We need to think more

'Two percent of the people think; three percent of the people think they think; and ninety-five percent of the people would rather die than think.”

George Bernard Shaw wrote this over one hundred years ago, and yet he could have written it today. What evidence do we have to today to say it is not true?

Television viewing figures?

Newspaper circulation?

Radio listening figures?

Blockbuster Hollywood movies?

Need I go on?

Worse than this is the general, all pervading skepticism of thought, as if to think deeply about something is unnecessary and somehow threatening to people. People as Shaw said, don’t like to think and worse don’t like to be confronted with thought.

Instead, they want to outsource their thought about the state of our world and country to policy makers and government. Not only that, people seem to be continually content to do so and when invited to think or make a contribution they react with effrontery, as if it a job of someone else to do that for them.

Without thinking, how can there be personal responsibility? It can always be someone else’s fault. Reference the endless stream of regulation and law designed to protect people. We certainly need laws in a civilized society to protect the weak from exploitation from the strong, but do we need laws to protect the lazy of mind? Not only are such laws unnecessary, they have damaging consequences for all. They encourage a cultural that leads to the optionality of personal responsibility


This refusal to think does not only afflict those unfortunate enough to not have had a decent education or who have disadvantaged in some way. It is evident everywhere, and most offensively in the ranks of the educated middle class (if one is allowed to use that term these days, and even if one isn’t, I will)

The temptation to remain at the most superficial of levels when talking about difficult issues is endemic, and any effort to delve further and tease out further issues is met with distain and disapproval. And as for disagreeing with what someone else has said, that is the highest of social faux pas,
Unless it involves preferring Britain’s got talent to X factor.

So often it seems to me that conversations are more about finding points of agreement and avoiding points of disagreement, A useful approach if we are engaged in brokering peace in the middle east, but not I would suggest if we are seeking to learn more about ourselves and the world we live in. This happens constantly in work meetings. Two people start with opposing views, both credible and plausible, and yet instead of making their cases powerfully and eloquently, seeking to persuade the others of the merit of their view over the other, they each seek out areas, however small, where they can find common ground so as to give themselves the illusion of agreement. Giving everyone a nice warm feeling but getting nowhere. Only to subsequently discover that another decision has been taken outside the governance of that group. Most Chairs see their role as maintaining agreement rather than creating an environment in which positive decisions can be reached through rich, respectful challenge and debate.

It seems that conflict must be avoided at all costs, consequently we sacrifice interesting robust stimulating conversation on the alter of keeping the peace. And so we satisfy ourselves with anodyne trivial conversation.


Of course people can and should be free to choose how to live their lives and who am I to tell them otherwise? I may well think that their lives could be richer if they lifted their head a bit higher and examined things more deeply. I may be right (I may not be) but that still does not give me the right to tell people what they ought to do.

I can however; I think point out the consequences of obviating their responsibilities. An unthinking, uncritical population is a delight to governments and major global corporations.

A population that can be swayed by the most superficial of arguments enables those in power to achieve their aims when they have the resources and connections to influence and manipulate. History is overrun with examples of how easy it is for those in power to extend that power, (For a great example see Naomi Wolf’s End of America: letters of warning to a young patriot)

If we are unable to, or more precisely choose not to engage in deeper thinking about what touches our immediate lives, then we will lose the desire and possibly, even the capacity to think critical about wider issues.

We will then become the lawful prey of unscrupulous politicians and ambitious global corporations.