Consciousness, Happiness, Health, Intelligence, Late Night Thoughts, Mental and Emotional Health, Scientific Method(s), Thinking, Truth

Cultivating Realism

Human diversity being what it is, I take it as evident that some folks are more realistic than other folks — just like some folks are more athletic than other folks.   But the fact some folks are more realistic than other folks does not mean that anyone is completely realistic.  For better or worse, we humans have not evolved a completely realistic brain.

If we had evolved a completely realistic brain, we would not need science.  That’s because science is basically a group of methods or procedures that have been developed over the ages to compensate for the human tendency towards a lack of realism in thought and belief.  In short, science is a crutch.   It’s a tool for a non-realistic brain (or at least a partly non-realistic brain) to use so that it can function as a realistic brain.  At least that’s one way to look at science.

It’s a great puzzle to me why the human brain is not entirely realistic — given that it’s had several million years to evolve into a purely realistic brain.  It must be that during the entire multi-million year history of brain growth and expansion, selective mechanisms for a realistic brain were never sufficient to produce a wholly realistic brain — despite that there would seem to be great advantages to being wholly realistic.

Either that, or the mutations necessary for pure realism never came about.

On the surface, given millions of years, it seems almost impossible that it has turned out the way it has turned out.  But perhaps it  seems impossible to me largely because I simply don’t understand the odds.

Some days, I think most of us have to be dragged kicking and screaming to realism.   We just don’t like being realistic — we don’t enjoy it — and so, there must be great incentives for us to practice realistic thought, or great disincentives not to practice it.   Hence, I usually think we limit our realistic thinking to only those areas of our lives in which it matters the most to us to think realistically.

I know an automobile mechanic, for instance, who is almost wholly realistic in his role as a mechanic.  But get him in his church on a Sunday morning and he will swallow with childlike trust any and all sorts of quackery from his pastor’s mouth.  Life has bitch-slapped my friend the mechanic into being realistic in his work.  That is, automobile mechanics has served as a discipline that’s punished him whenever he has departed from realism while engaged in it.  But life has not done him the same favor in his religion.  Hence, he’s a realistic man in his work and a quite fantastic man in his religion.

Some days, as I’ve said, I think we as a species are only as realistic as it is absolutely necessary for us to be.  Wherever life cuts us a little slack, we depart from realism into fantasy.

Over a hundred years ago, Nietzsche pointed out that very few, if any, of us had a strong will to truth.   For most of us, our other wills, interests, passions, etc were much stronger than any will to truth we might possess.  It was a revolutionary thought for its time.  Today, we might not use precisely his language when speaking of the issue, but regardless of whatever words we use to express the idea, the notion that humans are quite often less than realistic is established by modern psychology beyond any serious doubt.

That fact — the fact we are not a realistic species — presents all sorts of problems.  For instance, I do not believe you can understand human politics if you think of humans as an essentially realistic species.  (Perhaps the real question in politics — or in any study of human nature — is not whether humans are unrealistic, but what patterns are there to human unrealism?)

I think it is important — crucially important — to one’s health and happiness for a person to practice a discipline.  When it comes to practicing a discipline, the exact nature of the discipline — the kind of discipline — almost does not matter.  What matters is that one practices a discipline.  Any discipline.

A “discipline”, as I’m using the term here, is an art, science, or craft that to be successfully practiced requires one to be realistic.   It can be nearly anything so long as it requires substantial realism to succeed in it.   The absolute need for realism is what makes it a discipline.

Why should we practice a discipline?  Well, realism is not a side of human nature that comes all that easy to us.  I think we must cultivate it.  Hence, the need for a discipline.  Beyond that, realism seems to be like a crucial nutrient.  Without it, we grow sick, malnourished, or unbalanced.  We might not enjoy its taste, but on some level we need it.

We have all heard over and over again this or that person admonish us to “cultivate our imaginations” or to “dream big, dream often”.   Well, those things are important, but so is realism.  And, so far as I can see, realism does not come easily to our species.  It comes with effort.  So it must be cultivated.  Yet, I believe its cultivation is usually neglected.

T.S. Eliot somewhere said the average person can stand reality for no more than ten minutes at a time.   That might sound extreme until you really start thinking about it.



7 thoughts on “Cultivating Realism”

  1. Why is it that people so often associate evolution with progress? It’s not the same.

    My pondering about what you call “realism” or… perhaps practicality, or a non-distortion of facts/truths and what have you, is that humans tend not to be realistic because life isn’t really realistic either. It can be predicted to some degree, but the rationality of living is extremely difficult to grasp if it is possible at all. So if realism can’t answer the questions of “why” what else do we have but our imaginations? This is an ingenious solution when confronted with such a limitation. Your mechanic friend… he can be realistic in a work setting because it’s not asking why, it’s asking how. How is plain, but takes practice. Religion can tell him why only because it doesn’t need to realistic.


  2. Interesting post Paul.

    I think a problem is that being too realistic is bad for our sense of egos. I mean who really wants to have the sense of perspective to realise that in the context of our Universe we are less than a microscopic dot on a microscopic dot. To quote Mr Douglas Adams “In an infinite universe, the one thing sentient life cannot afford to have is a sense of proportion.”
    I think this applies equally to anything that is fairly large be it our planet or city we live in. We don’t really want to see how exactly we fit in so we just ignore reality. Being able to ignore that and imagine we are more important than we really are to some degree seems, to me, necessary to survive and stay sane.


  3. Hi Panda! It’s good to see you again!

    Of course, you’re right that our egos often object to anything which would give us a sense of insignificance. In a way that’s odd, because the essential function of an ego is not to inflate our sense of self-worth, but to create a distinction between self and non-self in order to make it possible to fully defend the self.


  4. Apologies Paul I was using the non-technical definition of ego. As in using to to mean a sort of inflated sense of self worth like how when you say someone has a big ego. Not sure if there is a correct word for what I mean.


I'd love to hear from you. Comments make my day.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s