Practical Living

In recent posts I have been attempting to present a general view of how human beings go about living and go about trying to achieve greater unity in their lives that would make them feel more whole and at peace within themselves. Much of this effort I would argue centers around what could be called “practical living” or “pragmatic living”. This approach is also captured in the field of psychology called “Cognitive Therapy” a practicing branch of the subject, much of it deriving from the work of Aaron T. Beck.

The basic idea of this approach is that human beings are problem solvers and the methodology the use, implicitly or explicitly, is that of inductive inference. Inductive inference is basically a process of problem solving or decision making that assumes that people have models, schema, rules or whatever which they use to make predictions with. The predictions are, of course, to be used in deciding which solution or which decision a person should make in a given situation. All decisions are made on the basis of predictions…we have to have some idea of how things are going to come out…given the different choices of actions that we have…before we can decide which action to take.

Where do these models, schema, rules, etc., come from? They can come from parents, families, friends, groups we belong to, reading, the Internet, almost anyplace you can think of. Any source of information is a place where these operational tools can come from. And, the models we work from can be as simple as that coming from the old fable: “Slow and steady wins the race.” Or, the models can be extremely complex and formal, explicitly stated. Or the models can be held subconsciously thereby being just implicit in our decision making.

The important thing is that we human beings work from all sorts of models and we use these models, in a given situation, to make predictions about what result we can expect if we were to take different actions. First, I have to make sure the model I use is appropriate for the specific situation I am facing. For example, if I use the model “slow and steady wins the race” and apply it to, say, a sprint race…well, I should realize that this model is not really the appropriate one for this given situation. Maybe I should use the model, “the race goes to the swiftest” instead.

Then, I need to determine what possible actions I can take. In something like a sprint race, the situation is not too complex and the model is very simple. Hence, I have very few possible actions that are reasonable for me to take. A more complex situation will generally have more choices of action. Think about the way that you would like to have your children brought up, for example. Lots of different possibilities there…and you have to choose one.

One I have decided on an action plan…I will then go ahead and act. Let it be noted at this stage, however, that one of the actions I can take is to get more information. I may believe that I don’t have sufficient information on which to make a decision…so I bring in parents or friends for advice, I hire a consultant, I go to the library, I surf the Internet, and so on and so on. This is a legitimate action to take. I am then gathering additional information that may cause me to adjust my model…or bring in a new model…or continue to search for new information.

At sometime, I will have to make a decision on the problem I am trying to solve or on the action I need to take. So, decide to choose the action that will give me the result that has the best “possible” outcome. I emphasize the word “possible” because we are acting in a world of incomplete information and, therefore, we realize that we don’t know with certainty what the outcome of a particular decision will be. When we make the decision we believe that the result we will get will be the most favorable result we can obtain. But, we know that things may not work out exactly as we would like them to…we might be wrong…and we have to live with that fact. Our models are only partial…and they are all fallible!

One other thing that can be mentioned here: I write that the purpose of building a model is so that we can make a decision…take an action. This is very important in the evolution of human beings. Human beings have evolved as “good” problem solvers. This is their primary trait and they excel at it more than any other living organism. But, humans have used this ability to solve not only problems of survival…they have also used in to develop brain exercises…I call them entertainments. So, I look at a spectrum of problems that humans set out to solve and these problems are continuous all the way from situations that are life-threatening to those that have no purpose at all except to entertain the species…pure “entertainments.”

One of the interesting things about humans is that they can get so caught up in “entertainments” that they spend an inordinate amount of time emphasizing them relative to the importance of other problems of a more crucial, life-enhancing nature. For example, I look at the effort to determine the number of angels that can fit on the head of a pin…as pure entertainment.

Our process continues, however. We take an action…and get receive information about the consequences of that action. Things may work out exactly as we had planned. Or, some things did not work out exactly as projected. Or, things were all wrong. Or…something else…

We must not discard this new information for it is very useful in analyzing the adequacy of the model that we used. If we find that the model made very good predictions, then we probably will not want to alter the model at this time. If the model made lousy predictions, we may want to alter the model, adjust it for the future so that the modified model will make better predictions for us. Or, we may find that the model was not useful at all in such situations and we may want to find or create a new model to use in these situations at some future date.

Thus we have come full circle…we are back to where we started out…with a model, schema, rules, etc., that can be used in decision making and problem solving. The theologian David Tracy argues that the models we use should be “relatively adequate.” That is, our models are not “absolutely” adequate…they are partial and fallible. A relatively adequate model is one that is logically consistent…that is, it does not make contradictory predictions…and it predicts at least as well as any other model that can be used in the given situation.

And this is the point I am trying to make in this post. The models we use in life should work to some degree. That is, they predict at least as well as any other model for this given situation. And, one of our criteria for the models working is that the decisions that we make from these models help us to gain greater unity in our lives and bring us to a more complete wholeness. The process we use in decision making…the process of inductive inference…should help us lead fuller and better lives. If they don’t then we need to look for models, schema, rules, etc., that do achieve this goal.

And, we should not limit ourselves to where we get information about the models we might use. Religion is not off bounds as a source. Two things are important to remember, however, when one is dealing with religious models. First, ALL models are partial and fallible…even religious ones. We must not lock ourselves up in authority or power to the point that we “put-a-lid” on our God-given ability…the ability to problem-solve. Second, we must not get tangled up in religious “entertainments”, problems that have nothing to do with making decisions. We can enjoy them as intellectual exercises, but we must not let them keep us from the reality that we do have to make decisions relating to actions that determine what happens to us in life.

Where does this leave us…with a world of information where we have to pick and choose the models that “work for us”? Again, I go to David Tracy for the answer to this…”Start where you are, but be open.” That is, use the models and schema that you have inherited and been brought on to this point in your life. But…be open to whether or not the models you use are “relatively adequate”. I do not believe, as Richard Rorty seemed to, that we just pick the models that give us the results we want. Some models work better than others; we can’t just be arbitrary.