Writing in Tech and Learning, a magazine devoted to promoting AI and technology in the classroom, Erik Ofgang argues that we must change our pedagogy to accommodate what he considers a universal distain for thinking, which is “even more unpleasant than we think.”
If we humans come to believe that our own thinking is unpleasant, then we will naturally assign more of our thinking tasks to machines. This launches a downward spiral. Due to the neuroplasticity of the brain, the less we think the more difficult it becomes.
So, I decided to take on the unpleasant task of thinking about this unpleasant thinking thing. I tracked down the journal article that Ofgang cited. Three Dutch researchers conducted a meta-analysis of 170 studies on the aversive affect of thinking: “Association Between Mental Effort and Negative Affect” in the Psychological Bulletin of the American Psychological Association:
“In sum, the association between mental effort and negative affect proved to be robust and generalizable across a wide range of tasks and populations.”
It seems absurd on the face of it. You might as well argue that breathing is unpleasant, or even walking. Because you can’t go through life without thinking.
Thinking is how we understand the world around us so that we function and survive. We use it to define and organize our experiences. For over a million years, our ancestors have been thinking.
Everyday millions of people engage in mental effort by choice. They play chess. Do crossword puzzles, play Wordle or Sudoku. Because thinking in these games is fun. Or as the researchers might say “creates non-negative affect.”
What constitutes thinking? A quick dictionary search turns up the following:
· the action of using your mind to produce ideas, decisions, memories.
· the process of using one's mind to consider or reason about something.
· using thought or rational judgment; intelligent.
· mental exertion aimed at finding an answer to a question or the solution of a practical problem.
Solving a problem, producing ideas, making decisions, calling on memories—this is the thinking we do every day. If this thinking is inherently aversive, we have a long slog ahead of us. It means that we dislike the constant challenges of life.
Scientists and psychologists frequently posit that people are naturally indolent, avoiding physical and mental effort is their default setting. It is known as the “law of less work.”
We indulge in heuristics, mental shortcuts, and cliches to communicate with each other. Because, you know, after all “It is what it is.” “Don’t I know it.” “Been there, done that.”
Yet, we admire successful people—people who have worked long hours to achieve athletic, business, artistic, or scholarly success. Successful individuals develop ways of thinking intensely—applying mental effort—about their disciplines. If they were aversive to thinking or the labors required, they would be lodged in front of video/computer screens as half-baked couch potatoes.
Merriman Webster describes thinking as the “exercise of the intellect.” Like physical exercise, we benefit from mental exercise. We avoid going to the gym. But we cannot avoid thinking.
Perhaps we are like the apocryphal ostrich head in the sand, averse to confronting difficult, intractable problems. Or maybe the aversion is based on solitude.
Many people hate being alone with their thoughts. So much so, that they will give themselves mild electric shocks to avoid thinking.
A University of Virginia study directed by Timothy Wilson found that it was “unpleasant” for people to be alone with their thoughts for 6 – 15 minutes. The subjects were told to sit in a room quietly. Any activity—like singing, whistling, exercising—was forbidden. Deprived of their usual stimuli, about half of the male subjects opted for self-delivered electric shocks to pass the time. One man shocked himself 190 times.
Thinking is not the only variable in this experiment. It’s not the thinking alone that is unpleasant. Being alone in the room with no defined task makes people uncomfortable. It’s why we put convicts behind bars. People don’t enjoy being left alone to just sit in a room and told to think.
***
Writing in the meta-analysis of unpleasant thinking, co-author Louise David said:
“Supporting theories that conceptualize effort as a cost, we suggest that mental effort is inherently aversive.”
We are comfortable with paying costs in fair exchange for a reward. We pay for goods and services. So, mental effort can produce rewards.
But in many of the experiments testing the aversive nature of thinking, the subjects are assigned mental tasks. Like lab rats, they have no choice of task or reward.
If they chose the task, would the mental effort feel pleasant and rewarding? Many of us engage in mental challenges that provide their own reward. We don’t shy away from challenging games like chess, go, or bridge. Designing and building a house requires mental and physical effort and it is an inherently satisfying achievement.
Unpleasant thinking could result from unpleasant or unrequested tasks.
Dr. David argues that learning is too much mental effort:
“Since learning is usually associated with mental effort, students, like other individuals, might be inclined to minimize mental effort due to the unpleasantness associated with it.”
She recommends teaching challenging information with scaffolding practices, clear instructions, and making learning more like a game. She adds:
“Learning is not always fun and does not always feel good. Tasks that provide meaning, responsibility, and feedback could reduce the aversive nature of mental effort.”
David extends the lab rat mentality: the teacher assigns tasks rather than let students choose. We can reduce the aversion to thinking in schools by giving students responsibility to propose tasks that they see as meaningful.
Learning and thinking can be welcome fun. But that is not the goal of education.
We learn mental skills to determine who we are, improve the world, take responsibility for our lives, and understand our environment and our fellow humans. Whether it’s pleasant or not is irrelevant.
We need to think.
***
Thinking may become unpleasant because idle thinking—as opposed to task-directed thinking—opens the mind to self-incrimination and doubt. We focus on the embarrassing memory, the arguments, the sadness. These are thoughts that can derail us and come to dominate our minds. We dwell on the unpleasant to no good end.
However, thoughts are not permanent and likely do not even represent an objective truth. Your frustration over an embarrassing moment or replaying an argument over in your mind does not need to command your attention for a long stretch of time. We tend to hold on to these doubts. Consider the situation, then dismiss it, and move on. The brain is good at dismissal.
You do control your attention. There are things you enjoy thinking about—the face of a loved one, an upcoming vacation, a walk in the garden. Transfer your attention to something that provides a jot of pleasure.
Though it may sound hackneyed like a syrupy pop song or a Hallmark greeting card, it works. Meditation teaches how to let go of thoughts—negative and positive.
We need to think about the pleasant and unpleasant, the negative and the positive. Thinking is the constant action that keeps you alive. It’s what you think about that makes it aversive.
Dan Hunter’s book, Learning and Teaching Creativity, is available from
https://itascabooks.com/products/learning-and-teaching-creativity-you-can-only-imagine
Teachers receive a 20% discount.
Audiobook is available at
https://www.audible.com/pd/Learning-and-Teaching-Creativity-Audiobook/B0CK4BQDJP