I’ve come across 2 contrasting view on thinking in the past few days. Pooja Lakshmin’s June 14 newsletter was titled Learn How to Think - Not what to think whereas David Foster Wallace’s point in This is Water was exactly the opposite: he told the Kenyon graduates that they already know how to think—they’re at a great school after all—but impressed upon them being conscious about what to think about. (Noting that Pooja changed the title and subtitle to be The Rules were Right - My reasoning was not.)
What is the difference between “how” and “what”? I think that thinking about “how” to think necessarily implies a “what.” After all, “how” is a process question, and a process to some extent (to a complete extent?) is a series of what’s. And perhaps why’s?
Pooja comes to the following insights in her post:
On the other hand, in overthrowing the gurus of my adolescence and young adulthood, I mistakenly came to the conclusion that the ideals they prescribed — a focus on academic achievement, learning a profession, making money, maintaining ones’ reputation in the community — were wrong. … Unlike what the group prescribed, the answer was not to destitute myself for the sake of principle. The answer was to gain enough power and to give back. The ideals that my family and my profession valued were not inherently bad — in order to earn generational wealth and thus, psychological safety — they were fair goals. You have a better chance of influencing the system and making it better for the next generation when you come from a place of relative safety — and in turn, power — because you can then take risks without dying (metaphorically speaking).
Where I went wrong is that my reasons for chasing the milestones were misguided. I believed that achieving the socially prescribed ideals was the way to “win” at life (cringe). If I checked each bucket, I could rest assured happiness and contentment would, poof, appear in front of me (despite generally being miserable along the way, but that’s another story).
In short, I had not learned how to think for myself.
In analyzing Pooja’s words, it really seems like “why” is essential. Could it be that thinking about “why” leads to what’s and how’s that feel better, are in more alignment?
She ends with her main point:
If you’re a woman, if you’re a minority, if you came from a home where there was abuse or mental illness, if you have a disability, if you are queer, then there are likely aspects of your life where you did not learn how to think critically and instead, had to operate on instinct and the drive to survive.
And, why I am I telling you all this tonight?
Well, I’m still thinking about Mother’s Day and a piece I’m still working on about motherhood. I want to raise my son so that he has the freedom to come to his own conclusions, and the critical thinking skills to get there in a manner that is safe, and, hopefully, sometimes, fun.
Survival mode. It’s something that I’ve been thinking about too. I think there are some good connections here. In thinking about the difference between survival mode and giving mode, the distinction between unconscious and agency/purpose is prominent. Being conscious is what DFW advocates for in This is Water. In thinking about the other characteristics of survival and giving mode, I’m drawn to thinking about scarcity vs. abundance. Scarcity leads us to thinking that there are fewer options than there are. Which makes me think about divergent thinking from the space of design thinking. Might be time to revisit How Design Makes the World by Scott Berkun.