Theoretical
Theories get in the way of clearly seeing. We were talking about the video shown at orientation, of a group of people dribbling and passing basketballs, and we were instructed to count how many passes. Half way, a guy in a gorilla suit walks right through the middle of the group, stops, thumps his chest, then exits the other side. A wave of giggles as this happens. Video over, the instructor asks how many people noticed the gorilla. A bit over half of us, and the rest are baffled. They show the video again, and the rest of the class is amazed.
I have come to suspect that this is the problem with 'scientific method.' Gathering data, great. Testing, great. Even theorizing in order to design tests and organize data, fine. But when the theory takes precedence, the data gets edited to fit the theory, instead of the other way round. We fall in love with our theories, and blind ourselves to what is actually happening. Often, when the data shows a method not working, but the theory says it should, it's the theory that holds sway.
I have never heard a useful theory about love and relationships. There is someone for everyone. Just give up and love will come to you. The Ideal Man lists of young women, or the complicated theories about hypothetical women by young men - including staying out of the "just friends" category. Well, some people - loving and lovable people, never find a partner, hot lovers can grow into a contentedly sexless marriage, many marry just anyone who will take them and ruin two lives, live-in partnerships are not for everyone, the joyously married are widowed, there are toxic people who are incapable of love, the rules do not, in short, always apply. I suspect they rarely apply.
But theories can blind us to the truth in front of us. We should not sell while we can because we are not for all markets, we should not be for sale at all. What we dream of when we are sixteen is unlikely to give us joy at thirty, or even interest us at fifty. D and I should never have been together on the face of it. What seems like a deal-breaker at twenty might be a minor issue a few years later. "Cute" may not matter so much as mature beauty and strength and humor after a move or six. Religious differences, OR similarities, may crumble in the face of tragedy.
I think this is why D so appealed to me, young and inexperienced as he was when we got together. His theories were all about how he should be - honest, no game-playing, treating me well. He opened his eyes, and saw. The external facts were not relevant, in the space between us. That quality of seeing what is in front of him continues to hold us to each other, as I strive to do the same.
I see the gorillas. I watch for 'em.
I have come to suspect that this is the problem with 'scientific method.' Gathering data, great. Testing, great. Even theorizing in order to design tests and organize data, fine. But when the theory takes precedence, the data gets edited to fit the theory, instead of the other way round. We fall in love with our theories, and blind ourselves to what is actually happening. Often, when the data shows a method not working, but the theory says it should, it's the theory that holds sway.
I have never heard a useful theory about love and relationships. There is someone for everyone. Just give up and love will come to you. The Ideal Man lists of young women, or the complicated theories about hypothetical women by young men - including staying out of the "just friends" category. Well, some people - loving and lovable people, never find a partner, hot lovers can grow into a contentedly sexless marriage, many marry just anyone who will take them and ruin two lives, live-in partnerships are not for everyone, the joyously married are widowed, there are toxic people who are incapable of love, the rules do not, in short, always apply. I suspect they rarely apply.
But theories can blind us to the truth in front of us. We should not sell while we can because we are not for all markets, we should not be for sale at all. What we dream of when we are sixteen is unlikely to give us joy at thirty, or even interest us at fifty. D and I should never have been together on the face of it. What seems like a deal-breaker at twenty might be a minor issue a few years later. "Cute" may not matter so much as mature beauty and strength and humor after a move or six. Religious differences, OR similarities, may crumble in the face of tragedy.
I think this is why D so appealed to me, young and inexperienced as he was when we got together. His theories were all about how he should be - honest, no game-playing, treating me well. He opened his eyes, and saw. The external facts were not relevant, in the space between us. That quality of seeing what is in front of him continues to hold us to each other, as I strive to do the same.
I see the gorillas. I watch for 'em.
Labels: dribs, love story
Posted by Zhoen on Sunday, September 14, 2008
13 comments:
lovely post...and so true to my experience also...
and dont we love our theories and how reluctant we are to abandon them... I am ashamed to say that I have already watched that video on the internet and I did not see the gorilla. I can only say in my defense that I might have been more suspicious of it had I seen at at an orientation meeting!
the previous comment was me, but my new laptop made some assumptions...I shall have to show it who is boss
rosie,
Even knowing the gorilla is there? Really? That's interesting, I wonder what your brain is up to not letting you see that.
Lovely writing in both these last two posts, I'm intrigued about the gorilla...
z: the problem is not with scientific method; it is the human element involved that can screw up results and interpretations, the old confirmation bias, or whatever--scientists being human
(o)
mark,
Scientific Method does have it's limits. Not everything is amenable to double blind studies.
And the all too human scientists who pour their lives into a theory, have been known to fudge the damned data, or castigate scientists with other theories that invalidate their own beliefs. And that is the point, Scientific Method is a human construct, a good one, remarkable really, but it is not separate from us, it is an extension of us.
I only call for the emphasis on Theory! to be reduced to it's proper place, as a step to be left behind as we strive to understand better.
Thank you for your intriguing post.
I have seen that gorilla.
Haven't so many of us given up on gorillas? I was hoping so badly he'd burst in through the front door and walk right up to me. I guess I gave up a couple of times, only to find him waltzing in the back room with people who couldn't find him.
I'm with you - always looking.
"I only call for the emphasis on Theory! to be reduced to it's proper place, as a step to be left behind as we strive to understand better."
But how can we understand anything outside of theory? Without it, all we have is observation, entirely reactionary rather than constructive.
Pacian,
I repeat, I am not about removing theory, just abolishing it's godhood. Because it becomes a false goal that must be served by the data. The idea is that a theory is formed, data is gathered, the theory is tested, in order to be disproved and a better theory formed, rinse, repeat. But too often a seductive theory is coddled long after the data would undermine it, because it's comfortable, and the theory is honored above the science, instead of being a brick constructing it.
I never said get rid of theory, just "Theory!" Take it down a peg, make it work for a living.
Oh, there are gorillas everywhere!
Synchronicity. The Go Rilla Question.
After reading your post, I got a phone call from RTN's sister. She was reminiscing about his sense of humor, about the time he was riding in a car and asked his mother, "What would you do if there was a gorilla in the middle of the road?"
Post a Comment
<< Home