The Way We Think: Step Reasoning and Stage Reasoning

For my wife

Margaret

Précis

By and large human reasoning proceeds in short steps restricted almost entirely to the surface, thereby falling far short of what is called for in the modern world. In contrast the reasoning of a rare minority proceeds in immensely more powerful stages. Included in this minority are those whose inductive stage reasoning enables them to probe far beneath the surface and reveal Nature’s most hidden secrets – the fundamental principles behind her many and varied surface manifestations. Step reasoning and inductive stage reasoning are so much at odds with one another that few are able to come to terms with a principle when it is first made known to them. Understanding will continue to elude those who are unwilling or unable to undergo a course of instruction devised specifically for their enlightenment. Inductive stage reasoning has been going from strength to strength in recent times, and courses of instruction have been proliferating accordingly. Yet despite all that, human affairs continue to be regulated by superficial step reasoning, and imperilled by the apparently unstoppable forces of unenlightenment.

PART I –

MIND AND ATTITUDE OF MIND

Chapter 1 – Stage Reasoning and Step Reasoning

Throughout recorded history many gifted men and many men of destiny have come to the fore. They have made their mark in every area of human endeavour, and the story of mankind is essentially their story. Their fame has spread far and wide, and their more celebrated exploits are taught to succeeding generations of students almost as a matter of course.

Some have excelled in leadership or organisation, others at appraising or exploiting a resource or situation. Some have created masterpieces and set completely new standards of style and taste. Others have displayed outstanding physical skills or powers of endurance, or the courage to explore where nobody has ventured before. Some have made a stand against the forces of ignorance, others have promoted a climate of free enquiry. Some have developed a flair for observation or experimentation, others have provided better explanations of natural phenomena and events, or have found new applications of existing knowledge. Some have encountered new problems, others have cast new light on old problems.

Although they stand out from their contemporaries, they have not always been without their limitations and human frailties. Collectively they have traded in truth and in falsehood, and shown how things ought to be done and how they ought not to be done, in proportions much the same as prevail throughout the community. For better or for worse they have made their contributions to the sum of Man's knowledge and experience, and given many a salutary lesson in the process. Without them all human activity would have counted for little, as can be seen to this day where their influence has not been felt.

Their pre-eminence stems partly from unusual talents, but above all from the way they heighten and exploit commonplace qualities and abilities. Some have reached peaks which have not been surpassed before or since, and men of this calibre are renowned in every society. Others have made much less impact, in some cases giving the impression that their successes stem from fortuitous circumstances rather than from any particular merit on their part. Appearances notwithstanding, they always hold a distinct edge over other contenders, and their contributions are far from accidental. Their abilities are largely the result of pondering at length over every ramification of the subjects that interest them, until they can distinguish the essential from the superficial. This prepares them for economy of thought and incisiveness in a given situation. As their perception develops so do their convictions, enterprise and drive.

They see how often others draw false conclusions through missing important points and chasing after side issues. They become increasingly aware that few men possess their single-mindedness and mastery, and that nobody else could substitute for them. They take upon themselves the responsibility of deciding what should be done, and of devising the means of bringing it about. When circumstances seem particularly propitious, they tend to believe that they have been singled out by fate, and that it would be inexcusable not to act with the utmost despatch and resolution. Their fervour is then largely governed by the intensity of this feeling, rather than by the worthiness of the cause or its prospects of success.

They do not necessarily bring to fruition the things they most aspire to. Their rate of progress, and indeed what they finally achieve, can be affected by many other factors, for example their motives and ambitions, and their assessment of what is most worth doing next and how best to go about it. Less closely related to the task in hand, but no less important at times, are factors such as their relationships with their fellow men, the pressures of other commitments, and the onset of illness or other disability.

First and foremost they are individualists and innovators, and their contemporaries do not always take kindly to their ideas. A fortunate few find themselves free to give full rein to their talents and self-expression, but they are the exception rather than the rule. Mostly they encounter vigorous opposition, and in extreme cases their progress can be severely inhibited. Some of the opposition can be self-defeating, if only because it serves to heighten their resolution and sense of urgency. It makes them more circumspect and self-reliant, and increases their capacity to improvise and to sidestep unwelcome attentions and compromises. They come to accept as part of the scheme of things that others will try to thwart them, and ready themselves for such eventualities.

This book is concerned first and foremost with Man's eternal quest for Truth, which centres upon an understanding of Nature's most closely guarded secrets, the principles by which she functions. Progress in this direction has been slow and difficult in the past, and is unlikely to be any easier in the future. Even in an apparently straightforward investigation a bewildering array of alternatives is normally encountered. Each is overlaid with a confusion of apparent truths, and novice and expert alike can go far astray without realising it. The quest is too exacting for most; not only do they miss the hidden truths beneath their feet and over their heads, but they are unable to grasp the significance of a new principle when a full and rigorous explanation has been given.

From time to time Nature can be persuaded to yield one or other of her many outstanding secrets, but it is always on one inescapable condition. Her principles have to be induced, and this is only possible to men with penetrating minds who are able to turn aside her veil and probe far beneath the surface. It is therefore appropriate to call them inductive men. Their powers have long been recognised and commented upon, especially by those who understand their teachings and seek to follow in their footsteps. Much has been done to foster the universal acceptance of their teachings, and to clarify other aspects such as their impact on their contemporaries and their place in the development of human thought and progress. It is common knowledge that the acceptance of a new principle has usually been a long and painful process, yet little or nothing has been achieved towards ensuring the prompt recognition and acceptance of new principles in our own day and age.

