THINKER'S ALMANAC - April 30

What rhetorical strategy did Lou Gehrig borrow from Aristotle that allowed him to hit a home run in his final speech in Yankee Stadium in 1939?

Subject:  Rhetoric - Advantageous

Event:  Lou Gehrig plays his final game, 1939

. . . you need to convince your audience that the choice you offer is the most “advantageous” — to the advantage of the audience, that is, not you.  This brings us back to values. The advantageous is an outcome that gives the audience what it values. -Jay Heinrichs

On this day in 1939, New York Yankee first baseman Lou Gehrig played his 2,130th consecutive major league game.  The game would also be the final game of his career. Not long after his final game, Gehrig learned that he had an incurable and fatal disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) — a disease known today as Lou Gehrig’s disease.  

In his 17 seasons, all as a Yankee, Gehrig was a World Series champion six times, an All-Star seven consecutive times, an American League Most Valuable Player twice, and a Triple Crown winner once.  Gehrig was the first major league baseball player to have his number (4) retired, and he was elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, New York in 1939.

In June 1939, the New York Yankees officially announced Gehrig’s retirement, and on July 4, 1939, they invited him to speak at Lou Gehrig Appreciation Day (1).

On that day, Gehrig gave what has become not just one of the single most memorable speeches in sports history, but one of the most memorable speeches in history, period.

It was a speech of startling magnanimity.  Everyone in Yankee Stadium that day came to honor Gehrig and to share the sorrow of a career and a life that would be cut short.  Under the circumstances, it would be natural for the speaker to give a mournful, gloomy speech about himself, about his bad luck, and about all he had lost.  Instead, Gehrig spoke in positive and thankful tones, focusing not on himself but on all the people who helped to make him the “luckiest man in the world.”

Fans, for the past two weeks you have been reading about the bad break I got. Yet today I consider myself the luckiest man on the face of the earth.

I have been in ballparks for seventeen years and have never received anything but kindness and encouragement from you fans. Look at these grand men. Which of you wouldn’t consider it the highlight of his career just to associate with them for even one day?

Sure I’m lucky.

Who wouldn’t consider it an honor to have known Jacob Ruppert? Also, the builder of baseball’s greatest empire, Ed Barrow? To have spent six years with that wonderful little fellow, Miller Huggins? Then to have spent the next nine years with that outstanding leader, that smart student of psychology, the best manager in baseball today, Joe McCarthy?

Sure I’m lucky.

When the New York Giants, a team you would give your right arm to beat, and vice versa, sends you a gift – that’s something. When everybody down to the groundskeepers and those boys in white coats remember you with trophies — that’s something.

When you have a wonderful mother-in-law who takes sides with you in squabbles with her own daughter — that’s something.

When you have a father and a mother who work all their lives so you can have an education and build your body — it’s a blessing.

When you have a wife who has been a tower of strength and shown more courage than you dreamed existed — that’s the finest I know.

So, I close in saying that I might have been given a bad break, but I’ve got an awful lot to live for.

The effectiveness of Gehrig’s speech illustrates an ancient principle of rhetoric.  Aristotle taught that giving a speech is about much more than just what you want to say; instead, it’s important to consider the audience.  The Aristotelian triangle is a model that helps speakers and writers assess the rhetorical situation. The triangle’s three points are the speaker, the subject, and the audience. Looking at all three points of the triangle reminds us that the speaker is only one part of the formula for successful persuasion.  Truly successful speakers, like Gehrig, must appeal to the audience’s advantage. Therefore, when we think about our purpose in speaking, we should not just ask, “What’s in it for us?” Instead, we should ask, “What’s in it for them?”  As the American humorist, Will Rogers put it: “When you go fishing you bait the hook, not with what you like, but what the fish likes” (2).

Winning rhetoric always employs “The Advantageous” by considering the rhetorical situation from the audience’s point of view.  Gehrig might have made his speech all about himself; instead, he made his message much more inclusive by considering his audience.  His thankful and optimistic tone transformed a seemingly sad, hopeless occasion into a positive, hopeful reminder of the indomitable nature of the human spirit.

