Beware of Intellectual Favoritisms Lurking Everywhere
Guessing Game in Medicine
Have you ever been to a doctor for a second opinion, and then left his office all confused and somewhat pissed off at what appeared to be a guessing routine of the medical profession?
In one of such instances my wife almost lost her eyesight due to a late correct diagnosis. Her persistent cough was first a "bronchitis", then a "whooping cough", and finally a specialist discovered a temporal arteritis, or an inflammation of arteries in head.
After changing her family doctor her bad luck with doctors came back when the new one sent her home with nothing but a usual advice for a "good rest and plenty of liquids"---only the third doctor diagnosing a "walking pneumonia" which persisted for three months for not being treated in time.
Now, let's not jump the gun; most of the doctors are doing their best, with the only little problem that their "best" may not turn out to be good enough. That brings us to an often forgotten fact that a medico is in the first place a human being, not a robot-like encyclopedia of medical science.
So a wrong diagnosis or a treatment may follow after nothing more than his lack of sleep or a nagging indigestion. However, there is this less forgivable factor, and it has a lot to do with his personal favorite approach, or---his intellectual taste.
For example, if during his studies he excelled in microbiology, he may tend to ascribe much of health issues to germs. On the other hand, he could be of a more holistic kind, seeing our physical problems as an extension of something emotional. Much in a sense of that maxim of the ancient Ayurvedic medicine: "Don't tell me where your body is hurting---tell me where your life is hurting."
Unfortunately for us patients, doctors may have this "undiagnosed problem"
of intellectual tastes.
Selective Political Reality
Well, as we are about to see, doctors are not the only ones with this selective diagnostic and procedural methodology which suits their intellectual tastes. The much talked about political turmoil in the USA would provide me with a material for a whole separate article---and it actually did.
But, while elsewhere I was putting the whole weight on the psychological aspect of that national divide, let's see it as a strange and terribly overlooked phenomenon of an intellectual taste.
Namely, it seems like any facts---once they get mixed with human saliva---come out as a personally fabricated model of logicalness. Just like two medicos may look at the same cluster of symptoms and derive two different diagnoses from them, so the same burning national issues may be seen through different lenses of Conservatism and Liberalism.
As we are painfully aware, those differences are enormous these days. And not that a common ground is not possible to be found, but the emotional involvement is not even allowing a search for anything like a compromise between the two camps.
Like I emphasized so many times elsewhere, I am a political cynic, which makes me suspicious about just about any political careerist no matter what fancy name they may give themselves.
Thus, not caring one bit whether Trump stays or goes, I could use him for a clear example of people's impulsive dislikes, or even a disgust which doesn't stop at badmouthing him, but also his family, who have absolutely nothing to do with the political life in the USA.
Thinking with Emotions
According to my observation, ever since the sexual revolution hit the mentality of the western culture back in 60's, the liberated emotionality has been escalating uncontrollably, resulting with this emotionally contaminated thinking.
In art and music we can see it as an "anything goes" syndrome where no parameters of acceptable exist any longer. People like something "simply because they like it", and that's enough of an explanation.
Indeed, there is no strong tendency of a rational discipline and objectivity, and political arena became a site of an emotional junkyard where opposing sides are merely unloading their accumulated irrational emotionalism. It's all about intellectual taste, not about a joint effort to seek those solutions which would not be a subject to that taste.
If anyone thinks it is "normal" and desirable to be led by heart alone, they must be of a kind who allowed their own life to be messed up by an inner anarchy among mental forces.
Political logicalness makes no sense when it is driven by a sentiment, and even those two parties are merely a symptom of that sentimentality. I don't really need any proof to that---anyone can look back over different administrations and notice how the basic standard of living hardly showed any difference regardless of who was in the Office.
Someone much smarter than myself in political matters once said that whether you are voting for one or the other party, you are getting the same crap out of them, with lots of excuses why those promises at election time can't be kept.
Thus, again, it is this intellectual favoritism, or personal taste of looking at matters, which is painting the political reality---not only in the USA, but worldwide.
An Assortment of Gods to Choose From
Intellectual tastes in religious global stadium is probably even more pronounced than anywhere else. With every religion contending that there is only one god, the world could never agree upon that "one and only".