A wealth of information has been compiled on the lives and works of inductive men, but without casting much light on a number of outstanding questions. What kind of men are they? What is their secret? What strange power do they possess that they can find a way past all the natural and man-made obstacles which obscure the truth at every turn? Why do those in positions of authority claim that they and their followers tread the path of reason and tolerance, yet see in new truths a mortal challenge to their positions and interests? Why do they take suppressive action, and remain clinging to previously held beliefs long after they have been refuted? How do new principles survive in such a climate, and why do they eventually gain universal acceptance?

An essential quality of the inductive man is a capacity to reason objectively and exhaustively from his own observations and from the information he receives from other sources. That in itself can never be enough; his real secret is that his reasoning is spontaneous and advances in stages. The power of inductive stage reasoning has no practical limit, but increases greatly with each successive stage while the time intervals between the stages become progressively smaller. Without the inner flame of spontaneity there can be no stage reasoning.

With the passage of time inductive stage reasoning has been applied in more and more areas, and Man's understanding of the world has grown apace. This has encouraged a respect for Nature and an appreciation of her design and order. Each new principle brings greater insight and provides the means for making reliable predictions. It also gives Man increased control over his affairs and well-being, in that some of the errors of the past can be avoided and rational action can be initiated to bring about desired ends. It then becomes possible to direct the thoughts and energies of all in a common direction, enhancing their harmony with Nature and with one another. Many inductive problems still remain, and there is no substance in the popular belief that new ways of resolving them have become available in modern times. Some investigators may labour long and hopefully under this misapprehension, but without coming up with a substitute for inductive stage reasoning.

The reasoning of the vast majority of men does not proceed in stages but in steps. They are powerless to penetrate far beneath the surface either individually or collectively, however much they may thirst for the truth, whatever methods or aids they may use, and regardless of their talents which may be considerable in other directions. We will call these men reference men.

Some reference men acquire a measure of inductive reasoning, and it too is based objectively on their own observations and on information they receive from other sources. We will call them disciplined reference men. For a variety of reasons the power of their inductive step reasoning falls far short of the power of inductive stage reasoning. It is nevertheless much the same as far as it goes, and can lead to the discovery of new truths and to explanations of some of Nature's workings. Here too the truth is so concealed that all others have failed to find it, and many are unable to recognise it when it is presented and explained to them.

Disciplined reference men can make substantial contributions to unresolved inductive problems. They are unable to discover principles, but they can induce broad-based rules and formulate sound practices. Individually rules are more limited in scope than principles, but collectively they can provide the same coverage, so much so that the subsequent discovery of a principle may reveal only minor shortcomings and perhaps none. The rules allow the same predictions to be made, and ensure the same outcome when put into practice. Those who reason in terms of the rules are able to rationalise their affairs, and strike a workable basis with Nature and with one another, pending the discovery of the principle. The important difference is that rules are to be followed whereas principles are to be understood. Principles provide a depth of understanding, complementary to the breadth of practical experience and objective commonsense embodied in rules and sound practices.

The overwhelming majority of men reason subjectively and uncritically, so we will call them undisciplined reference men. This is a term which applies primarily to their reasoning, but in word and deed they often exhibit and impose a high level of discipline. The reasoning of the undisciplined reference man is also based on his own observations and the information he receives from other sources, but his lines of argument are coloured by his desires and emotions. For a host of reasons his undisciplined subjective reasoning makes it impossible for him to probe beneath the surface, so much so that his mind is only just able to cope with direct and directly observable causes and effects. Unless these occur on the surface without complications, his reasoning can take him no nearer to the truth and all too often takes him further from it.

His conclusions are habitually fragmented and fallacious, yet he uses them as a basis for his predictions and in the regulation of his life and affairs. Oblivious and undaunted, he comes up with his own principles, rules and other subjective generalisations. These are not induced, but are called up or fabricated to suit the occasion. He confuses many issues and makes the outcome of any activity less certain by his participation. Even when he has a free hand in the control of his own affairs, his policies and actions go against his interests in the long run.

He is naturally unreceptive to new principles and rules, and to objective lines of argument based on them. He can never take a lead in such developments, even when he is in a co-operative frame of mind, but he can sometimes keep abreast if every facet and ramification is spelt out to him. Failing that he falls back on his own subjective reasoning to fill in the gaps. When he is thoroughly versed in a particular area, he reasons along subjective lines whenever his interests take him beyond it. Whether he argues from subjective or objective premises, he invariably takes himself further into error. Step by step he cuts himself off from objective developments, and from any possibility of making a meaningful contribution himself. Instead he consolidates and defends his subjective views, and denies and negates any new truths which happen to run counter to them. He ends up at loggerheads with those who reason objectively, while the world of reality passes him by.

Chapter 2 – Nature the Deceiver and Man the Self-deceiver

Nature's ways appear inconsistent and unpredictable to those who do not understand them. This is partly due to her so-called tricks of concealment and deception, but most of all to Man's ignorance, credulity and penchant for subjective reasoning. Nature reveals her surface to the senses, but an understanding of her workings does not always follow directly from what is observed. Understanding involves not only a knowledge of surface features and events, but also their interpretation in terms of the connections between them. In general the further the connections lie beneath the surface the more important and fundamental they are, and the more difficult they can be to uncover and explain.

