How to improve your thinking

We are examining the question of whether humans can improve their thinking on the basis of the scientific facts presented by Daniel Kahneman in his book “Thinking, Fast and Slow”. On page 472 he said “… I have improved only in my ability to recognize situations in which errors are likely …” But this is already a significant improvement. Kahneman learned to recognize such situations the hard way — maybe the hardest way — by devoting his life to the scientific discovery and description of these situations “in which errors are likely”. We do not have to do nearly as much work as Kahneman did in order to recognize these situations because we can learn them either on our own (start by reading Kahneman’s book) or we can learn them through our education processes — in one way or another, at least to some extent, we can learn which situations are dangerous and which ones are not Then when we recognize such dangerous situations, when we “recognize the signs that [we] are in a cognitive minefield, slow down and ask for reinforcement from System 2.”  In other words, slow down and think slow. Kahneman (and other psychologists) did the discovery work. All we have to do is to learn the results and use them in our thinking. Thus we improve our thinking. As I said, this is already a significant improvement in our thinking.

It can be very discouraging now to see the mistakes, fallacies, and general ignorance displayed by economists, financial players, politicians, decision makers of all types — all of us. We make decisions, choices, little ones and big ones, every day of our lives, minute by minute. One could read “Thinking, Fast and Slow” and despair. I reject that. Every fallacy, every mistake, every error in thinking identified and described at least opens up the possibility of fixing it or avoiding it. By learning and understanding the limits of our real human thinking now, we can improve it, we can get rid of some of the limits now and in the not too distant future. Some day there will be no more stock pickers (chapter 20, The Illusion of Validity).

And by the way, we can improve our thinking too if we stop using war memes — “cognitive minefield”.

Is System 1 educable?

Maybe I am “prone to overconfidence” — most of us are — but there are many reasons that the extensive fact based scientific knowledge about how our thinking actually works, and sometimes makes mistakes, as described by Daniel Kahneman in his book “Thinking, Fast and Slow”, can be used by us to improve our thinking, our choices, and our decision making.

Why do we acquire new knowledge? To use it. How will we use this new knowledge about how we humans actually think? First we must use it in any theories that depend upon how we think. Any such theories must be modified to take account of this new knowledge — particularly economic theories, sociobiological theories, but really all social theories.

In practice, education will be changed to reflect these new facts, interpersonal communication will be changed, mass communication will be changed, art and science will be changed. This assumes that these new scientifically established facts will diffuse, will be spread far and wide, through most of our cultures, to almost all people. This will take time, but it will happen because this knowledge is useful. People who acquire this knowledge will think better. Their choices and decisions will better correspond to reality. They will get more of what they want. They will want more of what is good for them because they will better know what is good for them. They will be happier, healthier, and live longer than people who continue to think and communicate and choose and decide crudely and poorly.

Groups, organizations, societies, and cultures that acquire and use this new knowledge will be more effective, more efficient, more likely to attain their goals.

Daniel Kahneman is a proper scientist. He and other psychologists conjecture, test, validate, and methodically record and report the results psychological experiments. This is their job, this is how they see their jobs as scientists. They do not project to the future. But we can project to the future on the basis of sound principles of cultural, societal evolution. One such principle is: Knowledge — useful information — spreads through human communication. It will spread on its own through diffusion, person to person. And it will spread faster if those who have it deliberately spread it to more people.

So we can’t expect Kahneman, in concluding his book, in the quotes from yesterday (repeated below), to be as confident as I am here. Indeed there is an overconfidence mistake we often make. And most of us, on many occasions, are “prone to be overconfident”. But many of us are sometimes depressed, even overdepressed. This is a serious mistake too since it leads to inaction and sometimes death.

“What can be done about biases? How can we improve judgments and decisions, both our own and those of the institutions that we serve and that serve us? The short answer is that little can be achieved without a considerable investment of effort. As I know from experience, System 1 is not readily educable. Except for some effects that I attribute mostly to my age, my intuitive thinking is just as prone to overconfidence, extreme predictions, and the planning fallacy as it was before I made a study of these issues. I have improved only in my ability to recognize situations in which errors are likely: “This number will be an anchor …,” “The decision could change if the problem is reframed …” And I have made much more progress in recognizing the errors of others than my own.”  — Kahneman p. 417.

