KARL JASPERS FORUM
TA100 (Smith)
Response 2 (to C4, Müller)
( THE
DIAGNOSIS OF LACK
OF COMMON SENSE )
by Roulette Wm. Smith
14 January 2008, posted 19
January 2008
[1]
Professor Herbert F. J. Müller’s succinct commentary raises a number of extremely
important and instructive issues. In
<1>, he perceptively points to my challenging attempt at identifying
and/or ruling out equivalent notions of common sense in multiple languages and
cultures, and over extended periods in time. To date, I am unable to identify any language
or culture which lacks equivalent terms for common sense. Some readers may consider my efforts a bit
pedantic, yet the apparent universality in an underlying notion of common sense
is both informative and instructive. [NB:
I have an outstanding request for information about differences and divergences
in notions of common sense among Australian Aboriginal peoples. Environmental considerations may be a major
factor in common sense possibly because of differences in coastal and inland
Aboriginal peoples.]
[2]
Although a finding of a universal
notion of common sense may not surprise some linguists and other scholars, one
can never be too presumptuous. To cite
an example from medicine, one’s vocabulary, syntax and semantics are not
sufficient to convey an understanding of any underlying equivalences and differences
among, say, allopathic medicine in the west, ayurvedic
medicine in India, traditional Chinese medicine in China, and shamanistic
medical traditions in some tribal groups. Moreover, underlying symptoms may lack equivalences
in vocabularies, syntaxes and semantics. The emergence of HIV/AIDS during the
early-1980s made this point quite poignantly. Also, instances of Tibetan medicine and Andean
medicine at high altitudes are practiced fundamentally differently from sea
level medicines in the west and other locales. Common sense is no different; one must
appreciate perspectives and contexts. With
that said, some notion of common sense is universal,
and this, in and of itself, poses a challenge in determining if common sense
has a biological or other basis.
[3]
Overlooked in <1> are
matters pertaining to disorders in common sense (i.e., the “lack” of common
sense). Although common sense may be
universal, one is not able to infer that disorders in common sense
are universal in the same ways. Once this possibility became apparent, I
immediately took up the challenge of identifying and codifying disorders in
common sense. Table 2 in TA100
represents an initial pass at this challenge, but much remains to be done. Indeed, our initial concerns about mismatches
in experiences, realities, beliefs and awareness (see [3] through [7], [13],
[17], [53], [88] and [95] in TA100) were thought to possibly have diagnostic
potential. Obviously, a central
challenge is the assessment and measurement of mismatches in expectations, and
the assessment and measurement of outliers (see [4], [6], and [10] in R1
especially regarding outliers and novel theories of testing, and see [5]
below).
[4]
Some aspects of disorders in
common sense retain universal features. This
includes some physical (e.g., anxiety and occasional somatic complaints) and/or
psychological (e.g., it is ‘my way or the highway’) symptoms. These findings could have potential
diagnostic value. Reactions to persons
who lack common sense also may have some universal features. Whether indirect diagnoses (i.e., assessing
other persons’ reactions to persons who lack common sense) will have diagnostic
potential remains to be explored, especially if persons lacking common sense
reveal little insight about themselves and/or refuse to seek help. [NB: It should not escape one’s attention that
systematic assessments of reactions to Seung Hui Cho at Virginia Tech possibly could have averted the
killing of more than 30 persons in the Virginia Tech massacre (see [13] in
TA100).] However, it is much too soon to
reach unequivocal conclusions regarding these possibilities.
[5]
To the extent that common sense
is nurtured (between birth and age six) by parents and others, the seminal
importance of indirect diagnostic approaches by helping and caring
professionals should not be overlooked – with this being a reason to involve
physicians, pharmacists, teachers, child care specialists, spiritualists, and
others especially during early child development (see [100], [101] and [102]
TA100).
[5]
In <2>, Müller reminds us
of these extreme difficulties in making clinical diagnoses of disorders in
common sense. Not to be overlooked, this
matter is integrally related to the definitions of common sense. In both cases, perspectives and contexts
(associated with languages, cultures and environments) add to these
difficulties … and complexities. I
remain optimistic that when more becomes known about common senses and its disorders
(with that being the impetus for TA100), many of these
difficulties and complexities may be obviated. However, one point is crystal clear. Disorders in common sense are associated with
extreme outliers in decisions and behaviors (see [3]
above). Our sciences must train their ‘radars’ on outlying behaviors
and performance (also see [6] and [9] regarding economic approaches in R1). Moreover, because some individuals may be
“book smart, yet lack common sense,” error behavior in
mathematics and other disciplines may not be sufficient for diagnosing
aberrations in common sense. Ultimately,
new sciences of errors and fault analysis (possibly borrowing from failure
analysis among engineering techniques) may be crucial in diagnosing disorders
in common sense.
