What do you think?

What do you think about Will Smith’s behavior?

Contents

Please answer the following question. Your participation, of course, is both welcomed and anonymous.

Or, was there some other explanation?Could it be that will Smith was hypnotized? Was it some long-simmering dispute between the two? Maybe Jada Smith is gravely ill, and Will Smith has been overcome by the emotions of it? Because the slap makes no sense to me. It shouldn’t have made sense to Will Smith either. It harmed his brand, and yet, this negative outcome was fairly predictable (Will Smith’s Oscar’s slap has been a ‘nightmare’ for his family: report).

Nevertheless, the poll question above poses a trick question.

If you selected either of the first two options, then your answer was only about “knowing”, not thinkingLater, in this book, you might come to see if you selected either of the first two options, that you were using your decision-making brain to conclude. This is not thinking, it’s deciding. It is not precisely possible to ask a person what they “think”. This is because thinking is a process and it is not necessarily interesting to an outside observer–see the last question option “I don’t know”. Yet, the difference between knowing and thinking is vast and central to this text.

‘Knowing’ is the opposite of thinking

First: accepting one’s subjective truth is self-delusion

The brain’s understanding of reality is always flawed. Even a person’s direct observations can be misleading since the mind only sees what it wants to see. The brain plainly perceives the world through a recorder of its own ignorant and self-absorbed design. This mental tunnel vision is our human cross to bear. Yet, it is essential that we understand it.

Christians interpret this thinking mental handicap as our fallen nature. Eighteenth-century German philosopher Immanuel Kant called the behavior transcendental idealismObjects in space and time are said to be “appearances”, and he argues that we know nothing of substance about the things in themselves of which they are appearances. Kant calls this doctrine (or set of doctrines) “transcendental idealism” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.. This flawed and apparently misunderstood limitation of the mind has many other names too. Karl Marx named the consequences of it, “historical materialism.” It is real. Broadly, however, I think people perceive it as human subconscious thinking. Yet later, I will show that it is not “sub” conscious at all. Instead, I’ll show that proceeds conscious thinking. Think of this behavior of our brain as your mental first responder.

I call this portion of the brian its decision-making system. And it has grave limitations. Within a person’s decision-making processing, all the brain can do is receive observed data with statements of others by filtering this information through their brain’s internal matrix of past experiences and pre-existing life interpretations. A subjective decision is thereby produced. Conscious free will thinking, as people usually imagine it, is not involved. This decision-making system is a processing system designed to quickly isolate and select the best answer for the decider. It is actually “the self.” I know it feels like one is thinking, generally, but the decision-making person is really processing — using beliefs it already knows. Consciousness (and free will) participates by halting decision-making when necessary.

The human decision-making process is deterministic. It is therefore thinking without human free willFree will exists, but not in the human decision-making system, and not in the form most imagine., i.e., it is processing. This thinking form is a “hands-free” (no conscious steering) optimized selection system. Yet, the approach is fast and efficient. People would not be in error to think of this as their muscle memory. Therefore, the decision-making system’s conclusions are not really “knowing” as in knowing or discovering some objective or external truth. At best, the decision-making system simply externalizes a person’s internal subjective truths given a particular situation. By another name, it is a person’s human “gut” instinct. It’s their intuition. It is not the discovery of absolute or objective truth. In a perfect world, because it applies only what a person already knows, one would apply their decision-making system at the very last moment, and only after they have thoroughly thought about the issue when the negative consequences of a poor decision are high.

In other words, if a person does not need an immediate decision, they should not let their brain produce one.

Second: when abruptly applied, the mind’s decision-making system is trivially hijackable and nearly always wrong

For example, if you initially concluded that the slap was authentic, consider this …

Is it really beyond the pale to think that Will Smith, and potentially Chris Rock, would concoct a persuasive act for an Oscar audience? Some individuals did not think so?
- See also: Why did so many people think the Oscar’s slap was staged?
- And: Real or fake? Video has some debating if Will Smith’s viral Chris Rock slap was staged

And then there are those that apparently think the behavior is either understandable or acceptable:

I suppose, in this way, people would accept the authentic slap theory as true because the slap was justified (?).