“The way to block errors that originate in System 1 is simple in principle: recognize the signs that you are in a cognitive minefield, slow down, and ask for reinforcement from System 2. … We would all like to have a warning bell that rings loudly whenever we are about to make a serious error, but no such bell is available, and cognitive illusions are generally more difficult  to recognize than perceptual illusions.” — Kahneman p. 417.

Kahneman says above “System 1 is not educable”. System 1 itself may not be educable but at least some of what it works on may be. Part of what System 1 works on is associative memory. This is information we acquire through learning and experience. Part of it consists of heuristics — rules of thumb, little rules, little associations, little connections we have learned and which we use automatically via System 1. Since this is all information we have learned one way or another, it may very well be able to be improved. Indeed Kahneman gives examples of vast improvements in the associations, the heuristics of System 1 in his chapter 22 “Expert Intuition: When can we trust it?” So experts can improve their associations and heuristics that System 1 operates on, and although not everyone can become an expert in everything, most people do become more or less expert in some few areas. So Kahneman’s own chapter 22 demonstrates that the quality of at least some of the information that System 1 works on can be improved. So System 1 can give better answers for us if we improve the information it works on.

When can we trust an expert’s intuition? Kahneman worked with another scholar, Gary Klein, on this question:

“At the end of our journey, Gary Klein and I agreed on a general answer to our initial question: When can you trust an experienced professional who claims to have an intuition? Our conclusion was that for the most part it is possible to distinguish intuitions that are likely to be valid from those that are likely to be bogus. As in the judgment of whether a work of art is genuine or a fake, you will usually do better by focusing on its provenance than by looking at the piece itself. If the environment is sufficiently regular and if the judge has had a chance to learn its regularities, the associative machinery will recognize situations and generate quick and accurate predictions and decisions. You can trust someone’s intuitions if these conditions are met.” — Kahneman p. 242.

The environment must be sufficiently regular and the expert must have learned its regularities.

The environment must be sufficiently regular and the expert must have learned its regularities.

“… [Some] experts may not know the limits of their expertise. … [they] … do have intuitive skills in some of their tasks, but they have not learned to identify the situations and  the tasks in which intuition will betray them. The unrecognized limits of professional skill help explain why experts are often overconfident.” — Kahneman p. 242.

So we need to learn to evaluate our own intuitions by asking ourselves: Is the environment, the subject matter (stock prices, psychological evaluations, politics, chess, medical diagnosis, etc.) sufficiently regular and if it is, have I really learned its regularities.

Can people learn these things? Can we learn how and when and where to be skeptical about System 1’s answers? Of course we can.

Changing people’s minds non-violently

The revolution is and must be about changing people’s minds non-violently. Even when in wars threats and force and violence are used the aim is still to change people’s minds.  Threats and force and violence are not very efficient in changing people’s minds. One of the most important changes we want to see people make in themselves is for people to see that force and violence are poor ways of changing people’s minds. So if we used threats and force and violence to try to change people’s minds we would be doing the opposite of what we want since we would be teaching, through our own actions, that force and violence are acceptable ways to try to change people’s minds. And we would be less effective than we could be.

If we must not use violence etc. what can we do to change people’s minds. First, we cannot change someone else’s mind. We must communicate with them to help them change their own minds. There are well established methods for doing this. All the non-violent and non-threatening methods of education are ways we help one another change our minds. There is also a practical and very successful counseling/negotiating/educating practice called non-violent communication — read the book “Non-Violent Communication” by Marshall Rosenberg. Every communication between two people changes both of their minds, more or less, sometimes very little or for a short period of time, and sometimes very much and permanently, and everything in between.

