You may scratch your head, nod, or argue with your screen over this quote from my first book. Whew. Take a breath. That's quite a bold assertion, isn't it? It suggests that all the drama, all the misunderstandings, all the clashes we experience in life aren’t primarily about external events, or a lack of resources, or even just 'bad people.' Instead, it puts the spotlight squarely on our internal operating system—how our minds work, how we process information, how we form opinions, and ultimately, how we decide what's "right" or "wrong." If this quote is accurate, we should consider introspection before blaming others. When the quote says "thinking itself is a problem," it's not suggesting that intelligence is bad or that having thoughts is inherently flawed. This is far from the case. It shows our thinking's nature: our biases, the filters we use to see the world, our assumptions, and the subjective lens through which we each experience reality. We often see our thoughts as objective truth, as plain common sense. But what if that "common sense" is anything but common, completely unique to our own mental landscape? Think about it. We’re all walking around with our personal hard drives, loaded with different software, different operating systems, and vastly different data accumulated over a lifetime. Your brain isn't just about processing facts; it's about interpreting them, assigning meaning, filtering out certain details, and highlighting others, all based on a complex algorithm of past experiences, emotions, values, and beliefs. The "problem" emerges when these unique internal worlds clash. Let’s start with an arena where differing thoughts are on full, often painful, display: the world of politics. Politicians come from a variety of backgrounds, correct? Take economic policy, for instance. One might genuinely believe that slashing taxes for corporations and the wealthy will stimulate the economy, leading to job creation and prosperity for all. They might have studies, historical precedents, and a whole philosophy built around this idea. Their thinking is rooted in a belief that incentives for the rich trickle down. Conversely, another politician may sincerely hold the belief that investing in social programs and public infrastructure and establishing a robust safety net for the less fortunate is the genuine route to achieving widespread prosperity. They might argue that putting money directly into the hands of the working class boosts demand and that a healthy, educated populace is the bedrock of a strong economy. Their perspective stems from the conviction that growth originates from the grassroots, not the top-down approach. Both arguably want a better country for their constituents. Both are probably intelligent, well-meaning individuals (at least, we hope!). What leads to the persistent gridlock, intense disagreements, and challenges in reaching common ground? It’s not necessarily that one is evil and the other good. This often occurs because their fundamental thinking, which includes core assumptions about human nature, economics, fairness, and the role of government, is diametrically opposed. They view the same societal problems from completely different perspectives, convinced that theirs is the only logical one. Their "thinking itself" becomes the problem, leading to an impasse where progress stalls. Now, let's apply the quote to our personal lives, where it truly resonates. Think about a disagreement you've had with a friend, someone you genuinely like and respect. It could be something as mundane as planning a vacation or as significant as a disagreement over a life choice. Imagine you're planning a weekend trip with a friend. You, in your infinite wisdom, believe the best way to travel is to book everything well in advance, have a detailed itinerary, and stick to it. You enjoy the security and predictability this brings. You think, "Why would anyone want to just wing it? It's a risky approach! Your friend, however, lives for spontaneity. Their ideal trip entails choosing a direction, exploring the journey, and making spontaneous decisions. They think, "Planning everything takes all the fun out of it! Where's the adventure?" Neither of you is wrong. Both ways of thinking about travel are perfectly valid. However, because your individual perspectives on what constitutes a good trip differ so greatly, you may become frustrated with each other and might even accuse one another of being "rigid" or "irresponsible." Your friend might feel constrained by your planning, while you might feel anxious about their lack of foresight. The external event (the trip) isn’t the problem; it’s the clash of your internal processing mechanisms—your unique "thought patterns"—that creates the tension.