[6]
It does not escape my attention
that Müller and others want specifics ! Müller cites the ICD and DSM to make this
point. Those specifics must include
epidemiologic studies and data, clinical and laboratory studies and data,
cultural studies and data, cohort studies, and, not least, experimental studies
and data. Such a concerted effort is
proposed in Smith (2008).
[7]
In <2>, Müller, perhaps
unwittingly, points to one of the thorniest issues regarding diagnoses. He asks, “how reliable is such an ‘axis II diagnosis’ ?” I
address this point, albeit somewhat covertly in TA100 (see [73], Footnote {57}
and [84] in TA100). The point of
Footnote {57} and [84] was not that diagnoses could be unreliable or have poor
validity. Rather, secondary considerations
(e.g., insurance considerations) may distort reliability and validity. Indeed, the mere fact that many persons can
identify persons who lack common sense is circumstantial evidence that
disorders in common sense can be reliably diagnosed … even by laypersons !
[8]
Finally, Müller perceptively
remarks about the practical importance and political implications of common
sense (see <3>). He asks, “Would
[I] suggest that candidates for political office should be pre-screened for common
sense, as opposed to the lack of it (as in fanaticism, or more generally, a
tendency to hold and promote pre-conceived assumptions in an uncritical
manner)?” In passing, he, as easily,
could have focused on the business implications because many businesses and
institutions lack common sense. To date,
my approach to these practical, business and political concerns is to invoke
“caveats emptor” (see [13], [31], [80], [84], [96] and [104] in TA100).
[9]
The notion of caveats emptor is
not a ‘cop out’ ! Indeed, because of perceived space limitations
in TA100, I cited only one significant political example; to wit, George W.
Bush’s lacking common sense as evidenced, in part, by his passive-aggression,
‘my way or the highway’, and signing statements (see [104] in TA100). In earlier publications, I cited disorders in
common sense in Ronald Reagan and other politicians. The most significant point in paragraph [104]
was the reference to Charles Savage’s Pulitzer Prize. Caveats emptor are relatively meaningless
without a dispassionate and objective press corps – whether in regard to
politics, science, the environment, etc. (cf. Smith, 2001). Pulitzer Prizes, Goldman Prizes, Templeton
Prize, Nobel Prizes and other awards and prizes also serve to inform common
sense.
[10]
This brings me to the most
important message in this response. In
TA100, I assert that common sense develops largely between birth and age six
(see [10], [15], [19], Footnote {39}, [55] and
Footnote {58} in TA100). This does not
mean that the development of common sense ceases after age six (or thereabouts).
Indeed, alleged divergences in common
sense reveal that common sense can be pliable. This is a reason that journalism and an
objective press are central in the maintenance of common sense and its caveats
emptor. This lesson was lost shortly
after the events of September 11th, 2001 and with the entry of the USA in wars
against Iraq and Afghanistan. Embedded journalists
not only presented conflicts in interest (for an informed society), mounting
evidence reveals that aberrant common sense at the Executive level provided the
USA public with numerous false bills of goods.
Perhaps most important, some types of aberrations and disorders in
common sense at national and political levels may have contributed to the
Holocaust during World War II. Disorders
in common sense also may have contributed to other wars and traumatic events
cited in [13] in TA100. Would an
informed public and an independent press have changed the course in history?
-------------------------------------------------
(1) REFERENCES
Smith, R. Wm. (2001). Opinion:
The Durban Declaration. The Scientist 15(2):39. [Also available at:
http://www.the-scientist.com/yr2001/jan/opin_010122.html].
Smith, R. W. (2008). Cross-,
Multi-, Inter- and Trans-Disciplinary Approaches to the Evolution and
Development of Common Sense and its Disorders : Implications for Nurturance, Pedagogy and
Clinical Practice, An unsolicited proposal submitted to the National Institutes
of Health in response to program announcement RFA-RM-08-013 [January 12, 2008].
-------------------------------------------------
Roulette Wm. Smith
e-mail < najms (at) postgraduate-interdisciplinary-studies.org>