Many surface connections can be grasped by any individual, almost involuntarily, through everyday observation and experience, without any call on objective reasoning. It enables the mature individual to develop agility and physical skills, and to take his place in a compatible form of social order. It also enables him to anticipate coming events where effect follows cause consistently and unambiguously, and to plan his affairs accordingly. This is no great shakes, for he has thereby achieved no more than a member of any animal species, when due allowance is made for physical and environmental differences. Such processes cannot therefore be said to engender understanding, but merely to provide a physical basis for the continuation of a day to day existence on this planet.

Whenever attempts are made to extend this mode of reasoning beyond its area of applicability, Nature has countless ways of misleading those who seek understanding in terms of surface features and surface connections. Features which are essentially the same can appear in a variety of different forms, while others with nothing basically in common can exhibit striking similarities. Apparently unrelated features can be directly connected beneath the surface, while in other cases transient or fortuitous events can foster the illusion that various features are much more closely related on the surface than they really are. The picture is complicated further when Man initiates action or meddles with things he does not understand. Nature's processes are then distorted, and a variety of extraneous effects can be introduced.

Pitfalls such as these have long been known, yet subjective reasoning is still being extended into new areas as avidly as ever. Many believe that they need do no more than study the surface details fastidiously. A few have learned from the errors of the past and realise that this is not enough. They see the need for a deeper understanding, and comb through what has already been done and carry out fresh investigations. They sometimes devise ingenious instruments and make observations which are not possible to the unaided senses. The occasional individual can be fortunate enough to witness at first hand a closely linked cause and effect which provides the insight he desires. In most cases understanding remains as elusive as ever, and the further they delve the deeper the connections they must seek. These can only be found through inductive stage reasoning, and the human race has no alternative but to wait, for generations if need be, for the right inductive man to appear on the scene.

In the past this has all too often not been done, and reference men have overestimated the importance of the surface connections, or invented false connections, to account for the various causes and effects. They have set events in train, confident that they possess full understanding and can exercise full control. They find to their dismay that events can move in unexpected and at times disastrous directions, despite all their regulations, afterthoughts and last minute correctives. The situation develops beyond their further control, as Nature refuses to bend to their will, and events follow relentlessly in accordance with the underlying connections.

Those who run foul of such situations may feel that they will know how to cope next time, yet they still cannot envisage the basic cause of their difficulties. They may advance plausible explanations, but their arguments are incomplete and inconsistent, even on the most straightforward inductive problems.

Inductive problems are often far from straightforward. For example, many of Nature's manifestations are connected in cycles on the surface. Some of these may repeat themselves regularly and predictably, others may be erratic and apparently unintelligible. When an inductive man addresses his mind to such a problem, he may find unsuspected connections beneath the surface, and reveal that the basic cause is not cyclic, but is direct and unvarying.

In other cases men unwittingly force events to move in cycles which do not otherwise occur in Nature, and deceive themselves into believing that her immutable laws are being followed. When an inductive man finds the connections beneath the surface, he can see which factors are due to Man's meddling and which are inherent. At the same time he can show how to terminate the cycles and bring about a measure of stability.

In the meantime those who do not know of the deeper connections can only argue in circles. They can speculate endlessly as to which features of a cycle are causes and which are effects, but without casting any further light on the subject. They may have made comprehensive observations, but that does not enable them to find a way of breaking the cycle. This they often will not admit; instead they declare that this or that part of the cycle holds the key, and that only their subjective policies, backed by force if necessary, can then prevent the cycle from developing unfavourably. However, when they initiate action on this basis, events go relentlessly around the cycle once more.

In such matters Nature can also deceive the inductive man. He may discover connections beneath the surface, but these in turn may constitute another cycle, so that what appeared at first sight to be the solution merely leads to another impasse. Nevertheless he has made a start on the problem; for example he may be able to identify some of the more deleterious effects of Man's meddling, and advocate that they cease. Far deeper probing will be necessary to resolve the problem completely. It is possible that it will follow from an investigation of a totally different and apparently unrelated problem, leading to the discovery of connections between the two far beneath the surface.

Similarly many of Nature's manifestations are connected on the surface by alternative routes. Some or all of these may also form part of a cycle. The number of possible alternatives may be indefinitely large, and appear to increase rather than decrease as the problem is studied. When events are set in motion, they invariably lead to an unintended outcome, whatever the route followed or the steps taken to forestall it.

When an inductive man studies such a problem, he may find unexpected connections beneath the surface. He can then see that such an outcome need not be inevitable, and explain how to avoid it. In the meantime, as with the cycles, those who do not know of these connections can find themselves in a dilemma. They can argue interminably as to which alternative is the best, they can bargain and compromise to their hearts' content before or after setting events in motion, but their only hope is that some outside agency will intervene and save them from the outcome they are trying to avoid.

Here, too, Nature can deceive the inductive man. He may discover new connections beneath the surface, only to find that they lead through new alternative routes to the same impasse.

When any type of inductive problem is incorrectly diagnosed, events cannot follow as predicted or planned. Nature does not concern herself with Man's attitudes, motives or desires, but only with actions and reactions, causes and consequences. The consequences may be immediate and local, affecting only the individuals concerned, or they may be delayed and far-reaching, profoundly affecting the lives of non-participants and perhaps of future generations. The outcome is not necessarily serious. It is often inconsequential or absurd, doing no great harm to anybody including those most directly involved, though their feelings may be so ruffled that they do not see it that way. Nature dispenses unpleasantness and absurdity in fairly equal measure to those who wander in the dark.