In the opening chapters of Harper Lee’s novel To Kill a Mockingbird, Scout recounts her first day of school.  Seemingly everything that could go wrong, goes wrong for Scout, especially when it comes to her relationship with her teacher, Miss Caroline. As Scout tearfully recounts her run-ins with her teacher to her father, she declares that she doesn’t ever want to return to school again.

At this point, Scout’s father, Atticus Finch, shares a valuable lesson with her:

`First of all,' he said, 'if you can learn a simple trick, Scout, you'll get along a lot better with all kinds of folks. You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view — until you climb into his skin and walk around in it.'  (3)

Atticus, a lawyer, understood that winning over a jury requires more than just arguing your case; instead, it requires understanding your audience’s point of view -- their beliefs, expectations, and desires. 

Atticus’ lesson is summed up in an ancient persuasive principle that is directly related to ethos, known as “the advantageous.”  When trying to persuade, resist the temptation to appeal to your own advantage; instead, frame your message in a way that appeals to your audience’s advantage.  In other words, instead of focusing on what is good for you, climb into your audience’s skin and try to see things from their point of view -- what’s good for them.

Dale Carnegie, in his classic book How to Win Friends and Influence People, recounts a story about the American poet, philosopher, and essayist, Ralph Waldo Emerson:

One day Emerson and his son tried to get a calf into the barn.  But they made the common mistake of thinking about what they wanted; Emerson pushed and his son pulled. But the calf was doing just what they were doing; he was thinking only of what he wanted; so he stiffened his legs and stubbornly refused to leave the pasture.  A housemaid saw their predicament.  She couldn’t write essays and books; but, on this occasion at least, she had more horse sense, or calf sense, than Emerson had.  She thought of what the calf wanted; so she put her maternal finger in the calf’s mouth and let the calf suck her finger as she gently led him into the barn. (4)

The housemaid was successful because she looked at the situation based not on what she wanted, but on what the calf wanted.  By applying the advantageous, a little effort was all that was needed to win over her audience.

Challenge - Aristotle, Ads, and Addresses:  What are some examples of great speeches or classic advertisements where the speaker or the writer has employed the advantageous for effective persuasion?  Analyze a specific speech or advertisement that is an example of effective persuasion. Use the Aristotelian Triangle to discuss the relationship between the speaker, the audience, and the subject.  How did the speaker specifically relate and appeal to his or her audience to effectively fulfill the purpose? 

Sources:

1-Larkin, Kevin. “April 30, 1939: Lou Gehrig plays his final game with Yankees.” Society for American Baseball Research. 

2-Heinrich, Jay. Thank You For Arguing. Three Rivers Press, 2007.

3-Lee, Harper. To Kill a Mockingbird. New York:Harper Perennial Modern Classics, 2006.

4-Carnegie, Dale, 1888-1955. How to Win Friends and Influence People. New York :Simon & Schuster, 2009.

 

THINKER'S ALMANAC - April 29

How does the marketing of popcorn at movie theaters illustrate the irrational thinking of consumers?

Subject: Persuasion - Decoy Effect

Event:  Psychologist Dan Ariely is born, 1967

Even the most analytical thinkers are predictably irrational; the really smart ones acknowledge and address their irrationalities. -Dan Ariely

Imagine a movie theater concession counter.  Two options are available for popcorn:  a $3 small size or a $7 large size.  In an experiment conducted by National Geographic, the vast majority of movie-goers opt for the small size, perceiving it as the better value.  Next, imagine a slight change in the scenario:  

We add a medium option for $6.50.  Theater-goers now have three options:  The small ($3.00), medium ($6.50), or large ($7.00).  You might predict that the small option would remain the most popular; however, you might base your guess on the assumption that consumers are rational.  The truth is, however, that the large popcorn now becomes by far the most popular of the three options.

