People like to talk with others, whether they know these others or not. If I run into a challenge in a large place which is unknown to me previously, my natural tendency would be to seek out someone from the milling crowd around me who I think has the propensity to respond to my query. I choose the right kind of person, and voila, I get my answer. Sometimes, I choose the clueless guy, who either says he does not know the answer, or points me in the wrong direction. I then need to make a judgement call whether to follow his advice, or ask someone else, provided I develop a suspicion on his response.
We of course, like to talk with people that we do know. There is much less resistance, or reluctance, in starting a conversation with these folks. The assumption here is that they do tolerate you, they know the pitfalls of having the conversation with you, they know that it could lead to a debate, or even to a new problem. It depends on their acceptance of you as an individual with a history of interactions with them, and their current level of tolerance to discuss a topic which could create an issue or a problem. Of course, initiation of a conversation also depends on your comfort level to discuss difficult topics, as your assumption is that there might be a good quality of discussion and a potential outcome which will then help you.
But, what about thoughts? Thinking through any problem, or challenge, or a topic of interest, is one of the most difficult endeavours one could undertake. Your ability to think through the genesis of the problem statement, identify a solution approach, mentally argue on the pros and cons of your proposed approach, and predicting how others would approach the problem given all the evidence in front of you, are all intriguing puzzle pieces. I spend a lot of time thinking about several things on any one day – for example, today I thought about the endurance of distance runners while I was walking early in the morning in the MacRitchie reservoir park, trying to understand how the bio-mechanics of a runner contrasts with mine (I do not run or jog) by observing the guys who were running in front of me. While I was walking back home (after a walk which took me two hours and 13,000 steps), I thought about the perennial fight between the Palestinians and Israelis, and how that problem could be resolved to the satisfaction of both parties – I thought through the options and determined that there is indeed a “bloodless” way which could guarantee Israel’s security and safety, while providing for the establishment of the State of Palestine. I compared that huge challenge with the India – Pakistan fight over Kashmir (which is unlikely to be resolved during our lifetime), and identified issues which are different between the two struggles. Then I thought about the interesting discussion I had with some close friends on Richard Dawkins and Bruce Lipton. On that matter, my view was that it is absolutely essential to understand the position and logic of all parties who could contest a central hypothesis. I have to be able to put myself into someone’s shoes and argue the case for that someone, which helps me to refine my case, logic and rationale against that someone’s position.
And so on, and so forth……….
The more we think, the less we talk nonsense. The more we think, the more logical we become. The more we think, the better we become tolerant and accepting. The more we think, the less isolated we become – though this might sound surprising. Once we think a lot about any particular topic, our mind chases us to validate our position or conclusion, either via secondary research, or by talking to people we know. It is a bit risky talking to people we do not know on weighty topics which could lead to trouble, unless we are a renowned professor who can give a lecture on the matter without inflaming passions!
I strongly believe that the more we think and exercise our grey matter without looking at a book or the internet, the stronger we become in cogent thought formulation, analysis, identification of problems, probable approach to resolution, and determination of potential outcomes. The process positions us on a strong base from which we can argue our case, and persuade people as to the logic of our position. Our life experiences shape us and shape our thinking, and this cannot be denied.
It is not at all necessary to conform to others’ thoughts if you are not convinced. People mistakenly think that they need to conform or agree on the resolution approach propagated by someone else, before you can get into the inner circle of friends and influencers. This is a wrong way of looking at things. People appreciate if one has a view that one explains with passion and then sticks to that view while taking feedback and inputs from others. It is very critical to have an opinion, a view or an analysis of a subject matter of interest to you. Or else, you just read about it in the media, see it on the TV getting debated by erudite people, or hear another view from someone you know, and then you don’t have a view or opinion of your own!
Opinions and views are rarely popular. I have two kinds of approaches when it comes to thinking and then amplifying my views to others who would have the patience to listen. One is original thought process which I come up with (quite often) based on my random readings and very random inner voices, and the other is taking up a contrarian view to what I think people around me are expected to coalesce upon. This second approach has produced some rather interesting results, as I have to develop my thinking to a higher level which could then facilitate a vocal defence of my contrarian view.
In a nutshell, we are given the power and the faculties to think. We should use this power to the fullest. This power would make us a complete human being, with the potential ability and thinking to change the world.
2nd April 2017