When people are communicating with one another they are passing ideas, information back and forth, each to and from the other. They are thinking. They are using System 1 and System 2 as described in Daniel Kahneman’s book “Thinking, Fast and Slow”. System 1 includes our intuitions, our sensory perceptions processing, language comprehension, feelings — automatic and instantaneous mental activities almost always not conscious. System 2 includes our calculations, ruminations, conscious choices, conscious decisions, etc. System 1 is Kahneman’s fast thinking; System 2 is slow thinking. System 1 and System 2 work together. System 1 is based on associations, connections, similarities, metaphors. System 2 does calculations, elaborate comparisons, what we call logical thinking (reasoning). System 2 is lazy. If System 1 offers an immediate answer to some question or problem, System 2 might do nothing more than accept it. System 1 works on information associated immediately with the question or problem. For System 1, what it sees in its limited automatic way, is all it has to work with. This Kahneman calls “What You See Is All There Is” — WYSIATI. System 2 is likely to try to give an answer if System 1 does not come up with one. But if System 1 has a quick answer, System 2, being lazy, may just accept it without question, without further thought. Many mistakes in thinking occur because System 1, being limited by its WYSIATI, gives a poor answer, and System 2, being generally lazy, doesn’t bother to check System 1’s answer. It is true that most of the time System 1’s answer is OK, it works well for most everyday activities, and so it’s fine that System 2 does not check these System 1 answers. Also there are many System 1 answers that System 2 is never aware of, that System 2 has no access to, so it couldn’t possibly check them. Also since system 2 is slow compared to System 1, System 2 would be hopelessly bogged down if it tried to check very many of System 1’s answers.

So this is the dilemma. System 1 is automatic and fast but is limited by WYSIATI and can be very wrong; while System 2 is slow and lazy and doesn’t have enough time to check very many of System 1’s answers.

Kahneman has documented numerous specific ways in which System 1 and System 2 get things wrong, numerous ways in which humans make mistakes in thinking. “Thinking, Fast and Slow” is a big book both scientifically and by size (499 pages, 38 chapters, 2 appendices). On the basis of this immense collection of scientific facts can we do anything to help humans make fewer mistakes in thinking? And if we could, would we speed up the non-violent revolution most of us want?

Daniel Kahneman does not seem to be optimistic:

“What can be done about biases? How can we improve judgments and decisions, both our own and those of the institutions that we serve and that serve us? The short answer is that little can be achieved without a considerable investment of effort. As I know from experience, System 1 is not readily educable. Except for some effects that I attribute mostly to my age, my intuitive thinking is just as prone to overconfidence, extreme predictions, and the planning fallacy as it was before I made a study of these issues. I have improved only in my ability to recognize situations in which errors are likely: “This number will be an anchor …,” “The decision could change if the problem is reframed …” And I have made much more progress in recognizing the errors of others than my own.”  — Kahneman p. 417.

“The way to block errors that originate in System 1 is simple in principle: recognize the signs that you are in a cognitive minefield, slow down, and ask for reinforcement from System 2. … We would all like to have a warning bell that rings loudly whenever we are about to make a serious error, but no such bell is available, and cognitive illusions are generally more difficult  to recognize than perceptual illusions.” — Kahneman p. 417.

Maybe I am “prone to overconfidence” but …(to be continued).

How to Spread Revolutionary Knowledge

There isn’t any one right order. There are many that will work very well. In a complex evolving culture we can spread our revolutionary concepts, knowledge, information in many possible ways. We can’t know for sure how well any particular way will work. We can only rely on general principles — about how ideas and information spread through a culture.

So let’s go back to the original list and first put related chunks of information together.

There are a number of these chunks related to cooperation. Let’s group them under the heading of Cooperation:

It is natural for people to cooperate in almost all situations.

Cooperation can be taught.

Conflict and competition are not the same.

Competition is a form of cooperation.

Conflicts exist but they can be limited.

Next let’s group things having to do with fear and anger:

The specific things we fear have been learned and therefore can be unlearned.

We can learn to control anger and many people can learn to eliminate anger from their lives.

Thinking with too much fear, anger, or hatred can lead to wars.

Fear, anger, hatred, disgust are effective propaganda tools.

Learning:

Almost everybody can learn new things at any age.

Altruism can be taught. Generosity is taught. Excessive selfishness is taught.

We learn and create only by building on the knowledge, the work, of others.

Thinking:

Thinking requires feelings.

Excessive amounts of feelings degrade thinking.

Depression is dangerous, even deadly and anyone with even a little depression should seek professional help.

Mania is dangerous.

Authority is dangerous.

Ideologies can be, and probably most are, traps.

Limiting your thinking is limiting yourself

Force and threats are counter productive.

Some big statements:

Human nature is not fixed.

Perfection is an illusion.

Utility theory is grossly simplistic.

Most economic talk and theorizing is total bullshit.

Propaganda:

Repetition is very effective.

Propaganda works.

Truth has an advantage.

Sense of Justice:

People have a strong sense of, a feeling for, justice, fairness which can be increased or decreased by learning.

Influence and Control:

The superrich run things, or think they do.

No one controls anything.