Many of the trials and tribulations which have plagued the human race stem from unresolved inductive problems. The experiences of those who grapple with them are often much the same, but their reactions can be quite different. Misunderstandings arise continually from different interpretations of the same events, but this is only part of the difficulty. Attitude of mind can be just as important as knowledge or experience when judgements are being formed. Men with much the same background and training can run foul of an unresolved inductive problem and agree on its nature and source, yet their attitudes can lead to disagreement on everything else. One may decide then and there to make a lifetime study of the subject, while a second may see the need for such a study but turn away because of other interests or commitments. A third may consider the problem to be intractable and not worth pursuing further, while a fourth may consider it imperative to agree on a coherent course of action and for all to stand by it. Each may be critical of the attitudes of the others and rebuke them for failing to size up the situation properly. Any of their attitudes can change at any time, or be maintained in the face of contrary developments. The attitude of an individual can differ from issue to issue, but generally the stronger his commitment the more his attitude is determined by his basic mode of reasoning.

Those who reason objectively see their proper role as one of co-operation with Nature, and accept that it can only be fulfilled by complying with her laws. They maintain this attitude even when they lack an understanding of some of her ways. When events go against them, they recognise that they have failed to anticipate properly, and that they may have aggravated the problem through ignorance or misjudgement, or merely by their participation.

In contrast those who reason subjectively attribute their difficulties to an arbitrary and hostile Nature. Their usual reaction is to take whatever counter-measures occur to them at the time. When these misfire or aggravate things further, they see Nature as fighting back, confirming that they must behave more resolutely and decisively in the future. As long as they try to enhance the order and security of their lives in this way, their policy of competition with Nature will keep going against them.

From time immemorial subjective views and attitudes have flourished. Every new truth helps to counter them, but many gaps still remain. Further objective advances are usually slow in coming, so the undisciplined reference man is afforded more time than enough to fill out the gaps in his own way. This makes him feel that he is in the forefront of contemporary thought, and is therefore fitted to set standards, lay down policies, and decide which direction should be taken next.

His affairs are continually beset by mismanagement and strife, as the problems he tries to overcome are perpetuated and intensified by his actions. The situation is always worse than it need be because of the time lag between new truths being made known and his acceptance of them. Although he receives much sound advice, he usually disregards it and dissociates himself from those who offer it. His main concern is to safeguard and promote his own ideas and interests. The more he does so the more he blinds himself to the paths he should be following.

Chapter 3 – The Early Development of the Young Mind

Insofar as all men are born equal, every child starts out in life with a reference mind and with a vanishingly small potential for inductive stage reasoning. The first may be likened to a vigorous young plant with the best possible start in life; the second to a fragile seed with little prospect of germination. The two compete for survival, but on such an unequal basis that the growth of subjective reasoning is overwhelmingly favoured from the start.

The odds are compounded even further in favour of subjective reasoning through the child's native instincts and under the influence of those responsible for his upbringing. From birth he seeks something secure and lasting to cling to. His elders help and encourage him, and he feels he can depend on them. He looks up to them and longs for the day when he will grow up to be like them, and be able to do all the things they do. They give him smiles of approval if he follows their ways, and he then experiences the comfortable feeling of belonging. If he adopts other ways, whether of his own invention, the non-conformities of casual acquaintances, or even the lapses of his elders, he is chastised. He then feels baffled and alone, but is soon restored to the fold when he shows contrition and reverts to the approved pattern.

In such ways he is introduced to the subjective pressures by which the affairs of his society are regulated. As time goes by these pressures are brought to bear on many aspects of his young life, including the interests and friendships he may cultivate, the teachings he must take on trust, the topics he may discuss and the limits within which such discussions may be conducted. These requirements and many more are upheld and enforced at all levels of his society, and so his elders do their best to initiate him to their stereotyped customs and rules, to minimise friction and unpleasantness all round. They go to great pains to make him recognise the entitlements and responsibilities appropriate to his age and station, and to bring about his co-operation and participation. They teach him to form acceptable subjective judgements, and to abide by those handed down to him. They encourage him to mix with children who are being conditioned similarly, and to avoid any with less suitable backgrounds.

A high degree of unanimity has been reached on many matters touching on the life and interests of the society, and the members generally make much the same kinds of statements whenever these are raised. The child asks many questions, and the answers are often in line with his own observations and experience. Even with matters outside his experience he is usually content to take things on trust. It is not practicable to question everything, and in any case relatively few topics arouse his interest enough for further inquiry. He therefore accepts most of what he is told without cause for doubt or further thought.

If conditioning the minds of children were as straightforward as this there would be no more to the matter. It is sometimes said that a young mind can be moulded to conform by the age of seven years, but this is an oversimplification, as most parents can attest. A number of factors can bring about non-conformity in the young, and thwart some of the plans and ambitions their elders hold for them.

