picture, especially given the most common source of information—other people. This is due both to the cognitive tendency to jump to conclusions, and the artificial sense of confidence that often accompanies acquiring new information. There's nothing unusual about a person incapable of learning one fact without making up another three. 

Extralogical reasoning’s primary rivals are the knowledge idolators, those who worship knowledge to the extent to which they lose sight of its relevance and applicability. Worshiping knowledge, as opposed to respecting it and treating it as important, not only leads to an excessive attachment and reliance on the SPECIFIC PIECES of knowledge they worship, but also on preferred and preconceived notions IN GENERAL. Yes, over-relying on such things is a universal flaw—which is exactly why a reasoning methodology needs to bend over backwards to not make it worse. Extralogical reasoning axiom: Just because a problem can’t cured doesn’t necessarily mean it can’t be lessened or compensated for or managed, and it can certainly be made WORSE--and ultimately, the only standard in life that really matters is how you compare to your own personal potential, not other people.

Intellectually, most knowledge idolaters would probably agree that wisdom and critical thinking are more important, and many aren’t entirely devoid of them, either. But even if you believe they're more important, because most of your knowledge set (knowledge in the INCLUSIVE sense, including everything from data to wisdom) will be dominated by more tangible, fact-based knowledge, the inexorable result of idolizing knowledge in general will be to deemphasize wisdom and active critical-thinking.

Extralogical reasoning maxim: The more powerful a belief/piece of knowledge and the more pride someone takes in possessing it, the more the knowledge/belief will come to influence their thinking and bias their models of reality. A belief is by definition a prejudice, and a prejudice is by definition a bias. This doesn’t mean that someone can’t get a net gain from acquiring knowledge—but not if the resulting biases are poorly managed. Counterintuitive though it may seem, at least in some ways, learned people need extralogical reasoning more, not less.    

Like common “wisdom,” knowledge idolatry is an almost entirely “strength-based” approach to thinking and takes little account for individual and universal weaknesses. As mentioned in part one (and will be the focus of part three), ninety percent of the human thinking organ (HTO) is primitive, unconscious, and self-inconsistent; and the remaining ten percent, the new and conscious portions, was designed for SURVIVAL in a far simpler environment in a process that followed the path of least resistance and could only reliably build traits that were “just good enough.” Extralogical reasoning is designed to educate its users on the flaws of the HTO and build a working reasoning philosophy that actively compensates and manages it. The HTO is preprogrammed to over-rely on prepackaged knowledge and assumptions. Evolution established the benefits of prepackaged knowledge and, following the path of least resistance, engineered the HTO to over-rely on it. Thus, it’s almost impossible NOT to over-rely on them—your HTO doesn’t need any more help to use them. Unlike extralogical reasoners, knowledge idolators employ reasoning methodologies that not only fail to account for universal flaws, but are designed to make them WORSE.  
 
The result is “pet explanations” and a lack of appreciation for context-based thinking and decision-making. When giving advice, knowledge idolators usually try to make a b-line for getting whatever information will justify the invocation of one of their pet explanations, and if that fails, they default to simple-minded cliches. Any data that can't be explained in familiar terms is treated as nonexistent (this relates to what extralogical reasoning calls "the phenomenological fallacy"). The importance of mundane specifics, however mundane, should not be underestimated, and having idolized prepackaged knowledge tends to obscure their significance. 

Academia’s preference for “well-rounded” students over the past few decades is a manifestation and promulgation of knowledge idolatry. The well-roundedness they THINK they’re referring to isn’t broad learning in itself so much as an understanding of what knowledge is and how to use it that' comes, among other things, FROM broad learning. Enlightenment isn't acquired from the CONTENT of one's studies, but from comprehending its "spirt" or "philosophical essence"--and it's much easier to learn the former without the latter than generally assumed. While school (if you go about it right) can greatly polish and enhance such learning, it can’t deliver the foundation; this comes from autodidactic or “discovery-based” learning. 

