Drinking leads to Thinking

I was talking with someone today, the casual talk of preferred alcohol and exploits of days past. It seems to be a requisite conversation for any budding friendship and I tend to fall into a particular pattern of stories and preferences I will describe. Both of us having a propensity to have a few glasses there were some decent stories going both ways, however I noticed a pattern in the stories of my partner. There was a recurring theme of acknowledging whether one more drink was appropriate, at which point the story would curve sharply either to the safe and sober(-ish) side or to the fully inebriated and interesting side. The key thing I noticed was the framing of the decision as whether one "should or shouldn't" have one more, whereas I generally frame the question as whether I "feel like unwinding."

It's a subtle distinction and one I didn't really put too much thought into until later in the day, when we spoke again except this time more conspiratorially. This time we were debating the merits of a particular approach to accomplishing the task. This time, however, we were both using the same language of "should or shouldn't." My opinion was generally that we shouldn't, it would make the wrong sort of waves, may lead to angry conversations pointed at me, and could end up being a waste of time. My partner shared a different take. We should do this because it's an interesting approach.

It's such a subtle distinction, the framing of questions. "How do you pronounce the capital of Kentucky? Lou-ee-ville or Lou-iss-ville?" To approach the question simply is to accept the premises on which is is based, which in my example is simple to address. However when they are questions you ask yourself, it takes a disciplined mind to identify and challenge the false premises of your own thinking. So, when I reexamine the question of "Should I or shouldn't I take on this more socially risky approach to accomplish the given task?" I find myself asking a more interesting question "Here is a tough problem. Do I feel like unwinding on it?"

The beautiful thing about this interpretation is that it neatly packages the need to inspect the conditions precedent to a decision with a much healthier sense of self agency. To ask oneself the question of "should vs shouldn't" implies these things about the agency of the asker:

• There exists a set of rules outside the control of the asker which must be abided by
• These rules are uncertain or unclear in this situation
• There is no easy access to additional clarity around the rules
• The asker is not endowed with the right of resolving this uncertainty as she sees fit

So, I will say thank you kind sir. Thank you for the inspiration to reframe and get myself out from under those subconscious barriers. With that, I have one last word: the capital of Kentucky is pronounced "Frankfort".