Every society has its own beliefs and myths, standpoints and behaviour patterns, which it endeavours to perpetuate by indoctrinating the young. Standard teachings and activities are organised for the purpose, and success depends on keeping the child's mind within set limits. The more orthodox members resist any attempt to probe beyond these limits, their first reaction being to try to terminate any such line of inquiry before it can become embarrassing. If the child persists, they may tell him he will understand when he grows older, and that he should be taking an interest in things more in keeping with his age. The procedure is always the same; evasion of the issue, going back over what has been said many times before and, in the last resort, refusing to discuss the matter any further. In most cases this does no harm to their cause, if only because the child thinks no more about it after a day or two. There is, however, a small risk that he will remember and harbour reservations which will prevent him from ever accepting their views. Sometimes he may put forward suggestions of his own, but all too often these are brushed aside without adequate discussion or refutation. Here too his elders run a risk, in that he may remain convinced that his views have merit which nobody can refute.

It is probable that unfavourable attitudes and reactions make as much impression on the young child as reasoned arguments. His elders then run a greater risk that he will turn elsewhere for the answers he seeks, or for confirmation of his own ideas. Opportunities abound for extending his enquiries from the time he begins to move outside the family circle.

On other matters unanimity has never been reached, and the society is divided into disparate factions. It does not take long for the child to learn of views not favoured within his faction. When he checks back with his elders, they sometimes provide convincing objections and counter-arguments. At other times they merely make pained denials and tell him that nobody likes people who say things like that. Not only does his natural curiosity remain unsatisfied, but he may feel that something is being withheld deliberately. He gradually builds up a list of topics which he knows not to broach with them. They usually interpret his silence as acceptance of their views, reinforcing their belief that his upbringing is going according to plan.

The behaviour pattern of the society is also subjected to erosive processes which have little or nothing to do with its conventional wisdom. From his earliest years the normal child finds ways around some of the constraints which are supposed to make him conform. For example, when he does not get what he wants, he may create a scene until somebody does something to placate him. His elders usually try to fob him off by telling him he cannot have such things until he is older. They may tell him that they suffered similar restrictions at his age, or try to divert his mind into more conventional channels, to make things as easy as possible while he is becoming reconciled. If necessary they take sterner measures, and he finally gives up when he sees that he is gaining nothing by his performance.

They do not always choke him off. Whenever they give in to him, they not only condone a departure from the accepted behaviour pattern, but also the granting of more than his normal entitlement. Whether or not this is exactly what he wants, it registers in his mind as an admission that there was an element of justice in his claim. His thoughts develop in unintended directions, and he begins to acquire an inflated idea of his rights and entitlements. No two children meet with exactly the same experiences. Each reacts in his own way, building up a store of impressions, memories and beliefs, and developing the first components of a moral code. A substantial part may be shared by others, but the rest is a concoction peculiar to himself and known only to himself. When his treatment does not conform to his code he feels cheated, and fights back where he can to redress his grievances.

He conceals some of his non-conformist ideas from his elders, leading them to believe that they exercise closer control than they really do. They may bring him promptly into line when he strays, and laugh off some of his escapades as being of no consequence, but he has made up his mind to behave differently when free of their constraints. Even if he defies them on a few issues they do not worry particularly. After all they well remember being much the same at his age, and so are confident that he will come around to their way of thinking or be forced into line as he matures.

Their expectations are often realised, such as when the child assumes that his elders have special knowledge which he is too young to grasp. He takes for granted that all will be made known to him eventually, and that he will then be able to speak and act with the same authority. Even this cannot entirely prevent his ideas and attitudes from diverging from theirs. A young child can sometimes see when his elders are patently in error, such as when they persist with assertions which are contrary to his experience, or when they misjudge his behaviour or motives. They also err in continuing to evade some of the questions which they implied would be answered later. They may admit that the answers are not known, and perhaps never will be known, only to make him more determined than ever to find out for himself some day. He may also wonder how grown people can be so disinterested instead of wanting to know the answers too. He may hear of conditions or injustices which offend his sensibilities, only to find that his elders defend them, or deny that there is any need for improvement.

His differences with his elders may not stem only from his everyday life and interests. They sometimes discuss adult business in his presence, and it is possible for him to suspect false statements even though he is too young to appreciate their significance. He has only to detect the attitudes which go hand in glove with erroneous beliefs; refusals to give explanations, assertions used to intimidate, denunciations of those who hold alternative views. Prejudice and intimidation can alienate a rational mind at any age, regardless of the context of the discussion. The surprise should not be that the odd child is able to sense that something is not quite right, but that so many adults are not.

In such ways the subjective cause becomes self-defeating. If the child is too long denied information, is deceived or silenced or otherwise made to associate the quest for knowledge with secrecy or mystery, he may conclude that his elders have no intention of assisting him. It is then unlikely that they will ever regain his confidence. Any subsequent explanations would have to be new to him, and be honest attempts to answer some of his more important questions. Any such approach would have to be made in a more sympathetic spirit to sweep aside some of the barriers previously built up. There is little possibility of this happening, so by default his elders help him to develop an independence of mind at an unduly early age. Although he is probably too young to think beyond the immediate situation, he may resolve that he will try to get to the bottom of things when he is older. He may even think a generation ahead, and determine to provide his own children with better explanations, and perhaps bring about a few other changes for good measure.

Most children have thoughts of this kind at some time or another, but few persist and fewer see them through. This does not necessarily signify lack of purpose or responsibility, but rather the way their interests can change as they discover where their abilities lie, and when new opportunities arise. However things may turn out later, they never entirely forget their early ideals and resolutions. Some go through life convinced that they would have risen to the occasion if only there had been some practicable way of doing so, or if only their more urgent commitments had allowed. Very few go further than this with their youthful intentions.

