I am working on my Master's thesis which is devoted to analyzing the conflict between blockchain innovation and regulation in Europe. I chose to dedicate the first chapter to a historical perspective and I thus turned toward a number of classics.
The title of this post has been inspired by a quote from Yuval Noah Harari's bestseller "Sapiens". I read this book about five years ago and found it fantastic overall, despite the existence of some reflexions I strongly disagreed with and others that I think are provably wrong.
It was one of the first books which I read with intent and a ballpoint pen in my hand, underlining passages that I found significant and quote-worthy. I even thought about dedicating a series of Steem (there was no Hive back then) posts to summarizing and commenting the book, but never mustered the energy to do it.
But coming back to the book assessment, you might be troubled by my statement above:
"How can you find the book fantastic overall if you point out to strong disagreements and provably wrong reflexions?"
I would propose to you a slightly adapted quote from the book itself (p.230 of Vintage 2011 edition): "Whatever path we take, the first step is to acknowledge the complexity of the dilemma and to accept that simplistically dividing the [books] into good [books] and bad [books] leads nowhere."
The original quote was about the mixed legacy of imperialism and empires. It was referring to the past, and advised against seeing it in terms of good guys and bad guys.
Cognitive dissonance
But that was just a taste of Harari's thinking. The reflexions I found incredibly powerful and important are to be found before, in Chapter 9, "The Arrow of History", pages 183-184
It starts from an observation that makes many of us uncomfortable: our modern political order sees both "social equality" and "individual freedom" as fundamental values. And yet, Harari states bluntly, "the two values contradict each other. [...] The entire political history of the world since 1789 can be seen as a series of attempts to reconcile this contradiction."
If he had then offered his own attempt, the book would have been unremarkable. What makes it special is that Harari explains that not only such contradictions are pervasive and an inseparable part of every human culture, but they are actually beneficial! He calls them "the engines of cultural development, responsible for the creativity and dynamism of our species." Hence the quotation in the title of this article: "Consistency is the playground of dull minds."
But he goes even further to reach the logical conclusion:
Cognitive dissonance is often considered a failure of the human psyche. In fact, it is a vital asset. Had people been unable to hold contradictory beliefs and values, it would probably have been impossible to establish and maintain any human culture
Here I would like to point to one of my older posts in which I was analyzing the social impact blockchain technologies are likely to make: Understanding blockchain's social impact. In it, I was comparing the progress of human society to riding a bicycle, where the most important thing is to maintain dynamic equilibrium.
We shall be buffeted from the left and the right by impulses stemming from contradictory beliefs. But as long as we keep at it, push the pedals, we manage to maintain balance and advance.
Concluding remarks
Life is complex and there are few "simple calls". "Pushing the pedals" in the bicycle analogy means continuously thinking and assessing situations and trying to maintain the balance, lest we fall.
As Harari observes in the beginning of the book ("The Cost of Thinking", p.9), thinking is hard work and doesn't come cheap: the human brain accounts for about 2-3% of total body weight but consumes 25% of of the body's energy when at rest. Compare that with only 8% of the energy for our evolutionary "cousins", the great apes.
So I will keep thinking hard while reckoning that most dilemmas I'll be faced with are complex, and that simplistically dividing between "good and "bad" will lead me nowhere.
And the first task at hand is my Master's thesis where I attempt to keep the balance between something I tend to see as rather "good" (innovation) and something I tend to consider ... less so (regulation).
consistency is the playground of dull minds, because consistency will make you do repetitive things, and fun element, curiosity, creativity fades out, and we tend to get bored. So it's a kind of CPM in planning and management, the objective in such a thing is different. In contrast in PERT, you engage in research, so constantly explore new things, that keeps your mind busy and u deal with in a creative way.
Once again a wonderful, thought provoking and philosophical article.
Thank you!
Note that consistency is not necessarily implying repetitive things. You are inconsistent if, for instance, you turn off the tap when brushing your teeth to "save water" but then pour yourself a big warm bath of 150l of water...
Get me really excited about something, it will keep me busy for about 3 months, then it fades out...
I've been known to spend 3 - 4 years to topics I feel passionately about, and then lose interest and move on.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, @sorin.cristescu . Inspiring! Much appreciated!
Hey @sorin.cristescu!
Actifit (@actifit) is Hive's flagship Move2Earn Project. We've been building on hive for almost 5 years now and have an active community of 7,000+ subscribers & 600+ active users.
We provide many services on top of hive, supportive to both hive and actifit vision. We've also partnered with many great projects and communities on hive.
We're looking for your vote to support actifit's growth and services on hive blockchain.
Click one of below links to view/vote on the proposal:
That meme is brilliant. "Cherished Wrong Beliefs" The difficulty of course is who gets to determine "wrong". Sure, people who disagree will present the facts, but if the facts are deceptive, or founded on false premises, they ought to be debated, rather than accepted. Sometimes the false premises are so well established, it's unthinkable to re-evaluate them or even re-consider them. "Everyone knows" doesn't make the premise any less false... if it is false. We must entertain the possibility that "everyone's wrong", if everyone's wrong. That in itself is an uncomfortable suggestion. "Scientific consensus" or "Experts agree" or "We all know that..." all red flags. There is no "everyone" when it comes to thinking, we all have independent thought, and correct or incorrect, there's always a counterpoint to every independent thought.
Cognitive dissidence is natural and expected, sometimes the cognitive dissidence is resolved by removing the dissidence (that's the easy option) by fighting or mocking ideas that make us feel uncomfortable, but other times cognitive dissidence resolved by changing the cognitive! This is the more difficult and much more honest approach. People who are more interested in truth over feelings or convenience will choose this option and it is much more civil and dignified and honorable and intelligent. But it's not easy and it's very uncomfortable at times. Especially when being mocked for your "cherished beliefs".
The message is that our ability to hold contradictory beliefs is a source of creativity and an engine of cultural development. Your question points to something slightly different : how do we manage to hold contradictory beliefs? Well, one of the mechanisms is by questioning authority and calling into question everything.
Harari's point is that "resolving cognitive dissonance" is, at the level of rhe species, neither desirable nor good.
Congratulations @sorin.cristescu! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain And have been rewarded with New badge(s)
Your next target is to reach 82000 upvotes.
You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPTo support your work, I also upvoted your post!
Check out our last posts:
Support the HiveBuzz project. Vote for our proposal!