The truth

doesn’t cost you anything,

but a lie could cost you everything.

- Unknown.

What do we mean when we talk about

clear thinking?

Given a minute or two to consider that

question,

most of us could come up with a

definition related to intelligence.

Usually,

it depends on our goals at the moment.

Some might mix it up with fast

thinking—where that happens

automatically and often outside of our

consciousness.

Speed is prized over accuracy.

They see a certain object or situation,

and immediately draw a conclusion based

on their own past experience out of

urgency.

Others might confuse it with

reactionary thinking,

which sounds like “my instincts are

telling me this."

It’s establishing a belief based on

an emotional hunch,

which isn’t thinking at all.

Or possibly,

clear thinking is mixed up with simple

thinking.

Here,

concepts that are easy to grasp are

closer to the truth than more

complicated ideas.

This might happen because a clear

solution is desired,

and too much information can muddy the

waters.

On the other hand,

the opposite confusion can hold true

where clear thinking is seen as

complicated thinking - analyzing every

single bit of information,

supporting and opposing,

no matter how insignificant or

questionable their sources may be.

All of us have practiced those kinds of

thinking in the past and may have had

confidence in our convictions based on

them.

Maybe even once or twice we’ve been

right when using them.

(Although it’s probably the real life

equivalent of a stopped clock being

correct twice a day.)

Fast and reactionary thinking will help

you when a car is hurtling your way and

you aren’t sure which way to leap;

any direction is fine as long as it’s

safe.

Simple thinking will help you when

certainty is more valued than accuracy.

Complicated thinking will help you when

pedantry and accuracy are valued more

than speed.

But none of those mental models will

reliably help you understand,

learn about,

and determine the truth of what’s

right in front of you.

Clear thinking is reasoning,

determination based on evidence,

critical analysis,

and simply following the trail of

cookie crumbs where it leads,

not where you want it to lead or where

you think it should lead.

It emphasizes trying to find the

objective truth and not being led

astray by what we see at first glance.

It is the magnifying glass that shows

the important details that make all the

difference,

while tuning out those that are red

herrings.

Adapting to clear thinking on a

regular,

practiced basis will help you become

more understanding,

perceptive,

and insightful.

Committing yourself to a deliberate and

unbiased way of thinking is not

necessarily about doing better in

school or at your job—though it

certainly aids those pursuits.

It’s mostly about viewing the world

for what it is and being able to

discern the naked truth of what you see.

There are elements of thinking like a

scientist,

gaining self-awareness of your own

biases,

and learning to be strict with yourself.

It can be difficult,

but you just may realize how flawed

your thinking has been in the past.

Not everybody is comes out of the womb

thinking with crystal clarity,

but everybody has the capacity to gain

it as a habit.

This book intends to offer a set of

principles and practices that will help

you think more honestly and rationally.

I hope to present clear thinking as a

core component of your life that you

need to instill;

it’s a skill that will reward you in

virtually all aspects of your waking

life.

It’s how you solve for actual

solutions to your problems,

instead of hoping that the clock

happens to be right.

The first aspect of crystal-clear

thinking is intellectual honesty,

which is when you’re honest with

yourself and others,

and your first obligation is to the

pursuit of truth rather than any other

motive.

We frequently lie to others when we

want to protect ourselves from their

judgment.

For instance,

if someone makes fun of your writing

skills,

you’ll utter an excuse about how you

were distracted,

lazy,

and not putting in your full effort.

Also,

your computer was on the fritz that

day,

so you couldn’t perform any editing.

Sure.

This type of reaction is not

intellectually honest,

but it’s understandable and natural.

But what happens when you begin to tell

the same lies to yourself,

and you are unable to tell where the

truth begins or ends?

What if you start to believe that

you’re an undiscovered Ernest

Hemingway,

but for your laziness and broken

keyboard?

That is the true risk with a lack of

intellectual honesty,

and it presents a huge obstacle to

clarity of thought and staying rooted

in reality.