There is no sudden change of climate when the child begins his formal schooling. He is exposed to many new teachings, but they more or less follow on from what he already knows. No particular accent is placed on objective teachings, if anything some of them are clouded with subjective attitudes and side issues. Special accent is sometimes placed on subjective teachings, such as when one of the teachers extols the superiority of their society and its way of life, and the virtues and benefits of conformity and upright behaviour generally.

Apart from a few highlights of this nature, the teachings are presented in a stereotyped and somewhat colourless manner. Much is taught by rote and many questions are sidestepped or deferred. Some of these could be answered and understood then and there, but many cannot be explained effectively until the pupils are older. All in all they are unlikely to discriminate strongly between objective and subjective teachings during the first years of schooling. Indeed there is no reason why two pupils, attending the same classes, should not react in totally different ways without realising that their paths have begun to diverge. One may develop a capacity for inductive stage reasoning, while the other may go through life without so much as a passing thought for the objective aspects of what has been presented. This lack of positive objective guidance is prevalent in every society, and it strongly favours the development of subjective reasoning. Nothing can eliminate objective reasoning altogether, but it is hardly surprising that so few take to it, or that the majority of children find no way through the maze.

What then are some of the factors which might bring about the transition to inductive stage reasoning? We will take it as read that the seed lies dormant unless and until conditions are suitable for its growth, otherwise it languishes by the time the child reaches the age of seven. He will retain a reference mind if he sees nothing exceptional in the world about him, and is given no profound cause to doubt the actions and utterances of those he emulates. This tendency is so deeply ingrained in the young of all animal species, except Man, that the perpetuation of subjective reasoning is guaranteed.

The desire to conform may go against the development of objective reasoning, yet non-conformity rarely fosters it. All children become non-conformists in relation to their elders to a greater or lesser extent, but this is rarely associated with non-conformity in their basic mode of reasoning. Nor should it be assumed that objective influences cause the seed to grow, or that subjective influences stifle it. Either can be instrumental in bringing about the transition by triggering off ingrown objective responses, but when these are not evoked even the most powerful objective influences can have no effect. The transition does not hinge on exceptional opportunities or experiences, or fortuitous chains of events. All children are exposed to a succession of new topics and interests, and are quick to compare notes with one another. They exchange embellished accounts of the most mundane events, and try to outdo one another in highly fanciful and far-fetched discussions. Few, therefore, can reasonably plead in later years that they lacked mental stimulation in their early childhood.

For this to lead to inductive stage reasoning is quite another matter; a lifetime of consuming interest in a particular area is not enough in itself. During his earliest years the child's interest must be so stimulated that he develops an unquenchable desire to understand, which far transcends the normal level of curiosity. Most people are well satisfied with their own powers of concentration and perseverance, but few can realise, let alone sustain, the intensity of purpose or the application and selectivity of the spontaneously inductive mind.

The causes leading to the transition may not be clearly defined, but the subsequent effects are beyond doubt. The child's mind is stimulated to a state of active puzzlement, which cannot be satisfied with anything less than the truth. It drives him on without respite, to enquire and keep on enquiring at every available opportunity, and to follow any lead while it holds out the slightest promise. The quest dominates his thoughts, and he will travel to the ends of the earth, if need be, in the hope of finding satisfaction.

Thus by the age of seven the inductive child has not only achieved self-sufficiency as far as his basic mode of reasoning is concerned, but he has learned to puzzle and ponder for himself, and to persist despite all the assertions and dissuasions of others. He may come back to question his elders again and again, but he always returns to his own thoughts unless he is provided with the truth he seeks. They may interpret his questioning as a desire for further instruction in the subjective beliefs of their society, but he has heard it all before and soon turns away apparently satisfied. He is therefore unlikely to question his elders beyond the accepted limits, indeed he may never become aware that some of these exist. This imperfect knowledge of the tolerance limits of his society is a characteristic of the inductive man which remains with him throughout his life.

The attitude of the inductive child to any matter which fails to stimulate his active puzzlement is not necessarily different from that of any other child. In general, however, he is so immersed in his active puzzlement that he takes less interest in some of the topics which other children find so attractive. This adds to the difficulty of making direct comparisons between his attitudes and theirs, and is a continuing source of misunderstanding to his elders.

The transition of the disciplined reference child to objective reasoning follows along similar lines. His mind, too, is stimulated to a state of active puzzlement at an early age, but it falls far short of the intensity needed for inductive stage reasoning. It may be that he has been given some of the answers he wants before he has had the time to exercise his mind far enough. Another possibility is that his mind has been put at rest by plausible answers which would fail to satisfy a more mature mind. Once he stops puzzling, whatever the reason, the break in his concentration makes him prone to switch his attention to another topic. This in turn may stimulate his active puzzlement, but without taking it beyond its previous intensity. He therefore remains less critical than he might have been about any answers given or conclusions reached on the second topic. This premature switching from one topic to another is completely alien to the inductive child, but there is nothing unusual about it to the disciplined reference child, so he applies his inductive step reasoning to every topic which stimulates his interest sufficiently. He maintains effective contact with both subjective and objective streams of thought, but is much more amenable to objective influences. He bridges the gap between the two extremes, and in so doing is preparing himself for the crucial role of intermediary between the inductive man and the undisciplined reference man.