At most we can have some influence.

Information leaks always.

Individuality:

Most people are not stupid.

We must take care of ourselves.

From the day you are born till you ride in the hearse there is nothing so bad that it couldn’t be worse.

Sociality:

Not everyone is greedy all the time.

Altruism exists.

In everything we do we are helped by others.

We are almost never alone.

Complex Systems:

Complex systems must be changed very carefully one step at a time.

Complex systems can sometimes do very unexpected things.

There are almost always unintended consequences when a change is made to a complex system.

Evolution:

Everything evolves, only faster or slower.

Some knowledge speeds up the evolution, the changes, in a society or culture.

Freedom of speech should speed up the evolution of a culture.

Freedom of behavior consistent with nonviolence should speed up cultural evolution.

Both of these allow for increased spreading of new knowledge.

Secrecy limits cultural evolution.

There are many chunks of knowledge that if spread to enough people could significantly speed up the changing of our present system to a socially just system.

Big changes can occur quickly.

Some ideas, some chunks of knowledge, can spread very fast throughout a whole population, especially if the population has been prepared by being supplied with the intermediate knowledge required so that the new or radical ideas make sense.

OK, so we have somewhat chunked the items on the list. Next we want to put these bigger chunks in some pragmatic teaching/learning order. It would seem that chunks like Thinking and Learning should come earlier on the list. Economics is mostly BS should come later, along with the other “Big Statements” since they require an understanding of Evolution. So should complex Systems and Evolution. Cooperation should occur near the middle. Fear and Anger should be near Thinking, probably before it. Propaganda should come just after Thinking.

There are other considerations besides ease of learning that must be considered in trying to determine a good strategic order for spreading our revolutionary ideas. For example the Economics is mostly BS meme maybe should be spread early because there is already a huge amount of information circulating in the population to that effect. We must remember that not everyone needs to understand all the details supporting the validity of some chunk of knowledge in order to accept and use that chunk of knowledge. You may not need to know and understand all the neurological details of how excessive fear and anger degrades your thinking in order to learn to influence your use of fear and anger. You don’t need to know all the details of how a car works in order to drive one.

Maybe the “Occupy” movements will prepare a large chunk of the population for learning about how propaganda works, or how our democracy does not presently work well, or how the powers that be can corrupt and co-opt popular movements. So then the population has been prepared for different revolutionary knowledge to go on top of what they have just learned from these Occupy movements.

So for now, I’ll leave the subject of the strategic spreading of our revolutionary knowledge. 

Strategic Knowledge part 2

We are going through a list of facts — chunks of knowledge — that will help people understand that we can make a non-violent revolution to transform our economic and political systems into more socially just systems. We are analyzing these facts to see where they come from, to see how they are related, to see what other information they depend on, so that we may put them in an order that will most easily allow their spread to a large enough chunk of the whole population. We analyzed some in the previous post. Here are swveral more from the remainder of the list.

Thinking requires feelings. Excessive amounts of feelings degrade thinking. We talked about the emotions fear, anger, hatred, disgust, and grief above. Emotions are changes occurring in your body in certain situations. In fear your heart beats faster, your blood is circulated to your muscles, your muscles tense, cortisol and adrenalin are secreted into your blood stream. This is the emotion — the actual bodily changes. The feeling associated with the emotion is your experience, your awareness, your sensing of these bodily changes. The feelings are inside you. Some of your emotional responses can be seen by other people since tensing of muscles can be seen by others, in particular your facial muscles, since each emotion has a unique pattern of facial muscles tensing and relaxing. (Read “Emotions Revealed” by Paul Ekman.) Your feelings can’t be seen by others. But they can be inferred from your facial and other bodily expressions. Feelings are stored away with all our memories. Some amount of the feelings we experience during some memorable episode are stored away with the other information about that episode such as where it was, when it was, who you were with, the sights, the sounds, the smells, the tastes (if any), the pain (if any). The feelings stored away with a memory are recalled along with the other information when that memory is used in thinking. For example if you are in a restaurant looking at the desert menu and you see pumpkin pie listed and when you were a child you once ate too much pumpkin pie and got sick, you might have very bad feelings regarding pumpkin pie, and thus you decide not to have pumpkin pie for desert. So you used your feelings about pumpkin pie, stored in your memory from long ago, in the process of thinking about what desert you might want, and you decided not to have pumpkin pie. Your feelings helped you decide. Your feelings were necessary for your thinking. When a person has damage to particular areas of their brain that connect feelings and thinking, they cannot make decisions. They can go round and round considering all the possibilities, but they cannot decide, they cannot “make up their minds”. This is especially true for social decisions like whom to marry, whom to trust. (Read “Looking for Spinoza” by Antonio Damasio. One person with such brain damage spent more than a half hour trying to decide which of two possible appointment times was better.)