Discovering something for yourself is the "purest" form of learning. Only under certain circumstances can people engage in thinking that isn't premised on confirming what they already believe (see the works of Johnathon Haidt). This is sometimes called "confirmatory thinking." "Exploratory thinking," the opposite, can only be performed when one doesn't have the answer or at least seriously doubts their best guess (counter-arguing and studying different thought processes, however beneficial, are not the same thing). Only in these cases can one truly explore a topic. In didactic learning, you begin your attempt to comprehend the answers already assuming they're true, making the process circular and less exploratory. Wisdom requires knowing what knowledge and learning are, and you can't fully appreicate what they are without experience in the most fruitful form of inquiry.   

Extralogical reasoning axiom: People (including teachers and school) can HELP you become enlightened in all kinds of ways, but in the end, enlightenment is something that you have to discover for yourself.  

Becoming enlightened requires SUBJECTIVE and ACTIVE learning, learning intended to develop one’s own ideas and intuitions through a type of unconstrained reflection that is hard to perform during the grind of taking classes. While autodidactic learning provides the highest QUALITY learning, it can be a slower and less corrective learning process, often leaving people with less TOTAL learning and bigger holes in their understandings if they over-rely on it. School is based on more OBJECTIVE and PASSIVE learning and can complement autodidactic learning quite well, but like everything else, it’s only useful for WHAT IT IS--not more than it is, not less, and not for something other than what it is.

It is a scientific fact that thinking and, especially, decision-making have stronger psychological components than most people think. This is why you must condition your psychology appropriately, which includes not conditionally it INAPPROPRIATELY. When you engage in a type of learning or analysis, you don't just cultivate a type of knowledge, but a MINDSET, as well. This affects how you think, make decisions, problem-solve, and apply knowledge--both in general and especially, of course, in the relevant areas.  

Too much passive learning is intellectually emasculating--just as too much theoretical learning can be "intellectually distracting." In other words, too much passive learning can lead to passive THINKING, causing students to over-rely on teaching and neglect the use and development of their intuition. Prudence demands university students take measures to avoid confusion and ruts during semester, and this inhibits exploration of topics and forces them to rely on the faster and more reliable method of passive learning. Rampant self-doubt, as my mentor called it, and the process of getting out of it is an essential part of the road to understanding and enlightenment--a road that must be avoided in an undergraduate learning environment. 

  

As briefly discussed in the last post, school tends to force students to have opinions and explanations that possibly NO ONE should have or attempt to give. The "How does it affect the World today" assignment obliges them to fit the "World," often as many as CENTURIES after the fact, into a ludicrously simplified box, cultivating gross misconceptions about how the World works. Even if the time frame where much shorter and the topic more rigorously researched, as in the case of journalists and historians reporting on the past fifty years, the narrative would still have to imparted with an artificial causality to make it followable. What Nassim Taleb calls the "narrative fallacy" refers to the need to weave cause and effect into narratives, which always makes non-fiction reading, especially newspaper articles, at least a little misleading. 

To their credit, many knowledge idolaters are autodidactic learners, but while they may discover many things for themselves, discovering what human beings are isn’t one of them.

Nowhere is knowledge idolatry and strength-based thinking more pervasive and inappropriate than in the mental health field. Though the principles and methods of such a highly complex field could never be intellectually pure, psychiatric diagnoses are the epitome of pet explanations. One would think, however, that given how much they and related fields have discovered about the universal flaws in human thinking, they might consider incorporating the management of the inherent flaws in the DOCTORS’ THINKING into their methods. This is not to say that the field’s practitioners lack genuine humility, but little of it is INTELLIGENT humility—the ACTIVE use of humility to intelligently deal with his/her weaknesses. The lack of it illustrates the prevalence of knowledge idolatry and how much easier it is to change people’s beliefs and knowledge than their general perspectives.         

There are reasons other than practicality and enlightenment why people pursue knowledge, and they aren’t limited to the need to put faith in something greater and outside of themselves.

