Philosophy #2 Human Brains are Lazy

In what ways do these readings challenge you to think differently or offer you new insights about art?

Source readings for reference: Elliot & Silverman, Music Matters pp. 24-43; Dewey, How we Think pp. 1-8; Freeland, But is it art?

How we think

I began with Dewey's How we think because it appeared to set the stage for the other two. How can we begin to understand art and what it means without first understanding how our brains process information?

Dewey's definition of different kinds of thoughts are 1) Passing fancies ("My daughter really likes that unicorn stuffy") 2) Non-sensory, storytelling, imagination ("Hey Mommy, what if the unicorn was best friends with the kitty?") 3) Beliefs or assumptions that are unquestioned ("all little girls like unicorns, so that's what I'll get Noelle for her birthday") and 4) Reflection with intention and purpose ("I know Noelle likes unicorns because she told me so, therefore I have evidence that purchasing a stuffed unicorn wouldn't be a waste of money).

As I read several things struck me: His definitions, written in 1910, are still very much relevant. He warns that #2 imaginative storytelling can mimic #4, especially if there is logical flow to it. The way to discern between the two is the intention of pursuing knowledge, belief about facts or truth. I think society's general frustration with modern media stems from this. The reporting we typically see in cable news is not about following facts to a logical conclusion, but rather using facts to create a narrative that serves some purpose or another. How this relates to arts is that we have seen an explosion of artistic satire that pokes fun at the storytelling while also presenting available facts for the audience to draw their own conclusions---promoting reflective thought. Elliot and Silverman reference Stephen Colbert's coinage of the term "truthiness" to make this same point.

This led me to think of two other things: MANY years ago I read both of Rush Limbaugh's first two books. Something that he talked about a lot in the books and on his radio show at that time was how "most people don't actually think, because it's hard work" (And I would say his conclusion is correct as he's built a pretty successful career on that premise).

I also thought of Amanda Ripley, the author of a book called "The Unthinkable" which discusses human behavior in the face of large disasters. In popular media the scripted reaction to a disaster is to panic, run around, scream, etc. What Ms. Ripley documents in her book is that the human brain actually freezes up when presented with new information, because as with all of our muscles, our brains are happiest when being lazy and habitual. When the brain freezes, we call this "cognitive dissonance" and it causes a negative emotional reaction. In a non-emergency situation, the typical reaction is to defend from the negative emotion (thus causing the doubling-down on positions that can't otherwise be defended, the more commonly called "mental gymnastics"). In an emergency situation, the brain has to process the atypical situation and come up with a fact-based logical conclusion about what to do next. THIS is the actual thinking that Dewey refers to in #4. Perplexity, hesitation, searching, inquiry, conclusion. And it takes time for the brain to do this, thus causing the non-Hollywood reaction of "freezing up"

(There's a lot more I could say about this book, it's amazing and fascinating and everyone should read it, along with "What's the Worst That Could Happen" by Greg Craven that discusses cognitive dissonance in way more detail).

The function of philosophy

I think part of the brilliance of the way my master's program was set up was that we weren't stuffed full of facts and knowledge and then sent on our way with a certificate. For six weeks at a time, everything we thought we knew was pulled apart and questioned, examined, and then put back together with new information that we could choose to incorporate or not. Then we were sent back to our classrooms to put into practice what we learned.  Rinse and repeat for four years. This constant evolution of our collective classrooms was a result of philosophy being incorporated into every class, though ranging from subtle to overt. We were constantly challenged to examine our practice and then apply what we learned. It's no wonder that so many of us chose to continue to challenge ourselves in various ways.

As Elliott and Silverman say, mindless teaching is dangerous, because if you don't know why you do something a certain way, you can actually damage a student.  For instance, why do we use letter grades? What useful information does it actually give us? Empirical research says it affects student opinions of themselves, and their motivation. Letter grades also are known in empirical research to only represent how well a student can adapt to their environment, not how much of a subject they've actually mastered. Why do we use them, then?

But is it art?

My daughter suckered me into watching "America's Got Talent" last night and there was a group of young people from Myanmar who did a performance piece with light and shadows to tell a story of two children who grew up without parents due to war. Set to Billie Eilish and Khalid's "Lovely," not a single face was dry at the end, including the performers. I was introduced to that song by my last 5th grade group when we did our soundtrack project. Seeing that song used in that way made me think about how many of those 5th graders were immigrants and refugees from places like the performers were describing in their story. Hell, I can't even type this paragraph without crying.

So when Freeland asks "but is it art?" I think of my undergrad professors who talked about how neat it is when a child can perform some virtuosic piece of music but it never moved him to emotion other than "wow that's a neat trick" because the student is not putting their own emotion into the process and therefore not really communicating with the audience. Humans long for connection, and art is a way of connecting with others. Anything that promotes a dialogue (through reflective thought, not just speaking or writing) could therefore be considered art of some form.

As arts educators, maybe this means we should be asking not only the "why" questions but also the "why not?"