OK, thinking requires feelings. So what’s the big deal? There are several reasons why this is important to understand. The fundamental reason is that it explains many distortions of thinking, poor thinking, that lead to irrational and inappropriate behaviors. Another reason is that it used to be thought that the best thinking should be totally detached from emotions and feelings. And some people still try to eliminate all feelings from thinking. To actually do that would degrade their thinking. The amount, the intensity, of feelings associated with some thought can be too much or too little. The feelings associated with one thought can spill over and affect another thought. And there are phobias. Some people regularly have fears of some things way out of proportion to the actual danger: fear of spiders, fear of snakes, fear of heights, fear of closed spaces, fear of open spaces, some people are afraid to leave their house or apartment. There are many others. (Read “Feeling Good” by David D. Burns, M.D. The whole book is about the multiple ways people use distorted and unrealistic thinking about themselves and the world.)

We need to understand how good thinking and poor thinking actually work so we can teach ourselves and others how to think better. Then our choices, our decisions, will be better. We will be more effective in our actions, in everything we do. We will be less susceptible to propaganda.

I have said that thinking with fear and anger degrades thinking; yet here I say feelings are essential for thinking well. The degradation of thinking comes because the amount or intensity of the feelings is wrong, or the feelings are associated with the wrong object. Anger toward one person often spills over to nearby people. So thinking with fear or anger really means having too much fear or anger or it’s directed at the wrong object.  

Repetition is very effective. Repetition is how we memorize things  — basic facts like 3 X 8 = 24 or Columbus is the capitol of Ohio. These are facts — chunks of knowledge, chunks of information we use in our lives to make decisions, to do whatever we do. We learn and remember these chunks of information by hearing them spoken or seeing them written over and over during our education in schools as well as everywhere else. We also learn and memorize chunks of information that are less basic, more speculative, incomplete, somewhat useful, misleading or just wrong. Some examples: people are selfish; people are greedy; buy low, sell high; speed kills; follow your gut; look before you leap, etc. There are thousands of facts, factoids, rules of thumb, aphorisms, etc. that we have learned, memorized, through hearing or reading them over and over again. Repetition is the process by which we learn, store, memorize these chunks of information, treat them as knowledge, and use them in thinking and making decisions in our daily lives. Most of the information we accept and use as knowledge we get this way. Only sometimes do we carefully assess the usefulness, the truth, the consistency, of new information we accept and use.  

Propaganda works. Propaganda works by repetition, by excessive generation of fear, anger, hatred, disgust, contempt, by demonizing individuals and groups, by simplistic thinking — thinking in terms of absolutes and binaries such as good and evil and rejecting gradations in between the absolutes. Another form of simplistic thinking propaganda uses is focusing on people rather than issues and policies — the advantages and disadvantages of proposed changes to our systems. The person becomes a symbol for the policy. The character of the person is substituted for the policy. Propagandists then glorify or demonize specific people rather than discuss the proposals the glorified or demonized people make. We can call this thinking in terms of people. It goes along with thinking in terms of excessive fear and anger.

Propaganda is made easier by mass media — which send information from a very limited number of sources to millions of viewers or listeners such as TV and radio. But propaganda can be sent through any media. One possible advantage of the internet as the medium of information spreading is the large number of possible sources should be harder for a small number of people to attempt to control. But on the receiving end, which sources will people listen to? If we group people by their main sources of information will we have millions of groups, or thousands, or hundreds, or three (like we had when there were only 3 TV networks)?

Propaganda also occurs in person-to-person conversations. Just talk to someone who has been propagandized by one of the TV so-called news channels.  The propagandaness (the essence of propaganda) is still there: distorted thinking, simplistic thinking, thinking with excessive fear and anger, thinking in terms of caricatures of people. There is no question that propaganda works. It clearly leads people to support war, promote war, go to war. It easily convinces people to vote against their own interests.

