In this How Not to Think, I want to talk about the weird realm of conversation and debate where we dispute core essences. I know that sounds exceedingly abstract, but here's the common language that you often encounter: "You don't understand what [X mass phenomenon] is really all about." Sound familiar?

Think that professional football celebrates violence and aggression? Well that's not what football is really all about. The essence of football is about teamwork. OR, the essence of football is sportsmanship and athletic achievement.

Think NASA is an obscure and impractical distraction from problems here on Earth? Well you clearly don't understand the essence of the space program. NASA is really all about driving new science and inspiring the innovators of tomorrow.

Now of course I don't necessarily disagree with either of the objections here -- I love NASA and I think football is just fine. What I'm objecting to is the form these defenses take. I believe that there's something loose, something imprecise and not very useful going on when we spend time squabbling over how to characterize the essence of a phenomenon.

Part of the problem with arguing about the core essence of a thing is that these arguments self-evidently lack firmness and objective reference. It's so easy for one person to argue that the essence of a single phenomenon is any number of different things, and all of these core essences can be compatible with the same worldview while remaining different at face value. For example, imagine a U.S. presidential candidate giving a stump speech. He or she could say, "The essence of what it means to be an American is that we're committed to building a brighter future for our children." The same candidate could also say, at a different moment, "What America is really all about is personal freedom, individual liberty. Dedication to freedom is what it really means to be an American." Or, alternately, "The essence of America is hard work and integrity. Working hard and keeping your promises is what being an American is all about."

I seriously doubt anyone will disagree when I say that you should have no problem imagining the exact same person saying all of these different things at different times. This wouldn't really even be lying, per se, because somehow we all understand that these claims -- though they all name totally different characteristics as the core essence of American identity -- are not to be taken as mutually exclusive. Everybody knows that you can say a national identity is "all about" X at 9 in the morning and "all about" Y by noon. But if you can do that, it's not a core essence at all. It's just a characteristic that you ascribe and you're choosing to focus on for the moment.

This alone should let us know that there's something wobbly about the way we identify core essences. I believe our claims about the core essence of a thing tend to reflect our feelings -- particularly our momentary feelings -- toward that thing. "What it's all about" is essentially the same as saying "what it means to me." And it's fine to talk about what things mean to us personally, provided that everyone understands that we're dealing in feelings rather than evidence and reason. What football means to you or me has little or nothing to do with observable facts about the sport and its fans. So I think if we want to have a debate about football, or NASA, or national identity, we come no closer to truths we can agree upon by talking about abstract core essences. We have to talk about measurable consequences.

Agree? Disagree? Or have I misunderstood what conversation and debate are really all about?