Psychologists have a name for what happened in the popcorn experiment; it’s called the decoy effect.  It describes the marketing strategy of adding a third, less attractive and inferior option, as a strategic method of influencing the consumer’s perception.  In the popcorn example, the goal is to get the consumer to purchase the most expensive option; adding the medium size ($6.50) changes the consumer’s perception of the large option ($7); instead of viewing it as much more expensive than the small size, the buyer now perceives it as only slightly more expensive than the medium option.  In presenting the medium size, the theater has nudged the buyer to spend four more dollars because the large size just “feels” like the best deal.

One man who would not be surprised by the irrational behavior of the popcorn buyers is Dan Ariely, a psychologist and behavior economist, who was born on this day in 1967.  Ariely is so certain that humans are predictably irrational that he wrote a book called Predictably Irrational.

In the introduction to his book, Ariely presents some famous lines from Shakespeare (Hamlet Act II, Scene ii) that celebrate the human mind:

What a piece of work is a man! How noble in reason, how infinite in faculty! In form and moving how express and admirable! In action, how like an angel, in apprehension, how like a god! The beauty of the world. The paragon of animals.

Ariely explains that although he does have great respect for the capabilities of the human mind, his research reveals that human thinking is often irrational:

Whether we are acting as consumers, businesspeople, or policy makers, understanding how we are predictably irrational provides a starting point for improving our decision making and changing the way we live for the better.

One illustration of this predictably irrational behavior is explained in a chapter about how ownership of something alters our perception of that thing.  Ariely explains a ticket study that was conducted at Duke University.  The tickets were for entry to a Duke Men’s Basketball game. The tickets are limited and highly prized by all students, so many participate in the lottery in hope of getting their hands on tickets.  The experiment began after the lottery as researchers called both winners and losers in the ticket lottery, asking them how much they would pay to either sell the ticket they had in their possession or purchase a ticket that they were unable to obtain in the lottery.  The results revealed that on average students who were not in possession of a ticket were willing to pay on average $170 for a ticket.  In contrast, those who had a ticket were unwilling to part with it for no less than $2,400 on average.  

Researchers call this drastic difference in value the endowment effect, which explains why the ticket holders placed such a higher value on the tickets.  The endowment effect kicks into action when we add value to an item that we own based on our emotional attachment, irrationally inflating its market value.

Just as the decoy effect makes people irrationally pay more for popcorn, the endowment effect makes ticket owners irrationally overprice their basketball tickets.  Not only is this behavior irrational, it is, as Ariely argues, predictably irrational.  

All of us, not just economists or salespeople, are affected by ownership. Throughout our lives, we acquire things by buying and give up things by selling.  It makes sense then to understand more about why the endowment effect has the impact it does on us.  

As Ariely explains, the first reason is that “we fall in love with what we already have,” either recalling the emotions attached to the thing or -- as in the case of the tickets -- imagining the experiences and emotions we will have in the future.  

Secondly, is loss aversion, the fact that humans experience more pain by losing something than gaining something.  For example, losing a ten dollar bill for many would be twice as painful as the pleasure experienced in finding a ten dollar bill.

Thirdly, we are so wrapped up in our feelings and emotions about a thing to realize that others don’t see that thing the same way.  As Ariely puts it, “It is just difficult for us to imagine that the person on the other side of the transaction, buyer or seller, is not seeing the world as we see it” (1).

Recall, Retrieve, Recite, Ruminate, Reflect, Reason:  How do movie theaters use the decoy effect to get customers to think irrationally?

Challenge - Eradicating the Irrational:  Cognitive biases reveal the ways in which human thinking is predictably irrational.  Research a specific cognitive bias.  Define it, and explain how it causes us to be predictably irrational.  Finally,  prescribe how we might counter this effect to be more rational.

Sources:

1-Ariely, Dan. Predictably Irrational:  The Hidden Forces that Shape Our Decision.  New York:  HarperCollins, 2008.