Not surprisingly, Will Smith’s Hollywood peer group at first applauded the surprise assault–in a delayed standing ovation actually. This appears depressingly inverted to me. Some in the media later attempted to also justify the behavior as “normal” (MSNBC’s Tiffany Cross Says White People Don’t Understand the Will Smith Slap). But the slap is not normal. For example, could a customer slap a bank teller for some perceived slight in a banking transaction at a bank? I wouldn’t think so.

The primary way to hijack a (decision-making) brain: encourage it

If Will Smith had a sense of this particular grievance tolerating cultural framework in advance, then what an amazing virtue-signaling opportunity was created for him. Just slap an insulting comic in a public scenario, and thereby increase your standing with your spouse … and others (i.e. Oscar attendee standing ovation and Oscars 2022: 3 Celebs Who Support Will Smith (& 3 Who Said Chris Rock Did Nothing Wrong)). However, might you also accept that this could encourage a reaction that would never be contemplated under normal circumstances by otherwise rational people? Nevertheless, without hesitation, Will Smith blithely strode up on stage, slapped the unsuspecting comic using a full-body swing, mind you for an insignificant joke, and then he calmly walked back to his seat to enjoy the rest of the show without fear of repercussions. This is how a free and independently thinking brain is hijacked. Maybe Will Smith’s brain was hijacked by someone close to him (Will Smith warns Jada ‘don’t use me’ for clout in resurfaced).

Still, we should, ourselves, resist conclusion since our point of view matters not — practice denying societal control

In the alternative, if you believe the slap was an act or publicity stunt, why would Will Smith resign from the Academy (Will Smith Resigns from Motion Picture Academy amid Chris Rock Oscars Assault Backlash)? Wouldn’t it make more sense to confess to the charade and move on?

To me, a publicity stunt of this form, while also insane, increases both Oscar viewership and awareness. Viewership, after all, is way down. Is it truly crazy to think that Will Smith might have concluded that a little drama would help both him and the Oscars? In addition, given the culture of victimology in America, maybe Will Smith, while bravely defending his cosmetically ill wife, could emerge as a male archetype hero to all. The slap would be therefore a win-win. And, amazingly, this is how the public (and Hollywood) reaction began (Maher Roasts Hollywood Elite’s Standing Ovation For Will Smith After Oscars Slap: You Have No Principles — later, public opinion turned against Will Smith).

In any event, are we to accept this extreme behavioral irrationality as a more plausible explanation than a publicity stunt? MAYBE. Or, from my perspective, who can really say?

Without being in Will Smith’s head, who can know what the absolute truth is? Would you expect Will Smith to tell the truth? Do you think he understands his own behavior enough to describe it clearly to others?

A short sidebar on the philosophy of truth

In reason (i.e. thinking with free will), hypotheses are not proven, they are disproven

This might come as a surprise, but it is impossible to prove absolute ‘truth’. It is only possible to disprove hypotheses/subjective truths. In time, after all but one of the KNOWN hypotheses are proven false, the surviving hypothesis becomes objective truth. Absolute truth is only discovered when all known and UNKNOWN hypotheses, but one, are disproved. All of this is a result of the definition of reason. Even in a trial, absolute truth is never produced. Otherwise, appeals courts would be unnecessary. And, a criminal trial is able to produce objective truth only when all jurors concur — all the known hypotheses, but one, are disproven.

However, confidence is created in a specific theory when other theories are systematically proven false. That’s as good as it gets. This, of course, is the problem with the Oscar drama. No amount of affirming data can prove any particular hypothesis as true. In order to show that Will Smith’s slap was authentic for example, the “act” hypothesis must be disproven. Otherwise, it remains a viable theory. So long as other hypotheses remain, we cannot know what is absolutely true.

And so it is with the pursuit of any truth. Truth is never chosen. In thinking, it is not possible to prove any truth absolutely. All one can do is eliminate the false hypotheses. That’s what thinking is. It is not enough to say “I don’t know.” The thinker spends their mental energy looking for ways to disprove hypotheses.