Oftentimes, it seems knowledge idolaters want to have strong opinions more than being correct. Extralogical reasoning is more accepting of this desire than you might think. Both knowledge idolatry and extralogical reasoning have many religious attributes (my LE&SOI Deism IS a religion). Everyone, including extralogical reasoners, has these psychological needs in one form or another. Extralogical reasoning does not criticize people for being who they are—only for not recognizing and managing it appropriately. And extralogical reasoning provides a much more effective and mature way of dealing with it.         

A means to an end can become an end in itself. Extralogical reasoning (and life engineering) calls this an Inversion. If a certain type of external behavior becomes important enough for a species’ survival, there’s a good chance evolution will select for an INTERNAL desire to engage in it, which often persists in the absence of an external need. A good example is social interaction. Having social skills and inclinations have allowed numerous species to form and maintain packs to increase their individual and collective fitness, but the need for it became strong enough that humans, for example, require social interaction for their mental well-being regardless of how relevant it is to their actual survival.  

Learning played a central role in mammalian evolution, as well. Naturally, it wasn’t enough to simply make species smart enough to learn; they had to be endowed with a PENCHANT for it. What’s been called “the power process” is another Inversion (see Ted Kaczynski's "Industrial Society and its Future"). This is the psychological process people must undergo in order to feel like they are doing, and GOOD at doing, what’s necessary to survive. Obviously, having an internal desire to convince yourself you’re good at surviving is useful if your biological imperative IS to survive. Today, since survival is all but guaranteed, people pursue the power process through “surrogate activities.” Sports and all forms of learning are common and healthy surrogate activities.

But so isn’t extralogical reasoning. As mentioned in the last post, there are many reasons why it’s advisable to be selective about what opinions you decide to have. When you put the bulk of your pride, convictions, and faith into your beliefs ABOUT beliefs, your knowledge of knowledge, your understanding of understanding, and your thinking about thinking—it becomes easier to be more objective about everything else.

Extralogical reasoning is based on a combination of informed ignorance and intelligent humility. It builds confidence in the only thing that can bring true confidence: healthy acceptance--including, among other things, the acceptance of one’s weaknesses, vulnerabilities, and limitations. Extralogical reasoning is a vastly superior surrogate activity than any that could ever be employed by knowledge idolators.

And if you put a little more work into it and exercise a modicum of patience, it’s better at impressing anyone worth impressing, too, including the better of the knowledge idolaters. Like everything else about knowledge idolatry, the idea that’s it a better surrogate activity and superior means of impressing people is the product of short-sighted and sophomoric thinking.   

The benefits of knowledge promulgated by knowledge idolaters aren’t necessarily invalid: What’s folly is the fact they think that’s all there is TO SAY about it. Like common wisdom, the problem isn’t so much WHAT they say so much as HOW they say it and what they DON’T SAY—and, therefore, what they IMPLY. They treat the benefits of learning as much more guaranteed or readily realized than they actually are, discouraging context-based thinking and decision-making and management of flaws. Similar to everyone else, they have too much of a tendency to view something at complete face value without seeing how it fits in with the bigger picture. They find obvious benefits in knowledge, give it the “good label,” then act like no one can possibly go wrong by pursuing it. This flies in the face of everything that’s known about human nature and the world they live in. No person can possess any attribute, resource, or ability in an isolated universe.  

In fine, people falsely believe the all-else-being-equal viewpoint is directly applicable to the real World. In reality, it's little more than a learning tool, a useful simplification to understand a general concept. Wisdom is necessary BECAUSE of how much of a simplification it is. Therein lies the crux: Knowledge idolators have yet to fully realize they live in a world where wisdom is necessary.  

Idolatry is a form of dependency. If there’s something that can be learned from someone or something, the focus should be on exactly that. Idolatry distracts from learning; it leads to dogmatic learning and over-reliance, or blind zealotry; and the acts of raving and worshiping are often confused with the act of appropriately executing one’s learning. It has no place in any learning environment whatsoever. Given that everything’s a learning environment, it has no place in this Universe at all.