THINKER'S ALMANAC - April 28

What counterintuitive lesson about creativity does Dr. Seuss’ book ‘Green Eggs and Ham’ teach us?

Subject: Creativity - The Green Eggs and Ham Hypothesis

Event:  Article “Introducing the Green Eggs and Ham Hypothesis of Creativity” is published, 2016

Art lives from constraints and dies from freedom. -Leonardo Da Vinci

On May 25, 1954, Life magazine published a story criticizing the boring books used to teach students how to read.  Primers like Fun with Dick and Jane did not have captivating narratives, and despite the title, there wasn’t anything “fun” about them.  In response to the article, William Spaulding, director of Houghton Mifflin’s educational division, challenged Theodore Geisel -- better 

known as Dr. Seuss -- to write a story that would captivate young readers.  Spaulding’s challenge included a requirement that the book's words be limited to 225 distinct words from a list of 348 words from the standard first-grade vocabulary.

Geisel took the challenge, and nine months later he presented Spaulding his book, The Cat in the Hat, which was published in 1957.  Although Geisel exceeded the word limit by eleven words, Spaulding was pleased with the book, which sold over a million copies in its first three years of publication.  

Later Geisel took on another challenge when Bennett Cerf, co-founder of Random House, bet him $50 dollars that he couldn’t write a children’s book using no more than 50 words. Geisel won the bet, creating a story with 49 monosyllabic words and one three-syllable word, “anywhere.” The book is the classic Green Eggs and Ham, published on August 12, 1960 (1).

In an article published on this day in 2016 in The Cut, an online magazine, Melissa Dahl presented research that examines human creativity when constrained by limiting factors, such as Dr. Seuss’ 50 word limit.  Based on her research, cognitive psychologist Catrinel Haught Tromp has formed what she calls the Green Eggs and Ham hypothesis, which presents the counterintuitive idea that creativity is actually enhanced, rather than limited by constraints.

In Tromp’s study, she tasked 64 undergraduates to create two-line rhymes for greeting cards.  For half of the two-line rhymes, the participants were given a constraint:  their message must include at least one of the following words:  shirt, vest, dog, frog, doll, kite, drum, or harp.  Some of the participants completed their rhymes with the constraint first, while others did not receive the constraint until half way through their writing.  After all the rhymes were composed, they were judged by three independent judges.  The judges’ evaluation determined that the more creative rhymes were the ones that had been composed with the imposed constraint.  In addition, the judges’ evaluation

revealed that even when the constraint was removed, students wrote more creative rhymes than other students who began writing their rhymes without any constraints (2).

Recall, Retrieve, Recite, Ruminate, Reflect, Reason:  What is the Green Eggs and Ham hypothesis, and what evidence is there that its counterintuitive conclusion is valid?

Challenge - Single Syllable Story, Sonnet, or Speech:  Try writing a composition of at least 100 words with the following creative constraint:  Every word must be only a single syllable.  Write whatever form you want, but use words only single-syllable words. 

Sources:

1-Mikkelson, David. “Did Dr. Seuss Write ‘Green Eggs and Ham’ on a Bet?” Snopes 25 Feb. 1999.

2-Dahle, Melissa.  “Introducing the Green Eggs and Ham Hypothesis of Creativity.”  The Cut. 28 April 2016.

THINKER'S ALMANAC - April 24

What can the story of the Trojan Horse and a study about Halloween candy both teach us about human irrationality?

Subject: Reciprocity - The Trojan Horse

Event:  The Greek soldiers defeat the Trojans with a gift, 1184 B.C.

According to legend, the Trojans and the Greeks had been at war for ten years before the Greek hero Odysseus came up with a cunning strategy that was executed on this day in 1184 B.C. 

The Greeks first began by harvesting wood from Cornel trees, which were sacred to the Trojans, and began constructing a large horse as a gift for the Trojans, who also considered horses sacred.  Odysseus and a troop of his best warriors then climbed into the hollow belly of the horse as the remaining Greeks broke camp and boarded their ships, pretending to return home.

