In recent weeks I’ve been expressing concepts that touch me closely in one way or another. In some cases in an important way, proving very useful, while in others because I care about them and observe them, just think of the last post I wrote. A topic I care about and that, if I had wanted to tell in detail, would have been extremely long.
Today I’d like to focus on how we think. But not in a didactic, scientific, or other way, rather in a human way, among us.
Judging thought
In our society, especially in Italian society, we judge a lot how we think and how we express ourselves. In fact, we often tend, even perhaps more implicitly than explicitly, to ghettoize those who speak or think differently.
Think just about neurodivergence. To cite some of the most well-known: ADHD, level 1 autism spectrum, and its combination AuDHD. We tend almost to see them as sick, almost to see that they are the mistake. But are we sure? What if we are the mistake?
I’m not talking about what my colorblind friend always told me: “Luca, you’re the ones seeing the wrong colors.” He said it jokingly, of course, but the concept makes me reflect.
Neurodivergence: who should adapt?
Neurodivergence has neurobiological roots, think of dopamine issues or differences in brain functioning. But in daily life, it manifests primarily as different ways of thinking and approaching the world. When I raised the question earlier, I was referring precisely to this: the different approach, not the biology.
Those who, in theory, don’t have neurodivergence should have the approach to understand them and find a communicative and action compromise with them. Those who have neurodivergence should, within the limits of science, pursue therapies to manage them. In short, elevate dialogue and communication. Create a balance and sometimes even a compromise.
After all, Voltaire already said: “My freedom begins where yours ends.” And if we apply a bit of abstraction, perhaps you understand where I’m going.
Contaminating each other
This whole premise shows how we must not be afraid of people who think and communicate differently. We must be fascinated by them and create dialogue, a deep dialogue to contaminate each other.
We must not criticize those who think linearly and within certain boundaries, but if we contaminate them with our networked thinking, we could both benefit. Linear thinking has its value in precision and clarity. Networked thinking brings unexpected connections and creative solutions. Together, they create balance.
Philosophy from elementary school
Philosophy, which is often disparaged or conversely elevated too much, is something wonderful. Something that opens the mind and can help even in not-so-common contexts. On LinkedIn, for example, I’ve shared my personal AI-Philosophy approach.
I believe it would be extremely useful to teach it starting from elementary school. Great writers have created and shaped texts capable of explaining philosophy with language suitable for children.
The missing critical thinking
We often complain about the absence of critical thinking and too often blame technology, but we fail to realize that it’s in the method, in certain generations that oppose it.
If we, in our small way, pushed better toward:
- Exploring thought in its nuances
- Respecting mental health on par with physical health
- Communicating and finding balance with neurodivergence
- Teaching critical thinking from elementary school
…I wonder what the world could become.
My personal experience
And I can assure you—I’m not the only one saying this—that while I love mathematics and obviously computer science, it was my passion for philosophy and other humanistic aspects that gave me the best in my work, AI included. And in client relationships, by the way.
Networked thinking is not a limitation. It’s a resource waiting to be understood and valued.