“Present-day mental health practitioners have their heads firmly inserted in their asses and generally need more help than they provide.”
— Kary Mullis (2022), Nobel chemist and inventor
Where Intellect Shows
Bias, prejudice, beliefs, and preconceptions describe ideas that color our thoughts and resist alteration. It is the definition of structure that it provides a way to fit things together, and by adopting some structure we’re inclined to resist change for two reasons. One is that thinking takes work, not just energy but effort. And the other is that the ideas we stick to are the ideas we like, encourage, or that define us. We display these ideas in public and repeat them to ourselves. We develop our prejudices intentionally.
I play dual roles as a creative and as an engineer. I say “engineer” even though I’m not one because engineering is a paradigm for creating structures using existing rules. There are creative engineers but we don’t call them engineers because professional engineers are legally responsible for the integrity of their creations. To escape liability and criticism the creative engineer presents themself as an artist, and artists are allowed to do almost anything.
I have some experience with architecture, which is an endeavor that allows artistry in careful amounts. Some architects are creative either because they’re famous or foolish. The history of architecture is full of structures that fell down.
In the past, the creative architect appeared as an extreme personality willing to sacrifice structural integrity and their client’s resources. Computer aided design has made it easier to specify novel structures, while computer aided engineering has made it safer to build them. Consequently, creative architects now appear less crazy.
The Downside of Too Little Emotion
I’m experienced in theoretical physics which, as a field, is a paradigm of bias and preconceptions built on precedent. Its foundations are hard to follow and take a long time to learn. Physicists approach a new idea like stone masons approach a cantilever: with suspicion and disbelief. Over one hundred years ago Max Planck said, “science advances one funeral at a time.” Research has shown this to be correct (Chawla 2019).
Planck’s comment came during a period of greater revolution in physics than is occurring today, but physics remains rooted in structure. There’s little room for wild conjecture and emotion won’t get you far. Successful ideas are like fast-setting glue, and subsequent ideas rarely affect the foundation. Instead, new ideas and experiments are tied to old ideas, like body parts harvested from old graves.
Frankensteinian is an appropriate adjective to describe many modern theories, also called “semi-classical” or approximate. The challenge of physics is to accommodate new observations in old theories, thinking the old way with some refinements. In the foundations of quantum mechanics, where I work, many assertions are nonsense.
Peer review is meant to ensure quality but it also ensures conformity. It is expected that good ideas will prevail over objections, but new ideas lack foundation. New ideas are accepted only when they encourage the many and offend the few. Either that, or they make money.
What Are The Alternatives?
The obvious alternative is to have an open mind, which means applying the appropriate standards. But the simple act of questioning one’s beliefs is disconcerting. Violence in one form or another is often a defense against reconsideration. To have an open mind you must be attracted to something greater than what’s in your mind.
When compelled to think about something you don’t want to think about, you won’t want to do it. Your mind creates a kind of deafness that derails your focus and distracts your thoughts. This emotional force prevents overly intellectual people from thinking effectively. Those people who have trouble managing their emotions can’t think clearly when annoyed.
Some scientists accept religion using a double standard: one standard applies to the objects of science and the other applies to personal and social life. Those standards are sufficiently far apart to allow both to coexist, but when your double standard involves conflicts on the same basis, then there is struggle.
Fundamental conflicts can be resolved with a new standard or a new method—such as accepting new ideas and alternative opinions. The trouble comes when nonsense becomes doctrine enshrined in books, repeated by luminaries, sold by marketeers, and excused by confusing jargon. Scientists are not the only ones who do not like their doctrines threatened.
If you’d like to balance creativity and stability in your life, schedule a free consultation with me:
