In his books Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance and especially Lila, Robert Pirsig mentions the use of an analytical razor. I am often reminded of his discussion in everyday life, and I feel that his conclusions are very significant, and very often overlooked or simply not even realized by most people. I will try to reproduce his results as best I can, providing some examples which I hope will help clarify what it is I’m talking about.
Whenever a complex argument/principle/phenomenon needs to be analyzed, it must first be cut into smaller pieces so that the whole can be understood better. To do this, a number of techniques have been developed from ancient times that are still in use today, but they all fundamentally do the same thing: they slice the idea into smaller portions on the basis of some criteria. Depending on how something is cut, one gets vastly differing perceptions and understanding about the concept. And one must always remember that something has been lost in the analysis, which must be put together afterwards. In some cases, the razor is applied very carefully and precisely to obtain a desired result, and in other cases, it is applied seemingly at random to get erroneous results. Both cases must be understood and recognized for what they are, because they can be equally dangerous. This is the analytical razor that Pirsig talks about, and it is immensely powerful.
If you just read the previous paragraph and have no idea what I meant by any of it, don’t worry–these are not simple concepts to state, but perhaps they will be better understood through some examples. I will now break down my paragraph and give examples for each statement:
“Whenever a complex argument/principle/phenomenon needs to be analyzed, it must first be cut into smaller pieces so that the whole can be understood better.”
This paragraph is a simple example of analysis: I am taking one sentence out of the above paragraph at a time and I am analyzing/explaining it. Another example, one that I will continue throughout this discussion, is of understanding sex. Suppose we want to understand the concept of gender in living creatures on earth, from a basically biological standpoint.
“To do this, a number of techniques have been developed from ancient times that are still in use today, but they all fundamentally do the same thing: they slice the idea into smaller portions on the basis of some criteria.”
So now we are going to slice the idea of gender into two smaller portions, male and female, on the basis of a biological feature: which species carries children (the female) and which does not (the male). Note that we can also divide gender into the same categories using a different criteria: on the basis of the sexual body parts of each gender (since you’re on the internet, you have no doubt seen many examples of these body parts ;-)) So far, so good, right?
“Depending on how something is cut, one gets vastly differing perceptions and understanding about the concept.”
At first glance, both of the above methods of cutting the idea of gender into two parts seem fine. After all, you get the same two categories, and they are consistent with each other, in that a human man, for example, falls into the “male” category according to both classifications. But now look at what happens if you look at seahorses. According to the first categorization above, the “male” seahorse is the one that carries the children. But according to the second classification, the “male” seahorse is the other one, because it has the right kind of genitalia.
Now why does this matter? After all, you may argue, what does it matter what we call it? Well there are several reasons why it could matter. Suppose you want to make some general statements about male creatures on earth (”all men are the same–disgusting!”). Well then to build your generalization, which seahorse are you going to look at? The one which does not carry the baby or the one which has the male genitalia?
Again, you might be thinking that this is a problem for only scientists and other such “useless” people. But now suppose you have a collection of seahorses (of which 10 do not carry newborns and 2 have male genitalia), and someone offers you $50 for each male seahorse you own. Obviously, you will choose to use the definition of “does not carry newborns” in choosing the male seahorses and making a cool $500 as opposed to a measly $100.
It should hopefully not be too hard to realize that this kind of thing is happening all the time in the real world, especially when money and/or power are at stake.
“And one must always remember that something has been lost in the analysis, which must be put together afterwards.”
What has been lost here is the fact that the choosing of our criteria was, in some senses, somewhat arbitrary (although in reality, it would be dependent on our purposes). If we are looking at a physiological trend, for example, then we will likely want to go by the criteria of genitalia, whereas if we are looking at sociological behaviors, we would want to go by the child-bearing criteria. But remember that the male seahorse (according to whichever definition you choose) is what it is–it doesn’t “become” male just because you choose to call it that.
“In some cases, the razor is applied very carefully and precisely to obtain a desired result”
Going back to our seahorse analogy, both criteria we have chosen are carefully and precisely selected to obtain a number of results:
- The classification results in exactly two categories: male and female
- According to each classification system (by itself), each creature falls into exactly one of the two categories, unambiguously
- The two systems were specifically chosen to cause contradictions with each other
“and in other cases, it is applied seemingly at random to get erroneous results.”
We could just as easily have picked a different system for classifying males and females. For example, suppose we say that the gender which raises the children is female, and the other one is male. Immediately, you should be able to see that this is a very bad criteria to use for basically the opposite reasons as given above:
- Each creature does not easily fall into one of the two groups. What if both parents raise the child (in the case of most human families)? What if neither parent raises the child (turtles, for example)?
- It’s hard to determine exactly what “raising the child” means. Does a father who works all day so that his child is provided for not considered as “raising his child”? Or perhaps not as much as the mother who spends time with the child and takes care of him?
This is a hazy area; it’s as if the analytical knife we are using is dull, and does not cut cleanly. Note that in many real-life situations, there is no best criteria to use for our knife. Each affords some advantages, but also some disadvantages.
“Both cases must be understood and recognized for what they are, because they can be equally dangerous.”
In the first two cases, we have to realize that the system of classification precisely identifies which creatures are male and which are female, and thus we must consider if there are particular reasons (whether they are known or not) one system was chosen over the other (e.g. earning money for each “male” seahorse).
In the last case, we have to realize that someone making a generalization of “all males are lazy and uncaring” is not at all warranted by that system of categorization, because the division into male and female is not clean.
“This is the analytical razor that Pirsig talks about, and it is immensely powerful.”
Thus, hopefully you see to some degree at least what a huge impact this analytical razor can have on outcomes. Again, to stress this point, the example of choosing sex seems like an academic exercise only. But this exact same thing is happening in real life by politicians, businessmen, and indeed, everyone, for furthering their own purposes. I’m not saying it’s necessarily wrong; I’m saying that it is happening, and you should be aware of it, be able to recognize it, and be able to tell what has been lost in the slicing and dicing.
Tags: analytical razor, robert pirsig
Leave a Reply