The last trick complexity of the “experts”: the tactics of a thousand distinctions are too convenient

If we were to identify a common denominator in so many reasoning we hear these days, it would probably be the total absence of linear thinking. We all seem to be looking for a complex explanation for the more predictable and predictable phenomena that characterize our days of limitless fears and uncertainties. We even manage to look for convoluted explanations for the very recent exclusion of the Italian national team from the World Cup, looking for who knows what other tactical schemes that our coach should have adopted, where, thinking in a linear way, we could simply conclude that the our technical and athletic inferiority towards other national teams, perhaps less pretentious but more effective at scoring goals.

The impression is that the reasoning based on the simple observation of facts and on previous collective or individual experiences has been lost in favor of a spasmodic search for distinction at all costs, for the theoretical and rhetorical elaboration of thought. It is now so difficult for us to be content with staying within any shared thought, as such not free from some inevitable imprecision, that we lose sight of the essential, because we are too caught up in the desire to stand out from the crowd at any cost, no matter if leaving logic, common sense and, sometimes, even reason on the ground. In the same way that we do not seem to notice that the forwards of our national team, simply, when they are face to face with the opposing goalkeeper, either do not shoot or miss the shot, which would seem too banal and shared reasoning to make the figure of that. that football is understood, we are so eager to stand out in political speeches (bar or TV changes very little) that, speaking of much more serious things, we often forget that, in fact, it was Putin who invaded and bombed Ukraine and not vice versa.

Nothing to do, stick to the facts, even when they are incontrovertible and proven, it seems too little. It is the TV presenter syndrome, the one who asks the guests the questions that should already contain the answer, the so-called "suggestive questions" prohibited in the criminal trial. Asking the guest a simple question to know his thoughts seems too obvious. The narration must be complicated properly, insinuating answers that should consolidate the correctness of the conductor's personal opinion, who certainly cannot, even in this case, be satisfied with asking intelligent questions to his guests. Therefore, alluring questions are asked to an answer at least hoped for by the authors of the program and the guest's task (with praiseworthy exceptions) is resolved, in fact, rather than to have his own say, not to contradict what transpires from the opinion of the landlord. . It would be too easy to ask the studio expert. "How do you think" and that's it? Of course yes, it is better to complicate things just enough so as not to seem like a simple moderator of the discussion because you want to be a protagonist. That, at the end of the television broadcast, the poor viewers remain confused and disoriented seems to count for little.

The important thing now seems to suggest the indispensability of a complex and variegated line of thought, and the more it has both qualities, the more authoritative it seems to be, because linear thought, that is, the one, stripped of the frills of nuances and details, which aims at the substance, it now seems to be inadmissible. All this happens despite the harsh reality of the daily events that affect us, in spite of our Byzantinisms, and these are events that require rapid and serious reactions. If we do not stop, and even in a very short time, from neglecting the bare substance of the acts and events of war, getting lost in too many interpretative paths we are taking in order not to look like simpletons, there will be serious problems, not only for the salottists with fluid thinking. .

Even the highest religious authorities seem more prone to distinctions and to take positions of convenience, those who generally condemn the war more than those who started it and who continue to damage civilians, with enormous costs of loss of human life. To be clear, concise, courageously deployed, for the Church itself should be the simple application of the Gospel of Matthew: " your saying is yes yes no no, most of it comes from the evil one" , but that doesn't seem to be the case these days. Okay, taking sides is inherently dangerous and not free from criticism, but sometimes, especially those who have agreed to speak on behalf of many others, have a specific duty to do so, at the cost of making mistakes and paying (possibly) the consequences. . The tactics of a thousand distinctions, of nuanced positions and even more unfortunate that of good affirmations for all seasons, in an exercise of "circle-botism", are too comfortable, you will forgive me the inelegant term, which should shelter the public speaker (define them as speakers would be too much for many of them) from any opposite final outcome of the unknown he is talking about. The inevitable "I told you so" , even when opportunistically both black and white were said, is a sort of pass for future memory that attracts whole ranks of not very brave commentators, mostly experts in hedge and moat jumping more than the disciplines they are called to discuss and this is well known. But that today we even get to be in Putin's head, who is sadly leaving the world "beaten and astonished" as not even Napoleon managed, if not with his death, it really seems too much.

I would really like to know why there is the need to always say it in a way, not only different, which would also be normal, but more complex, damn more complex than the others. I quietly observe that the current aims of the Russian dictator have proved clearly clear and consistent with his idea of ​​Great Russia that everyone has understood, starting with those who already experienced it when it was called the Soviet Union, but for us they remain deserving of infinite cerebrotic evaluations beyond all evidence and the most serious thing is that, while we get lost in the TV hotties, in Kiev, and not only there, we die, exactly as Tito Livio reminded us, saying that "while in Rome we are discussing, Sagunto is conquered " . And what could be the next Sagunto is still to be experienced on our skin.

The post The last trick complexity of the "experts": the tactics of a thousand distinctions are too comfortable appeared first on Atlantico Quotidiano .

This is a machine translation from Italian language of a post published on Atlantico Quotidiano at the URL on Tue, 29 Mar 2022 03:51:00 +0000.