In The Blink Of An Eye
Rapid cognition. Split second thinking. Snap judgments. Thinking without thinking. Blink.
At the recommendation of a friend, I read the book
Blink by Malcolm Gladwell, the author of
The Tipping Point. Talk about a page turner … I read it in under a day. Gladwell is a terrific story teller and his subject matter is fascinating.
If you want some cliff notes on what the book is about, I recommend you check out
Gladwell's web site.
Gladwell does not write from a Christian worldview. The book is about psychology, and he throws an obligatory bone to naturalism and physicalism. That does not mean Gladwell in his research is not on to something. I happen to think he is. It just means his worldview colors his interpretation and the attributions of his observations. E.g. Gladwell views the ability of the mind to rapidly process information, as a byproduct of evolutionary advance. This is an assumption, of course, and gives Gladwell the aura of scientific respectability. It adds nothing to main thrust of his theory, however, and I did not suffer in slightest by swatting away these appeals to authority.
Moving on.
Gladwell makes a compelling case that the mind can rapidly process clues and make snap judgments that in some cases are pretty accurate.
The upside is that we can learn to "thin-slice" with great reliability. Thin-slicing is making inferences on the thinnest of data samples. The advantage is of course speed ... providing your quick read on things is accurate. Why waste time doing due diligence if you can get the right answer in one-tenth the time?
The downside is that our thin-slicing can run amok. We make unconscious judgments that are bogus. We reach the wrong conclusion and sometimes are not even aware of our faulty reasoning. When our unconscious mind gets a brain cramp, it can get deadly and fast. Gladwell tells a story of a shooting in the Bronx where all the wrong decisions were made in the course of seven seconds. The result was four distraught cops and one very bullet riddled, innocent man ... a sad case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. The cops emptied two and half clips from their semi-automatic handguns. Forty-one bullets later they discovered their mistake … oops.
Gladwell introduces some sticky terms and expressions that I plan to annex into my vocabulary.
- Blink : the process of rapid cognition.
- Thin-slice : drawing inferences on scant data samples
- The Warren Harding error : drawing a false conclusion based on appearances.
- Mind-blindness : a temporary autism of the unconscious mind which creates blind spots.
- White-space : the distance between a target and a potential assailant
The next step in processing this book is to cogitate and integrate. I am going to give Gladwell the benefit of the doubt. Let's assume his research is correct. What would it mean to acknowledge that our mind has the capacity to influence and control our actions in a split second? Where does this leave us vulnerable? How does this integrate with the doctrine of total depravity? Is thin-slicing a euphemism for prejudging? Is blinking something that can be harnessed for use in a redemptive way?
Thinking about it ... consciously ;-)
Shermer's god of the gaps
Tenzin Gyatso (aka the Dalai Lama) has a new book out. A friend was kind enough to forward me a book review from eSkeptic magazine written by Mr. Skeptic himself, Michael Shermer. Chuck Colson also has a
Breakpoint essay which references Gyatso's new book.
Colson points out that Gyatso's assertion that scientific materialism (i.e. matter is all there is, was, and will be) is completely metaphysical in nature, and his conclusion that materialism is “an invitation to nihilism and spiritual poverty" are both spot on. I agree.
Shermer, ever the skeptic of everything
but science, disagrees. He calls Gyatso's warning about scientific materialism a straw man. Well, ok. But why? Shermer never says. Moving on.
The most interesting piece of Shermer's critique is his conclusion that the Dalai Lama falls back on a Karma of the gaps position. While complimentary of the Dalai Lama's attempts at humbling himself before the supreme ruler (that being scientific knowledge in Shermer's gestalt) he accuses Gyatso of committing the same mistake as Creationists. Shermer insists that Gyatso uses Karma to fill in what he cannot explain.
Shermer writes, "In my opinion, God/karma does not explain anything; it is just a linguistic place-filler until science can discover the actual cause."
I think this is an interesting case of the pot calling the kettle black. I think Shermer is right that the Dalai Lama's ultimately falls back on a karma of the gaps explanation. But you know what? We all have gaps in our knowledge. We are all limited. We cannot explain everything under the sun. The Dalai Lama has gaps. I have gaps. Shermer has gaps. Sagan had gaps (though some of his gaps have no doubt been filled since his death in 1996).
The key question is, what fills your gaps?
The answer turns out to be the same. For everyone.
Faith fills the gaps.
Since faith sounds so religious, let me substitute an easier word for some to swallow. Trust. Trust fills the gaps.
For the Dalai Lama, it is a trust in Karma and a magical life force called prana. For me, it is trust in the whole counsel of the one true God and in His revelation. For Shermer, it is trust in his metaphysical system which is predicated on the assumption that it is possible for science to eventually explain everything.
We all have our placeholders. Our gap fillers. Even Shermer, though he cannot see the plank in his own eye, has a god of the gaps. In fact, he names three of them.
In pondering the mystery of the origin of life, sentience and consciousness, Shermer writes: "Yet the solution to these and other problems, in my opinion, is through the new sciences of complexity, emergence, and self-organization."
Pish posh. Complexity, emergence, and self-organization amount to hand-waving. They don't offer explanations. Drill down into them and you will strike air, not answers. Yet Shermer is willing to place his trust in them. The gap in his knowledge has been filled by his faith.
At the end of the day, we all rely on faith and trust. The critical question is not who has gaps and who does not ... it is what reasons do you have to justify your trust in whatever or whoever is filling those gaps. Do your reasons correspond with reality? And, does your system of belief cohere consistently within itself?
Or, does your faith, like Shermer's, amount to wishful thinking?
