Thinking “on a habit“: whether “homo sapiens“ is so reasonable?
- the Platoon! We take sovok shovels and we dig a ditch!
- Companion ensign, bayonet - that is better!
- it is not necessary to me as it is better - it is necessary to me that you zadolbatsya“.
of the Situation, similar described in a joke, I quite often observe in life with the only difference: in most cases not evil intention, but inertia of thinking takes place. She forces us to make the mass of non-optimal, irrational, rash actions.
Probably, the most striking example: a great number of our compatriots spend the mass of forces and time on garden sites. In fact, for many “country days off“ turn throughout working week. Acquaintance of summer residents to rational methods of processing of the earth (and especially their results) steadily causes admiration. And - all... Offers to help, to teach, to try usually cause typical reaction: “Yes well!“ And again for a shovel, with sighs and complaints to health and on the fact that there is no time left at all. As if infinite and hard work in itself gives some perverted pleasure.
And why, actually, “as if“? Indeed. At many of us ideas of the purposes and priorities of activity are distorted.
For example, in our example virtue is considered to work much and hard. Reflect: “to work“, but not to “make“. Process is more important than result. And all nothing, result be not important or give process original pleasure. But you will see it not often. But for some reason “benefits“ of hard and unproductive work outweigh. Because since the childhood we are accustomed that “without effort you will not extend a small fish from a pond“. And if the harvest suddenly is not set, the summer resident has an internal justification: he did that could, and, above all - put so many forces that nobody will dare to reproach him.
And who this reproaching “someone“? Yes first of all - the person, our controlling part. It before by itself we should justify myself, being guided by the installations which are blindly acquired once. Unfortunately, usually they are not counterbalanced with installations to care for the health and to achieve result. And still we deeply implanted installation that “the science is one, and life is another“. Contempt for “scientific wisdom“ is shown us since the childhood, but, probably, is most brightly shown when after the end of study explain to the young specialist that all he studied to - it, of course, is good, but in practice it is necessary to study everything anew.
I will give an example. There is a theory that the most ancient famous representative of the sort Homo, manufacturing the very first stone tools, could not simulate the project of the made subject mentally. How it did stone tools? There is a version that the person skillful selected preparation of the necessary form and once and for all the found sequence of operations turned it into the tool of the necessary form. Conditionally speaking: if on the processing course the chip went not so, preparation was just rejected. To correct it, having corrected the actions, the hominid could not any more, strict sequence of operations passed from father to son.
But we will remember that it is about very primitive person. It would seem, that stage of development davnopreodolen. But is not present... Unless the summer residents described above not also arrive? And not only they. Similar inertness of thinking meets in any sphere, its manifestations penetrate everyday life.
For example, one my acquaintance is sure that, being sent on leave, it is necessary to take with itself purely washed and ironed clothes. And not washed thing found in a suitcase causes a storm of negative emotions: how it is possible? And the fact that you go to holiday for a long time and anyway is necessary to you a postirushka during holiday (so, the brought thing will be at one it is washed), does not play a role. The ritual action acquired from ancestors has to be executed in accuracy as it is necessary.
In this way the old female of a chimpanzee trains young females to split nuts. It does not show: “There is a nut, it is possible to split it and to get a tasty core“. No, she sits in an environment of youth and shows strict sequence of operations which in accuracy and is acquired. There is no understanding of an ultimate goal and actions conducting to it which can at desire be changed. There is a chain of actions conducting to desirable result as something whole. Naturally, about any improvement of process at such approach out of the question. Yes it also is clear: the speech - that about monkeys!
And of course, the sphere where everyone thinks himself the expert - it is education. Arguments meet the most different here: from bydlovaty “We were brought up without any science“ to discharged “I know better how to bring up my child“. At the same time many of us keep own children`s offenses caused by mistakes of our own parents in memory. Some even remember how they in a fit of temper threw to parents: “Here I will grow up - with the children so I will never do“ (such here attempt in the camouflaged form to tell omnipotent parents that they are not right). But when reaches business, we if remember how children appeared in a similar situation, usually we ignore these memoirs and we act on knurled. Why?
The reasons can be different, but one of them important in the context of our conversation: we arrive as we are able. Behavior model in a family, formings of the vertical and horizontal relations, we, as a rule, perceive and we acquire in the childhood. And we perceive these models as absolutely natural and to subject them to the critical analysis, more than serious efforts are required. And so, on knurled - it is simpler. And it is not important that at the same time we assimilate to the antique builders who were habitually imitating wooden designs of the previous eras in a stone not corresponding to neither materials, nor methods of construction long ago.
But whether we agree and further to assimilate to our otdalenneyshy relatives or we want to think and act how the person originally reasonable?
I thank my constant coauthor Natalya Kolpakova for the invaluable help in writing of article.