The undisciplined reference child has no natural affinity with objective streams of thought. He experiences only passive puzzlement, such that his mind is quickly put at rest by plausible explanations and assurances. Any views which satisfy his passive puzzlement appear to him to provide understanding, regardless of their source, relevance or soundness. Many of these relate to the beliefs and life style of his society, and he accepts them without further doubts or inquiry. Whether he finds satisfaction inside or outside his society, or by puzzling things out for himself, he takes refuge in the comforting things he likes to believe. Once his passive puzzlement has been satisfied he is unlikely to reconsider his position unless he is given the most compelling subjective reasons. Even then he only does so with the utmost reluctance and difficulty.

His subjective reasoning makes it almost impossible for him to achieve self-reliance. He falls into the habit of relying on hearsay when he should be making a point of observing and deciding for himself. He develops exaggerated associations in his mind between things and people, and tries to make up for any inability to judge the one by forming judgements on the other. His usual reaction to an unfamiliar problem is to trust those who help to make things go to his advantage, and to assess the merits and demerits of any conflicting opinions and arguments accordingly. He becomes susceptible to the belief that there can be no more to a problem than is revealed during discussions with those who have encouraged and helped him out in the past. The more subjective their deliberations the more discriminating he feels in his choice of company, and the more secure he feels about the validity of his conclusions.

He forms particularly strong associations in his mind between people and events when things go against him. He identifies his reverses with anybody who has spoken out against his views, or is unsympathetic to his wishes. He looks to the aid of those he trusts, and the situation may sometimes be restored to his liking through their intervention. He learns to rely on such support rather than on his own resources, but it does not teach him how true and lasting success comes in this world. He may become brash and full of self confidence, but he is always skating on thin ice and depending on others to rescue him and help him to re-establish himself.

He resents any adverse change in his fortunes, even when it is the direct consequence of his own actions. Sometimes he can see for himself that an unpleasant occurrence has no other human association, and he feels that his good intentions have been thwarted by an impersonal, unjust world. He has the utmost difficulty in reconciling himself to the thought that he might be unshielded from such things, and aligns himself with those who make out Nature to be less exacting than she really is.

Any of these traits in a child reveal that his basic mode of reasoning remains completely subjective, and that any original tendency to active puzzlement has been snuffed out. Those who have dedicated themselves for seven years to making him conform have at least succeeded in perpetuating their own basic mode of reasoning for yet another generation.

Chapter 4 – Education and Adolescence

No sweeping changes are made as the child passes his seventh birthday. Those who share in his upbringing may not always see eye to eye with one another, but would agree that the development of his mind and character has to remain their collective responsibility for many years to come. After all his formal education is only beginning, and his ties with his home and immediate environment have scarcely been disturbed. He is in continual need of help and guidance, and clearly has a long way to go before his mind matures.

Such considerations help to mask the fact that his basic mode of reasoning is already set for life. Few adults would consider assessing a seven year old from this point of view, and would find little to indicate that he had undergone such an important transition if they were to make the attempt. Nor would they take kindly to the idea that the child might be capable of shaping his own mind, and that there is absolutely nothing they can do to prevent it. Nor would those who try to instil rational leanings find it easy to accept that any tendency to objective reasoning stems from his natural affinities, and not directly from their guidance.

By this time a large share of the responsibility has been transferred to the school. Most of the teachers take their duties seriously, and some are idealistic enough to believe that they can play a part in improving the world and its ways through education. They subscribe to the adage that enlightenment and reason will prevail, and can best be promoted through logical argument, demonstration and example. They recognise the importance of comprehension, and avoid mechanical and repetitive teaching as far as possible. In many respects they adopt a consistent and straightforward approach, geared to the pupils' powers of assimilation. They do their best to make the work interesting, and to draw out and encourage their latent abilities.

Many considerations can prevent the teachers from putting their ideals into practice. Their approaches to education inevitably vary, if only because of their different ages and the range of teaching theories and methods in which they have been trained. As in any occupation the younger members are usually eager to experiment with something different, whether or not it has been tried before, and find themselves obstructed by those who are more set in their ways. One teacher, remembering his own difficulties as a child, may go to great pains to clarify his presentation, only to make it sound unduly complex. Another may not remember so clearly, and oversimplify his presentation. Their criteria for comprehension also vary, since they are not always clear in their own minds what they themselves do as a result of reasoned argument, and what by force of habit.

Another factor is their ability to win the confidence and respect of the pupils. Any failing in this regard can seriously offset the impact of any teaching. For instance, teaching by rote may be appropriate enough when facts and figures have to be memorised, but not when lines of reasoning have to be grasped. Those who attempt to impart understanding in this way merely make the work dull and repetitious. The pupil's minds are apt to wander, while some may lose their last spark of natural curiosity, and decide that all scholarship is dreary and fruitless. A few are able to achieve high ratings despite everything, but would not necessarily stand up to a searching test for comprehension.

The fault does not always lie with the teachers. Some of the pupils have already been alienated from education by the influence of parents or older children, and many a teacher has found that there is no easy way of undoing the damage. Nor is it always practicable to wait for the slowest in the class to catch up, and so a certain amount of teaching by repetition is unavoidable if the best use is to be made of the allotted time. All that can be done under the circumstances is to inject a few ideas and hope that understanding will follow later. In the process they may find themselves helping to perpetuate some of the folk-lore of the society, if only as a means of conveying useful messages which young minds can quickly grasp. They may regret such expedients, but they may have already found that more advanced explanations can sometimes create more difficulties than are resolved.