The Armored Ego... As you just saw with

the example about your writing prowess,

protecting yourself from others is

often the reason we are intellectually

dishonest.

In fact,

the first barrier in almost any kind of

self-improvement comes from the ego’s

need to protect itself.

Sometimes our thinking is erroneous

because we don’t see all the factors

involved in a situation,

or we are too hasty to jump to a

conclusion.

Those are errors in observation or

perception.

But those reasons pale in comparison to

the ego’s power to distort your

thinking.

Someone who’s underperforming at work

might feel the need to protect their

perceived skills and talent by

deflecting responsibility to “The

boss has always had it in for me.

And who trained me?

Him!

It’s all his fault one way or

another."

Someone who trips and falls yet fancies

themselves graceful will blame the fact

that it rained six days ago,

their shoes have no grip,

and who put that rock there anyway!?

Someone who fails to make the school

basketball team will grumble that the

coach hated them,

they weren’t used to that particular

style of play,

and they didn’t really want to make

the team anyway.

This is what it sounds like when the

ego steps in to protect itself.

There’s so much justification and

deflecting going on that it’s

difficult to know what is real and what

is not.

Clear thinking becomes impossible.

This all stems from the universal truth

that nobody likes to be wrong or to

fail.

It’s embarrassing and confirms all of

our worst anxieties about ourselves.

Instead of accepting being wrong as a

teachable moment or lesson,

our first instinct is to run from our

shame and cower in the corner.

This is the same reason we will persist

in an argument to the death,

even if we know we are 100% wrong.

If the ego had a physical

manifestation,

it would be sizable,

sensitive,

and heavily armored (to the point of

going on the offensive)—essentially a

giant porcupine.

When the ego senses danger,

it has no interest or time to consider

the facts.

Instead it seeks to alleviate your

discomfort in the quickest way possible.

And that means you lie to yourself so

you can keep the ego safe and sound.

We try to cover up the truth,

deflect attention from it,

or develop an alternative version that

makes the actual truth seem less

hurtful.

And it’s right in that moment that

intellectual dishonesty is born.

Are any of those convoluted theories

likely to withstand any amount of

scrutiny?

Probably not,

but the problem is that the ego

doesn’t allow for acknowledgment and

analysis of what really happened.

It blinds you.

Let’s be clear - These aren’t lies

that you dream up or concoct in advance.

You do not intend to lie to yourself.

You don’t even feel they’re lies.

You may not even know you’re doing

it,

as sometimes these defense mechanisms

can occur unconsciously.

They’re not explicitly intellectually

dishonest because you want to delude

yourself.

Rather,

they’re automatic strategies that the

constantly neurotic ego puts into

action because it’s terrified of

looking foolish or wrong.

Unfortunately,

that’s the worst zone to be in,

as it means you don’t know what you

don’t know.

Over time these ego-driven errors in

thinking inform your entire belief

system and give you rationalized

justifications for almost everything.

You never make any sports team because

the coaches always hate you,

and you keep failing the driving test

because your hand-eye coordination is

uniquely special.

These lies become your entire reality,

and you rely on them to get yourself

through problematic situations or to

dismiss efforts to find the truth.

We’re not talking about just giving

excuses for why you aren’t a violin

virtuoso;

this manner of thinking can become the

factors that drive your decisions,

thinking,

and evaluations of anything and anyone.

Let’s take Fred.

Fred was an ardent fan of a pop star

his whole life.

He grew up listening to their music and

formed a lot of his identity around his

admiration for him.

We’re talking an entire bedroom wall

filled with posters of this star,

and outfits that were replicas of this

star’s clothes hanging in his closet.

Late in his career this pop star was

put on trial for a serious crime.

Fred steadfastly stood by his pop star

idol,

even as lurid details of his case were

reported by courtroom reporters to the

press.

“Nobody I admire this way would ever

be guilty of this,” Fred said.

“It’s all just a conspiracy put

together by the people who resent him

for whatever reason."

The pop star was ultimately found

guilty and sentenced to multiple years

of prison.