Why We Don't See Eye-to-Eye
This incident brings us to a crucial point: "One sees through his own eyes and the others with their eyes." We often forget this simple truth. We perceive the world not as it is, but as we are. It's like everyone is wearing a different pair of bespoke sunglasses, each tinted with unique colors, filters, and prescriptions based on their life journey. Consider a simple event: two colleagues witness a heated exchange between their boss and another team member. Person A, who grew up in a strict household where any display of anger was considered unacceptable, might interpret the boss's tone as aggressive and unprofessional, concluding the boss is a bully. Person B, who grew up in a more boisterous environment where lively debates were common, might see the same exchange as merely passionate and direct, concluding the boss is just a strong leader who gets things done. The "event" is the same, but their internal interpretations, their "thinkings," lead to vastly different conclusions and feelings about the situation. This issue isn't about malicious intent; it's about the inherent subjectivity of human perception. We filter information through our existing beliefs, memories, emotions, and even our current mood. Our brains are constantly creating a coherent narrative, and sometimes, to maintain that coherence, they'll even bend reality a little to fit our preferred storyline. During this process, cognitive biases such as confirmation bias, which involves seeking out information that validates our pre-existing beliefs, become active, thereby reinforcing our own unique perspective and making it more challenging to perceive the world from another's perspective. So, if our thinking is the problem, where does this "thinking" come from? Are the reasons for these different views rooted solely in upbringing? Yes, that's a big part of it, but it's also more complicated than just your childhood. Upbringing: Your upbringing is foundational. The values instilled by your parents, the rules of your household, the way emotions were expressed (or suppressed), the type of education you received, and even the stories you were told—all of these shape your initial mental frameworks. If your upbringing taught you that asking for help is a sign of weakness, your thinking would likely lean toward self-reliance. Your perspective will put the welfare of the group first if you were taught that community support is essential. Culture and Society: Beyond your immediate family, the broader cultural context you grew up in profoundly influences your worldview. National identity, regional customs, religious beliefs, and societal norms around gender roles, success, and failure—these are deeply ingrained and shape how you interpret the world, often subconsciously. What's considered polite in one culture might be rude in another; what's considered an admirable trait here might be a flaw elsewhere. Personal Experiences: Life isn't just about what you're taught; it's about what you live through. Traumatic events, significant achievements, personal relationships (both good and bad), moments of profound insight, travel, and career paths—every single experience adds another layer to your internal operating system. Someone who experienced poverty might have a completely different perspective on money and social services than someone who has always been financially secure. Someone who was betrayed might be more guarded than someone who has always found people trustworthy. Information Diet: In the digital age, what we consume online and through media plays a massive role. The news sources we follow, the social media bubbles we inhabit, and the voices we choose to listen to—all of these feed our "thinking" and can reinforce existing biases, creating echo chambers that make it even harder to understand alternative viewpoints. Innate Temperament and Genetics: Even our basic temperament (e.g., introversion/extroversion, risk aversion, emotional sensitivity) might have a genetic component, influencing how we perceive and react to the world, further contributing to our unique "thinking." It's a complex fabric, intricately woven with numerous threads. Each element contributes to the unique way our brains build their models of reality, making it incredibly difficult to simply "agree to disagree" when our foundational thinking about a topic is so fundamentally divergent. While the quote, "The only problem is the way people think," is wonderfully provocative, it's worth noting that diverse thinking isn't only a problem. In fact, it's also the wellspring of innovation, creativity, and progress. Imagine a world where everyone thought exactly alike—it would be stagnant, boring, and utterly devoid of new ideas. The clash of different perspectives can spark breakthroughs, challenge stale assumptions, and lead to more robust solutions. The "problem," then, isn't the existence of different ways of thinking but rather our inability to navigate those differences constructively. It's when our unique thinking becomes rigid, when we refuse to acknowledge the validity of other perspectives, and when we cease to be curious about why someone thinks differently that "thinking itself" becomes a genuine roadblock to understanding and harmony. So, what’s the takeaway? If our thinking is indeed the root of many problems, the solution lies not in trying to make everyone think alike (an impossible and undesirable goal) but in cultivating qualities that allow us to bridge the gaps between our internal worlds: We must comprehend our own prejudices, presumptions, and emotional stimulants. We should actively strive to put ourselves in the shoes of others and perceive the world through their distinct perspective, even for a brief moment. Instead of immediately dismissing a differing view, ask, "Why do they think that way?" "What experiences led them to this conclusion?" It's important to acknowledge that our perception of reality is not always accurate. It's crucial to develop the ability to express our ideas clearly and, above all, to actively and candidly listen to others. The quote from “Manners in the Great Kingdom” challenges us to look beyond external circumstances and study the complex, often confusing, inner workings of our own and others’ minds. It suggests that if we want to build a more understanding and cooperative world, the journey begins not with fixing “them” or “him,” but with recognizing and navigating the fascinating, complex, and sometimes problematic landscape of “how we think.”