After watching the Greeks leave, the Trojans wheeled the giant horse inside the walls of the city.  Relieved to have the ten-year siege over, the Trojans celebrated boisterously.  Late into the night as the Trojan finally crawled to their beds in a drunken stupor, the Greeks lept into action.  As the Greek fleet turned around and returned to Troy, Odysseus and men emerged from the Trojan Horse, opened the city’s gates, and began slaughtering the unsuspecting and groggy Trojans.

No one knows for sure if the tales told of Troy in Homer’s Iliad are true.  Historians and archaeologists still debate the evidence; nevertheless, the story lives on as a powerful metaphor for cunning, strategic thinking.

The idea at the core of Odysseus’ genius was a psychological insight about the power of reciprocity, specifically the power of gifts.

In his book Predictably Irrational, behavioral economist Dan Ariely devotes an entire chapter to the powerful appeal of things that are free.  In normal transactions, our natural fear of loss keeps us reasoning; however, when we are offered something for free, we see no downside.  Unfortunately, like it did for the Greeks, a free gift can result in us losing our sober rationality.

To illustrate this, Ariely recounts an experiment he did one Halloween.  When the first costume-clad trick-or-treater arrived Ariely handed him three Hershey Kisses (each one contained .16 ounces of chocolate).  Before the child put the Kisses in his bag, Ariely offered him a deal.  He could exchange one of the Kisses for a small Snickers bar (1 ounce) or two Kisses for a large Snickers bar (2 ounces).  Following the logic that more is better, the child made the smart choice, exchanging .32 ounces of chocolate in exchange for the large Snickers (2 ounces).

Next, Ariely decided to introduce the “free gift” concept into the transaction.  The next trick-or-treater was initially given three Hershey Kisses.  He then was invited to make one of two possible exchanges.  First, he could exchange one Hershey Kiss for one large Snickers bar or he could have one small Snickers bar for free.  Logic would dictate that the first offer was better, an exchange of .16 ounces for 2 ounces of chocolate.  The child, however, captivated by the “free” option, took the one ounce Snickers bar.

When Ariely repeated the “free” option experiment with other trick-or-treaters and with students at MIT, roughly 70% took the free option over the better deal.  

The lesson here is to watch out for the power of “free,” for it can be a Trojan horse that blinds you to your normal rational thinking.  Marketers and salespeople know the magnetic power of “FREE!”  As Dan Ariely says, “The difference between two cents and one cent is small.  But the difference between one cent and zero [free] is huge!”

Recall, Retrieve, Recite, Ruminate, Reflect, Reason:  How does the word “free” become a Trojan horse, undermining our rational thought?

Challenge - Trojan Horse Hucksters:  Do some research on the strategies that marketers and advertisers use to sell products to consumers.  What one strategy is especially effective?  Explain how this strategy is successful based on human psychology.

Sources:

1-”The Trojan Horse:  When True Intents Are Concealed.” Fs.blog

2-Ariely, Dan.  Predictably Irrational:  The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decision. New York:  HarperCollins, 2008.

THINKER'S ALMANAC - April 23

What can two photos shot in 1855 of a desolate war landscape teach us about the search for truth?

Subject: Epistemology - “The Valley of the Shadow of Death” Photographs

Event:  Photographer Roger Fenton takes some of the first photographs of war, 1855

Truth is not relative. It's not subjective. It may be elusive or hidden. People may wish to disregard it. But there is such a thing as truth and the pursuit of truth: trying to figure out what has really happened, trying to figure out how things really are. -Errol Morris

On this day in 1855, photographer Roger Fenton took two photographs of the stark landscape where the Crimean War was being fought.  The two photos are taken from the exact same spot; however, there is one noticeable difference between the two scenes:  one photo shows a road littered with cannonballs; the other photo shows a road free of cannonballs with cannonballs off to the side of the same road. 