Thus, by creating so many variables in that fund of belief they actually made all of them less credible. It appears to be a sheer case of a "belief within a belief", with so many denominations existing within any of the major belief systems.
Since beliefs are generally not based on facts but rather on a deliberate and intuitive presentation of something hypothetical, these religious wars over the world domination are just as senseless as two people arguing whose dream is more realistic.
I may have no logically based objection about the existence of a universal intelligence "behind all this", but then I certainly won't go poetical about attributing to that intelligence some human characteristics. I mean a "name", or ability to "see", to "be angry", to "forgive", to "punish", etc., including a beard. Metaphors are good when they are depicting something real, not something abstract.
It never stops amazing me how persistent and unchangeable religious beliefs can be. In my life I used to "believe" in this or that, but then it got modified by my level of maturity and experience.
Compare that to the "maturity" process of the mankind, and you just see a historical evidence of the same crap repeating itself ad nauseam, with the same persistent beliefs playing a direct or indirect role in it.
For example, these days scientists are searching for that "god gene" in our genome. That alone is pointing at the fact that the idea of a god doesn't have to be abandoned altogether. But then, neither does it have to stay in those diapers from the cradle of the mankind at that same capacity of perceiving and reasoning which was so obviously mythological and loaded with a sentiment, not a rational thought.
People grow, people change, people mature---and our evolution of consciousness is suggesting that nothing should stay the same. Our intellectual taste persisting through the ages is not making our gods one bit more convincing by being "so old".
Mainstream Science or Another Religion
This phenomenon of intellectual favoritism even shows its silly face in science, as careerism and politics are blinding scientists from seeing how exactly the same bunch of evidence gets interpreted differently.
Then we also have this matter of science turning religion, with an opportunity for every "renegade thinker" to become noticed by his going against the mainstream---no matter how silly he may sound.
For an example, during the fad of "water cure", I received in my mail a brochure titled "Forbidden Cures", with the front page showing this bona fide medical doctor and his claim: "I never had a glass of water in 20 years". His theorizing was debunking the water fad, and made him popular at the reading public with an intellectual taste for "radical health care".
Archaeology is especially closely watched not to go politically incorrect by presenting any evidence which might shake the mighty religious establishment. Censorship is imposed to screen out and expose to a public ridicule anything that might point at an alternative story of human origin, the real age of human race, and alike.
Personally, I am keeping my mind open. I don't have to "believe" in ancient aliens and their genetic engineering of homo sapiens. But I can still wonder about those thousands of unused genes in our genome, since I don't believe there are "spare parts" in our DNA.
So, what models of our psycho-physical functioning are still available to us that are dormant and possibly silenced by our mental programs instilled by social influence? Yes, I am asking questions, not satisfied with the paradigm composed of intellectual preferences of those "giants" at our culture market.
Hate Picking Its Targets
Well, some of us still keep a cool mind while sailing smoothly through the tsunamis of turbulent popular thinking. For one, I am laughing inside as I think what and whom would Americans hate if by any miracle Trump decided to step down on his own.
For, there is no way that all that hate would abruptly subside without merely looking for a fresh target. People have their intellectual tastes dictated by their emotional makeup and quite possibly some unconscious issues with authority figures.
Then, what would happen if medical establishment suddenly---again by some miracle---allowed one of those suppressed cures which don't involve pharmaceuticals and a scalpel to become official? A healthy world is not The Solution, with so many professionals losing their highly paying careers.
So, who are we really kidding, folks, with all that advertised "care" for the welfare of this world---whether it's coming from doctors, politicians, religionists, scientists, anyone "up there" where the "important" beliefs are being tailored for us to blindly accept?
Indeed, we can't switch intellectual favoritism off like we switch the light off. What we can do instead is to recognize it and not fall for it.
After we hear one group of scientists claiming that there is a global warming, and another group of scientists with equally impressive credentials claiming that we are actually cooling down---we might as well turn our TV on and watch something more entertaining.
When anyone tells me with a conviction in their voice anything about politics, religion, science, medicine---I am tempted to ask them: "How do you know?" For knowing is different than believing in what someone else claimed to be true. With so much absolutely confusing and contradicting crap coming from the news media, I refuse to join them with my own deliberate intellectual taste.
While I may have a developed taste for foods, music, clothes, kind of friends, etc.---that's where it stops. And it just feels so good---while my body is whispering "It's healthy too."