Fred had showed up outside the

courthouse bearing a sign that

protested his star’s innocence.

Even as compelling evidence was

eventually released to the press,

Fred maintained that the pop star was

absolutely innocent,

dismissing all of the victims’ claims

by protesting that they were

“jealous” and “just trying to get

the spotlight themselves."

Why would Fred continue to insist,

against all reasonable and provable

evidence,

that his idol was innocent?

Because his ego was so wrapped up in

his worship of the pop star that it was

predisposed to consider him blameless.

For him to believe the truth would have

meant a devastating blow to almost

everything he believed in (I worship a

criminal?

What does that say about me?),

and the ego wasn’t going to let that

happen for a minute—even if it meant

making him deny what was fairly

compelling and unshakable proof that

the star was guilty.

In your pursuit of truth and clear

thought,

your ego will rear its ugly head like

the enraged porcupine.

It has set up a series of tactical

barriers to keep you from learning

something that might upset your belief

system,

and it is only after you can reign in

your ego that you are open to learning.

After all,

you can’t defend yourself and listen

at the same time.

Defense mechanisms are the specific

ways we protect our ego,

pride,

and self-esteem.

These methods keep us whole when times

are tough.

The origin of the term comes from

Sigmund Freud.

You just might recognize these two

defense mechanisms put forth by his

daughter,

Anna Freud - denial and rationalization.

Denial is one of the most classic

defense mechanisms because it is easy

to use.

Suppose you discovered that you were

performing poorly at your job.

“No,

I don’t believe that report ranking

all of the employees.

There’s no way I can be last.

Not in this world.

The computer added up the scores

incorrectly."

What is true is simply claimed to be

false,

as if that makes everything go away.

You are acting as if a negative fact

doesn’t exist.

Sometimes we don’t realize when we do

this,

especially in situations that are so

dire they actually appear fantastical

to us.

All you have to do is say “no”

often enough and you might begin to

believe yourself,

and that’s where the appeal of denial

lies.

You are actually changing your reality,

where other defense mechanisms merely

spin it to be more acceptable.

This is actually the most dangerous

defense mechanism,

because even if there is a dire

problem,

it is ignored and never fixed.

If someone continued to persist in the

belief they were an excellent driver,

despite a string of accidents in the

past year,

it’s unlikely they would ever seek to

practice their driving skills.

Rationalization is when you explain

away something negative.

It is the art of making excuses.

The bad behavior or fact still remains,

but it is turned into something

unavoidable because of circumstances

out of your control.

The bottom line is anything negative is

not your fault and you shouldn’t be

held accountable for it.

It’s never a besmirching of your

abilities.

It’s extremely convenient,

and you are only limited by your

imagination.

Building on the same prior example of

poor job performance,

this is easily explained away by the

following - your boss secretly hating

you,

your co-workers plotting against you,

the computer being biased against your

soft skills,

unpredictable traffic affecting your

commute,

and having two jobs at once.

These flimsy excuses are what your ego

needs to protect itself.

Rationalization is the embodiment of

the sour grapes fable - A fox wanted to

reach some grapes at the top of a bush,

but he couldn’t leap high enough.

To make himself feel better about his

lack of leaping ability,

and to comfort himself about his lack

of grapes,

he told himself the grapes looked sour

anyway,

so he wasn’t missing out on anything.

He was still hungry,

but he’d rather be hungry than admit

his failure.

Rationalization can also help us feel

at peace with poor decisions we’ve

made with phrases such as,

“It was going to happen at some point

anyway."

Rationalization ensures you never have

to face failure,

rejection,

or negativity.

It’s always someone else’s fault!

While comforting,

where do reality and truth go amidst

all of this?

Out the window,

mostly.

Intellectual honesty requires you to

first defeat your natural tendencies to

be dishonest.

Thoughts dictated by self-protection

don’t overlap with clear,

objective thoughts.

What Is Intellectual Honesty (and

Dishonesty)?

With our biggest obstacle addressed,

it’s time to examine the traits of

the honest thinking we want to seek out.