As for Will Smith, neither authentic-slap nor fake-slap theories have been eliminated. Therefore, one cannot know what happened. But people want to know the truth nevertheless. So people accept theories that best resonate with their own life experiences.

They accept truths and do dumb things as a result.

The pursuit of truth is thus a difficult path. Few are willing to undertake it.

“The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduce them. Whoever can supply them with illusions is easily their master; whoever attempts to destroy their illusions is always their victim. An individual in a crowd is a grain of sand amid other grains of sand, which the wind stirs up at will.”
Gustave Le Bon, French psychologist

Maybe.

Or, in the alternative, the masses have not yet learned that the pursuit of truth demands that evidence be used to disprove truths, and not to prove them. This latter disciplined thinking approach keeps individuals from putting evidence in the employ of their personal wants. Whereas. the former approach, where evidence is chosen to prove, is how a person’s evolutionary decision-making brain works. Unfortunately, the decision-making brain is our default brain, and that is why the vast majority of people habitually use it. But, decision-making, or knowing the truth, is not woke.

Who was likely thinking?

Back to Will Smith: If his slap was authentic, what was he thinking?

He wasn’t — at least using the thinking approach which involves free will (reason). Instead, it seems to me he was using the thinking system that has no free will (decision-making). Before the slap, Will Smith should have contemplated the following question:

This poll is no longer accepting votes

Ideally, he should have selected option #3 unless he had thoroughly thought this question through PRIOR to the moment of required decision-making. This obviously didn’t happen.

Nevertheless, I am troubled to think that an authentic slap is a more plausible scenario for many. From my perspective, the slap is an outrageous act of pure irrationality. It is insanity. It indicates that Will Smith’s reasoning brain was not engaged at all. A publicity stunt, while still irrational, envisions a positive outcome.

Yet, an authentic slap, if it was an authentic slap, is strong evidence that Will Smith acted without thinking.

Public thoughts on the event continue to change (See the related links section below)

After considerable discussion and debate, the consensus ‘thinking’ (i.e., not a reaction) evolved. Those who initially cheered Will Smith’s behavior (if it was authentic) undid their initial supportive reaction and went silent (Jaden Smith Tweets ‘That’s How We Do It’ After Dad Will Smith’s Oscar Win and Chris Rock Smack, among others). What later emerged as an accepted truth is that an authentic slap, as actual violence, must produce serious consequences. Otherwise, expect much more slapping … or worse.

This evolution in perspective indicates that free will thinking (reason) did not happen by members of the public or Hollywood before their gut reaction to the slap.

The award for the ‘best thinker’ goes to …

Yet, for some cool cats, Chris rock, for example, thinking wisely occurs before decision-making/reacting (Chris Rock ‘still processing’ Will Smith Oscars slap). Again, with predictable results (Chris Rock ‘saved’ Oscars, Academy hoped Will Smith would apologize). Chris Rock calls it processing. Though it isn’t. It’s reasoning.

I suggest that doubt become one’s default mental state. If a person does not need to make an immediate decision, they should not let their brain produce one. Instead, it is essential to keep one’s mind open state of reason. And crucially, use that thinking time to look for new theories and then focus on disproving them — this is your thinking with free will. You will be rewarded.

Thinking: (1) Don't decide. (2) Focus on disproving. That's all you have to do. — For independent & effective thinking:
(1) Do not decide questions/issues until you must;
(2) Use your undecided thinking time disproving.
Make these your mental habits.

Concluding questions

Let me ask a prior question anew:

With that question in mind, how often do you engage in reason:

Now, if I have successfully placed your mind in a willing questioning state, let’s proceed to the foundational questions for reason, and, with your help, some metacognitionMetacognition is an awareness of one’s thought processes and an understanding of the patterns behind them. The term comes from the root word meta, meaning “beyond”, or “on top of”. Metcalfe, J., & Shimamura, A. P. (1994). Metacognition: knowing about knowing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. to organize your reasoning results: Chapter 2 – A Look Under the Hood. Brain Owner-User Manual (Homo Sapien Edition).