Mice, so long as they keep finding food in a nook, go to it again and again. Cats, once they get a shock upon touching an electric fence, refrain from repeating the act for a while. From their experiences and observations, animals figure out how the world works and regulate their conduct accordingly. Human beings do the same, but they do more: They tend to make general theories out of specific instances. This sort of abstract thinking, with intricate and often lengthy successions of links between the various causes and effects in the chain of reasoning is one of the hallmarks of homo sapiens.
In fact, human beings are rarely content with the ‘how’. They also venture into why things happen the way they do. However, that discussion– important that it no doubt is– is for another day.
Returning to the theorizing nature of human beings, it is without doubt a good thing: the spectacular human progress would have been impossible without it. However, there is a flip side to it. For this theorizing instinct on the part of human beings often ends up doing them more harm than good.
All the ‘rational animal’ propaganda notwithstanding, the average human intelligence is not something to write home about. Therefore, if something makes sense to an average human being, especially if it is even moderately complicated (on account of its subtlety or the large number of intermediate links involved), the chances are that the hypothesis is silly. Little wonder that the man or the woman who comes up with it believes it is brilliant. But such a high estimation of it on the part of a not-so-bright individual alone should be enough to alert the audience regarding the dopiness of its contents.
It was not long after the Scientific Revolution that serious scientists realized that there was way too much theorizing going on and that something needed to be done about it. What had been happening was that every self-proclaimed scientist was proposing this, that or the other ‘scientific’ theory and the frequency of such events was alarming to say the least. Soon, the scientific community had to announce that in future it will not as much as hear any new theory unless it was accompanied by a falsification test– a concrete set of conditions that would disprove it once for all. Stubborn folks still propose their theories, but the frequency of such occurrences has gone down considerably due to the indifference of the scientific community.
Even bad science necessitates some amount of hard work, so the average man rarely ventures into the scientific domain anyway– God be thanked for it. But he has a field day when it comes to medicine: ‘Vegetable X (or Verse Y) is good for Hepatitis C because Aunty Zohra got cured when she strictly followed the regimen for 21 days’ kind of stuff. One wonders what food item cures credulity. To be fair to these theorists however, most of such stuff, even if it is not beneficial, is harmless. Secondly, their theorizing is justified, considering that medicine itself is essentially an anecdotal– experience-based– ‘science’ (the same sort of activity that the armchair theorist is involved in, albeit on a much larger scale). Thirdly, the efficacy of placebos is beyond doubt, provided the patient sincerely believes in their medicinal power. Finally, these folks are usually well-intentioned, which gives a much more favourable colour to the whole activity.
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of all compulsive theorizers. The most irritating breed is the one that chooses the moral domain for its theorizing. The format of such theories is invariant: ‘This action ultimately results in that (wholly deserved) predicament.’ Many of these formulas, in isolation, make a great deal of sense. But since no amount of thought is involved in formulating the overall ‘worldview’, some of these ‘laws’ are at odds with the others. The presenter never notices the discrepancy because at any given time he thinks of one and only one of them– depending on the need of the hour. Moreover, many of them are mere slogans– nice-sounding ones no doubt, but without any substance to them whatsoever.
The beauty of it all (and the reason for the undying popularity of such theories) is that any moral lessons need to be heeded by others, while the observer is in the happy position of simply observing from his lofty moral pedestal the struggles of fallible mortals. It is extremely satisfying when the adversaries– the fools that they are– face the consequences of not heeding those lessons. What could be better than this delicious arrangement! Madness it sure is, but there is usually a very definite method to it.
It is an undeniable fact of the universe that there are simpletons around and in large numbers to boot. That such simple folks are apt to come up with silly theories about everything should not be shocking for anybody. What can be extremely disturbing however, and which makes one suspicious of these ‘simple’ folks is that their theories never ever feature their own selves, except as the heroes or the victims whose morality prevails in the end, which entails no end of satisfaction on account of the moral justice dispensed when their rivals meet their well-earned doom. There is a very palpable joy in the contemplation of the misery of others, even if they try to camouflage it with feigned sympathy or crocodile tears. Where the part-time doctor is usually well-meaning, the moral theorizer is invariably malicious in nature.
You will never hear from this sort of person this, for example: ‘I should not have behaved the way I did. The fact that I did, saw to it that matters only got further downhill, to my own detriment in addition to that of the other parties.’ It is always others (and always those whose guts the theorizer hates) that get their merited comeuppance. When those others appear way too prosperous and happy to fit (by any stretch of the imagination) into the theory as the undisputed losers, a theory about their inevitable albeit future doom (again fully deserved) is presented.
The beauty of it all (and the reason for the undying popularity of such theories) is that any moral lessons need to be heeded by others, while the observer is in the happy position of simply observing from his lofty moral pedestal the struggles of fallible mortals. It is extremely satisfying when the adversaries– the fools that they are– face the consequences of not heeding those lessons. What could be better than this delicious arrangement! Madness it sure is, but there is usually a very definite method to it.
