Relatively recently, I wrote a review on Goodreads of the book "The Secret Commonwealth" by Philip Pullman. I initially knocked the book a star. I thought it was a 4-star read. I had recently got into the habit of improving my snap judgments on things, under the impression that perhaps my life had been going slower than it should have thus far because of my self-perceived tendency to be indecisive. I had written reviews for Felix, the student newspaper of Imperial College London in the past, and one thing I learned was that it was almost the case that articles that were written quickly tended to be better received by the editors. After all, what was the point in attempting to condense complex ideas into something that people were reading for entertainment; or at least - if I did want to introduce those ideas, I should spread them over the length of the piece, diluting them like a very weak cup of squash, so that people's reading speed would match that of their comprehension, as would my writing speed match that of my own thinking and idea development.
However, I have realised that fast and decisive isn't always best. This realisation came when, a few weeks after reading the book, I realised that I had been mulling over a few of the ideas and characters introduced, with these things affecting my own life and thinking. I thought more deeply about some of the things that had been written and realised that I had overlooked many seemingly minor points, which were gateways to a deeper understanding of the ideas discussed in the story. I am willing to accept that this was perhaps me imposing my own interpretations on a piece of text, but I am more willing to give Philip Pullman the benefit of the doubt and accept that at least some of the things I thought about were intended.
Thus, I went back to my review and revised it from 4 stars to 5 stars. In hindsight, I realised that I had mostly not awarded the book 5 stars because it did not provide perfect gratification instantly upon finishing it. You could argue that this is the reason we have reviews in the first place: different individuals have different opinions, and literature - like any art - is open to interpretation and a far from static subject.
This idea of individuals having opinions is all well and good, but it can also take on a darker side when it materialises in the debate on freedom of speech. If you had to sum up the war going on between what tend to be older generations and younger ones, it would be described as the question of the extent of freedom of speech. Perhaps a better way to express this is - what is the meaning of freedom? One side of the debate believes that freedom of speech means that we should all be entitled to be able to say what we want, free of consequences, or some degree of that thought. The other side believes that the freedom means freedom of an individual to live a life free from hatred and judgement by others, thus speech has moulded into the more general idea of "expression", and by speaking about others we may be limiting those individuals' rights to express themselves. This idea presents itself in all the recent hot topics in the media: Brexit, mask wearing, and Zionism to name but a few.
So who is right? Is being too quick to judge a poor trait, or one that is necessary in this world where we don't always have time to look into things too deeply? Is it the duty of an individual to spend time considering a subject to its fullest extent before opening their mouth, e.g. to express their views on another person or group?
It is clear that in certain situations, the human instinct to judge quickly is valuable and sometimes even necessary to our survival. If we see a lion in South Africa, we don't stop to consider whether this is a real danger - we make a decision and quickly. It's built into our systems, fight or flight being one form of this.
But it is also clear that there are times when our instinct to judge can harm others. If we see a beggar in the street, do we assume that they are taking drugs, lazy, or drunks just because of the way they look? The reality is that they might be, but they might also not be. But is it right for us to ignore the latter possibility? If that were the case, thousands of unfortunate people living on the streets today would not be receiving vital money, which - in some cases - might be the difference between a life of misery and one that is meaningful.
It is clear that there is no simple answer. Even when we do weigh up the possibility that our assumptions may be wrong, studies of human behaviour as detailed in the book "Thinking Fast and Slow" have demonstrated that our perceptions of probability are very often misguided.
In my opinion, the answer is that we should seek to improve ourselves and listen to others. If they tell us that we are judging too harshly, this is often a signal to sit back, take a moment, and reflect on whether our lines of thinking are based on solid evidence, or if they have been swayed through overexposure to one particular point of view, namely our own. But at the end of the day, we should not do ourselves down for being too quick to judge. Everyone makes mistakes. Indeed, the one person we should never be too quick to judge is very close to home - we should never be too judgemental of ourselves.