So should the revolution use propaganda? The answer has to be no for several reasons. It’s like violence. Implicit in our goals of social justice is the goal of eliminating or continually reducing violence in our societies and cultures. We also surely want to reduce propaganda as I have characterized it. We want to eliminate distorted thinking, simplistic thinking, thinking with excessive fear and anger, thinking in terms of caricatures of people. We want more and more people to see and understand how our social systems can be improved, to bring them closer to our goals of social justice. It would be absurd to try to teach and spread methods of better thinking by using distorted and simplistic thinking. As with violence, if we try to use propaganda to make a revolution, then we will not be successful, we will have changed very little.

Another reason we must teach, promote, and spread better thinking is to undo the neoliberal propagandistic thinking that has led to the present neoliberal dominance. How do we get our Democracy back? One way might be to teach better thinking — thinking without excessive or mis-directed fear and anger, etc. — so that a large enough number of people have learned to recognize propaganda and therefore reject it. This is not impossible. All it requires is spreading the necessary knowledge to enough people. Part of the revolutionary program, part of the revolutionary strategy, must be to spread the knowledge of how to avoid propagandistic thinking to as many people as possible, and ultimately to almost everybody in the world.

Truth has an advantage. This may seem to be an odd assertion. It used to be thought that all a scholar or scientist had to do was to discover the truth, publish it, and our societies and cultures would accept it and act accordingly, and all would be well. It’s not that simple. Philosophers still argue about what truth is. Truth is or was one of those absolutes that modernists or post-modernists rejected. Absolutes seem to be quasi mathematical concepts. They may not actually apply to everyday human activities. Some have embraced this idea to claim then that truth does not matter. And from that they have concluded that anything goes — lies and tricks are OK in trying to convince people about something — maybe even Milton Friedman’s stupid assertion that the assumptions of an economic theory don’t matter comes from this mindset. Absolute truth may not matter, but relative truth surely does matter. Relative truth is how accurate a theory is or how well it works, or how useful it is in making predictions. Relative truth is how well some rule of thumb, some fact, some factoid, some statement, some rule, some knowledge, some information actually works in the world for people using the information. And we have systematic ways of checking, testing, finding out how well some theory, statement, fact, idea, etc. works. It is called the scientific method. Some theories, statements, facts, ideas work better than others. By the methods of science we find out which are better or worse than others. Truth matters.

The remainder of the list is below. I’ll look at some of these in the next post.

People have a strong sense of, a feeling for, justice, fairness which can be increased or decreased by learning. Most economic talk and theorizing is total bullshit. The superrich run things, or think they do. No one controls anything. At most we can have some influence. Information leaks always. Most people are not stupid. Almost everybody can learn new things at any age. Force and threats are counterproductive. Altruism exists. Altruism can be taught. Generosity is taught. Excessive selfishness is taught. We must take care of ourselves. In everything we do we are helped by others. We learn and create only by building on the knowledge, the work, of others. We are almost never alone. Conflict and competition are not the same. Competition is a form of cooperation. Conflicts exist but they can be limited. Thinking with too much fear, anger, or hatred can lead to wars. Everything evolves. Everything changes only slower or faster. We can influence social change. From the day you are born till you ride in the hearse there is nothing so bad that it couldn’t be worse (or better). Depression is dangerous, even deadly and anyone with even a little depression should seek professional help. Mania is dangerous. Authority is dangerous. Ideologies can be, and probably most are, traps. Limiting your thinking is limiting yourself. Fear, anger, hatred, disgust are effective propaganda tools. Complex systems must be changed very carefully one step at a time. Complex systems can sometimes do very unexpected things. There are almost always unintended consequences when a change is made to a complex system. Some knowledge speeds up the evolution, the changes, in a society or culture. Freedom of speech should speed up the evolution of a culture. Freedom of behavior consistent with nonviolence should speed up cultural evolution. Both of these allow for increased spreading of new knowledge. Secrecy limits cultural evolution. There are many chunks of knowledge that if spread to enough people could significantly speed up the changing of our present system to a socially just system. Big changes can occur quickly. Some ideas, some chunks of knowledge, can spread very fast throughout a whole population, especially if the population has been prepared by being supplied with the intermediate knowledge required so that the new or radical idea makes sense. The foundation is already there and when the new idea is heard even once the reaction in the vast majority of people is “Yes!, Yes! That’s exactly right. That is what we must do.”