The two photos provide a kind of visual which-came-first-the-chicken-or-the-egg question since there is no record of which photo Fenton took first.  Some, like the writer Susan Sontag, claim that the “Off” photo -- the one with no cannonballs on the road, must have been the first photo taken; Fenton then placed cannonballs on the road to stage a more dramatic scene for the “On” photo.  This sequence makes logical sense; however, how can we know for certain that this is the true sequence?

This is the question that plagued the writer and Academy Award-winning director Errol Morris.  Morris is not satisfied with claims -- even reasonable ones-- that are not supported by concrete evidence.  His 1988 documentary The Thin Blue Line, about the 1976 murder of a police officer in Dallas, helped overturn the conviction of Randall Adams, who at the time was on Texas’ death row awaiting execution.

Morris went so far as to travel to Crimea to examine the lay of the land where the photos were taken.  He also spent countless hours examining the shadows cast by the cannonballs in hopes that this might provide some clues to which photo was taken first.  

In the end the answer came when Morris collaborated with his friend Dennis Purcell, an optical engineer.  After scrutinizing the photos for hours, Purcell realized that the evidence was in plain sight, but it had nothing to do with the locations of the cannonballs; instead, it had to do with the location of several seemingly insignificant rocks in the photos.  Purcell was so meticulous in his examination of the photographs that he named the rocks that were in different locations in the two photos.  The rocks -- Marmaduke, George, Lionel, Oswald and Fred -- were on higher ground in the “off” photo; in the “on” photo, however, they were located on lower ground.  Based on this rock-solid evidence, Purcell concluded that the “off” photo was taken first and that in the process of moving the cannonballs onto the road, the rocks had been inadvertently kicked; based on the logic of gravity, therefore, it makes sense that the rocks would have rolled downhill.  The conclusion, therefore, is that the “on” photo is truly the second photo.

Purcell’s case persuaded Morris, but it also provided a powerful lesson about the search for truth.  Look at the full picture, not just the parts; Morris was focused on the cannonballs, the angle of the sun, the clouds in the sky, and the shadows cast by the cannonballs.  None of these was the key, however.  The answer to the mystery was in plain sight but was unseen.  As Morris explains, “. . . it is the motion of the ancillary rocks  – rocks that had been kicked, nudged, displaced between the taking of one picture and the other. Rocks that no one cared about. . . Ancillary rocks, ancillary evidence – essential information.”

Recall, Retrieve, Recite, Ruminate, Reflect, Reason:  How did researchers finally determine which of Fenton’s photos was taken first and what lesson does this teach us about truth?

Challenge - Just Gimme Some Truth:  What is the best thing that anyone ever said about truth?  Do some research on quotes about truth.  Select the one you like the best and explain why.

Sources:  

1-Morris, Errol. “Which Came First? (Part Three): Can George, Lionel and Marmaduke Help Us Order the Fenton Photographs?” The New York Times 23 October 2007.

THINKER'S ALMANAC - April 22

The philosopher Immanuel Kant summed up the challenge of the Enlightenment with a two-word Latin motto:  Sapere aude.  What is the translation of this motto in English?

Subject: Enlightenment - Sapere aude

Event:  Philosopher Immanuel Kant is born, 1724

Provoked by challenges to conventional wisdom from science and expiration, mindful of the bloodshed of recent wars of religion, and abetted by the easy movement of ideas and people, the thinkers of the Enlightenment sought a new understanding of the human condition. -Steven Pinker

Most historians mark the beginning of the Enlightenment based on two important works:  one was Isaac Newton’s Principia Mathematica, published in 1686, and the other is John Locke’s “Essay Concerning Human Understanding,” published in 1689.  These two work’s typified the Enlightenment ideals of eschewing superstition and blind faith while embracing reason, science, and progress.

The German philosopher Immanuel Kant was born during the Enlightenment on this day in 1724 in Konigsberg, Prussia.  Born into humble beginnings, both of Kant’s parents died when he was a young man.  Working for years as a tutor for the children of wealthy parents, Kant was finally able to complete his own education, earning a degree from the University of Konigsberg when he was 31 years old. After completing his education, Kant stayed in the small home village of Konigsberg and soon became a lecturer at the university.