The teachers are also inhibited in various ways by outside influences and interference. Many parents and others connected with the school make it their business to have a say in its administration. All profess to have the interests of the pupils at heart, and each tries to have his views, or the views of the faction he represents, given precedence over alternative teachings. They can play a dominant part in the appointment and control of staff, and in the raising of finance and its allocation. The teachers have to adapt themselves to this arrangement as best they can, but it is not necessarily as restrictive as it may sound. They too have a wide range of interests, and would have struck a similar kind of balance amongst themselves if they had been left to their own devices. Collectively they can partly offset the adverse effects of outside interference by virtue of a common bond of professionalism, and invest the educational processes with a measure of consistency and continuity.

The curriculum is a carefully regulated mixture, the result of continual argument and bargaining behind the scenes. Each faction jealously insists that its subjective contribution be maintained, and has its watchdogs on the alert for infringements. New teachings are given close scrutiny, and anything found offensive or doubtful is suppressed. The rest is pruned and sterilised until approved by all parties, and is finally released as suitable for the minds of children.

The teachers are allowed a certain degree of latitude, even in the most regulated societies. Some are affiliated with particular factions, and openly advocate their beliefs and aims. They may even have received their appointments on this condition. They are virtually free of restrictions when teaching pupils of the same persuasion, but not when other pupils are present. Some of the other teachers may have a broader outlook, and a more detached appreciation of the workings of the society. They are virtually unrestricted when teaching their approved subjects to pupils with diverse backgrounds, but are given little or no part to play in their separate conditioning. Teachers who are recognised as authorities in objective fields are usually left alone as long as they do not become embroiled in subjective affairs to the detriment of other participants. A teacher from an alien society, or one affiliated with a faction not generally countenanced, may also be accepted provided that he does nothing to offend the dominant factions. It is not unknown for such a teacher to be more in tune with the wider society, and to behave more correctly, than some of the more orthodox identities of the school.

Each teacher has to strike an appropriate balance, and he does not settle into his assigned place without a measure of jostling and soul searching. Further clashes may be triggered off if a teacher presents disapproved teachings to his pupils. They discuss the matter amongst themselves, and some relay it to their parents, who in turn refer it to the dignitaries of their factions. If the rumour is substantiated, the aid of the other teachers is normally enlisted to put the offender back in his place, and to discredit his views. The incident soon dies down and is apparently forgotten, but this is not always the end of the matter. If the powers that be are particularly concerned, they intervene and remind the offending teacher that he has been entrusted with that most precious and fragile resource of their society, the minds of the young, and demand an immediate undertaking that there will not be a recurrence. If he is unrepentant they may take sterner measures, and in an extreme case he can lose his livelihood.

In these and other ways the school is made to reflect the society. The more closely the two are matched, the more sensitive are those in control to non-conformities and disturbances in the school. They try to forestall such problems and maintain a facade of stability and permanence, by the careful selection and promotion of teachers with an up-to-date appreciation of the basic structure and beliefs of the society. Their abilities are judged with an eye on their success in keeping the teachings of the school within limits acceptable to all factions, and without the need for unseemly outside intervention.

These undercurrents rarely come to the surface in the classroom. The teachers go out of their way to avoid open criticism of the system and of one another, and make little impression on their pupils if they occasionally give vent to their feelings. Their lessons are presented in the main with uniform reasonableness and seriousness, even though some of the material is contentious and prescribed without their full concurrence. They may encourage the pupils to read and find things out for themselves, but this is not always effective since so much of the available material is designed around the curriculum and coloured by the beliefs and attitudes of the society.

The pupils are kept busy on a variety of subjects, each presented in its own style of formal logic, but they are given little guidance in discriminating between rational and irrational lines of thought. The tendency is rather for subjects to be kept as separate entities, with insufficient accent on their interrelationships and ultimate purposes. Whenever the presentation falls short of a pupil's needs, he turns elsewhere for information and guidance and tries to weigh things up in his own mind. The same applies when he encounters contradictory statements, or disagreements with what he has been taught earlier.

Conflicts also arise outside the classroom, as he rubs shoulders with pupils from other backgrounds. Some claim to be allowed greater liberties at home than he, and urge him to stand up more for his rights. He may find out later, to his surprise, that they are denied some of the rights which he has long enjoyed, yet they do nothing to remedy their own circumstances. Others try to force their opinions on him, and decry everything he puts forward. He is antagonised from the start, more by their brashness and intolerance than by what they say. As time goes by he sees inconsistencies and fallacies in their assertions and arguments, and this gives him more confidence in standing up to them. Some of his own opinions may change in the process, but the result of such encounters is generally a greater determination not to follow in their footsteps.

As the pupils approach adolescence they are exposed to many unfamiliar influences and pressures, but usually manage to shrug them off. In an extreme case an individual may change his ideas completely under the impact of a particularly powerful argument or experience. His whole outlook can change overnight, creating the erroneous impression that a fundamental transformation of his mind has taken place. Almost anything else about him can change, but never his basic mode of reasoning. It always endures to the end, consolidated and reinforced by time and events.

This is borne out by the effects of new teachings on many young students. When a presentation is reasonably sustained and matched to their age and state of development, they are able to get the drift of virtually any line of argument regardless of their individual interests or modes of reasoning.