When he was 60 years old, Kant read an article in a German magazine where a clergyman and official of the Prussian Government - Reverend Johann Friedrich Zollner - asked the following:

What is enlightenment? This question, which is almost as important as what is truth, should indeed be answered before one begins to enlighten!  And still I have never found it answered!

Kant responded to Zollner’s question with an essay where he put forth his definition.  The first paragraph read as follows:

Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed nonage. Nonage is the inability to use one's own understanding without another's guidance. This nonage is self-imposed if its cause lies not in lack of understanding but in indecision and lack of courage to use one's own mind without another's guidance. Dare to know! (Sapere aude.) "Have the courage to use your own understanding," is therefore the motto of the enlightenment.

Speaking of all of humanity as an immature child (“nonage”), Kant argues that enlightenment is the conscious and often difficult choice of growing up and thinking for yourself.  He acknowledges that it is often easier to have others do your thinking for you and that it takes courage to cast off the yoke of dogma and cultivate your own mind.  To illustrate this, Kant explains describes it as the same relationship a farmer (“guardian”) has with his cattle:

After the guardians have first made their domestic cattle dumb and have made sure that these placid creatures will not dare take a single step without the harness of the cart to which they are tethered, the guardians then show them the danger which threatens if they try to go alone. Actually, however, this danger is not so great, for by falling a few times they would finally learn to walk alone.

Kant’s essay gave us the bumper sticker, the motto, we need to remember the key themes of the Enlightenment -- reason, science, humanism, and progress -- and also the key action that made it work:  “Sapere aude” - Dare to think for yourself.

In 2018, cognitive psychologist and linguist Steven Pinker published the book Enlightenment Now, where he made the case that we should not view the Enlightenment as a just a past historical age; instead, we should continue to practice its principles in the 21st century:

The Enlightenment swims against currents of human nature -- tribalism, authoritarianism, demonization, magical thinking -- that demagogues are all too willing to exploit.  And far from begging the consensus among intellectuals, Enlightenment ideals are furiously opposed by religious, political, and cultural pessimists who insist that Western civilization is in terminal decline.  The result is a corrosive fatalism and a willingness to wreck the precious institutions of liberal democracy and global cooperation.

The following are a few quotes by thinkers who embraced the motto Sapere aude and who challenge us to likewise have the courage to think for ourselves: 

Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write. -John Adams

We must dare to think about ‘unthinkable things’ because when things become ‘unthinkable’ thinking stops and action becomes mindless. - J. William Fulbright

Freethinkers are those who are willing to use their minds without prejudice and without fearing to understand things that clash with their own customs, privileges, or beliefs. This state of mind is not common, but it is essential for right thinking… -Leo Tolstoy 

Follow the path of the unsafe, independent thinker. Expose your ideas to the danger of controversy. Speak your mind and fear less the label of crackpot than the stigma of conformity. -Thomas J. Watson 

Challenge - Truth AND Dare:  Many students base their selection of a college based on criteria such as availability of academic majors, cost, or location.  One little known criterion that might be considered is the educational institution’s motto; after all, the motto should sum up the college’s primary mission.  Do some research on college mottos.  Select the one you like the best.  If it is not in English, find the translation.  Then, explain why you like it.

ALSO ON THIS DAY:

April 22, 1924:  Today is the birthday of cognitive psychologist Peter Wason, who coined the term “confirmation bias” and who created the Wason selection task, which demonstrates the human tendency to look for evidence that confirms prior beliefs.

April 22, 1903:  Today is the birthday of Alan H. Monroe.  As a public speaking instructor at Purdue University, he created the Monroe’s Motivational Sequence.

Sources:

1-Kant, Immanuel. “What is Enlightenment”  

2-Pinker, Steven. Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress. New York: Viking, 2018. Print.