And what are the traits of dishonest

thinking that we want to avoid?

It’s time to spell out how to embody

our goals of seeing the world as

objectively as humanly possible.

Intellectual honesty is a commitment to

finding the truth,

wholly,

unconditionally,

no matter what it might cost.

It’s seeking out facts and reality,

regardless of how uneasy,

inopportune or distasteful that truth

makes us feel.

Often it involves what our ego would

rather pretend doesn’t exist.

It is the understanding that speed and

certainty are completely unimportant

when compared to accuracy.

The intellectually honest person is

tireless about learning from all

perspectives.

They accept viewpoints that might

differ from their own.

They understand that reasonable people

can hold opposing ideas.

They’re swift in respecting the good

points their opponents might bring up,

and they’re not afraid to admit when

their own argument might contain flaws

or faults.

They’re quick to concede when their

own biases,

prejudices or emotions might be

informing their thinking.

Someone who’s committed to

intellectual honesty is committed to

the absolute facts of a matter and

allows those facts alone to form their

judgment.

They don’t exaggerate or overstate

arguments,

and they don’t deliberately

misconstrue what evidence presents them.

They don’t make the truth adapt to

their thinking.

There is no circuitous logic or

circular arguments,

and questions are answered directly and

without ulterior motive.

If the ego senses danger,

it acts swiftly to make most people

spout an excuse,

but the intellectually honest will

throw themselves under the bus if that

accurately reflects what happened.

The intellectually honest person

remains modest and neutral when

they’re pursuing the truth.

They reject double standards and

hypocrisy,

and they don’t pretend to be experts

on things they don’t know anything

about.

For example,

a courtroom judge is expected to ignore

their own personal beliefs,

withstand outside pressure,

and make an unbiased decision on cases

or procedures completely adherent to

the rule of law.

The evidence will tell a story,

and the judge removes their own

opinions,

gives each side the same opportunity,

and simply uncovers that story instead

of seeking to write it themselves.

An insurance adjustor investigating an

accident,

theoretically speaking,

needs to block out both his company’s

bottom line and their customer’s

adverse situation,

examine all the facts and events of the

accident,

and make their best judgment as to how

it happened and which party is

responsible.

He is to assess according to the

guidelines he is bound by,

nothing more and nothing less.

He cannot skip analyzing something

because it is damaging to his

company’s bottom line,

and he must give the same weight to

every factor he finds.

There is an element of scientific

thinking,

where a hypothesis or assumption is

something that is meant to be tested,

and is certainly never confused with a

conclusion or argument.

“I don’t know” is a perfectly

acceptable answer,

and so is “You’re right,

I am wrong."

Each option is equally comfortable and

easy to speak.

An intellectually dishonest person,

on the other hand,

is often easily identified by how they

react to anything that doesn’t

support them.

They either don’t accept hostile to

opposing opinions through denial or

rationalization,

or are downright hostile and demeaning.

You just get the sense that there is

something to be protected or hidden.

They evade questions like they are

playing dodge ball,

and they come up with roundabout

answers to direct inquiries.

Thoughts focused on being right don’t

always overlap with reality or the

truth.

When it comes to reinforcing their own

beliefs,

the intellectually dishonest person

stops their research the minute they

find something that supports their

assertion.

They’ll cherry-pick evidence they

agree with and completely omit proof

that they’re wrong.

They’ll mangle the truth until it

suits them by making bad analogies,

taking quotes out of context,

and equivocating or minimizing key

points.

They’ll go off on tangents to

misrepresent the facts of a situation,

in some cases simply making stuff up to

support their statements.

Using straw man arguments is a favorite

- these are fallacies in which one

arguer exaggerates what their opponent

said to the point of ludicrous,

when in actuality that opponent said

nothing of the sort.

Innocent statement - “Maybe we should

trust our government more."

Straw man argument - “Oh,

so you’re saying you want a fascist

government and our very own Hitler to

go along with?!"

“…No,

that’s not what I said at all."

When they sense their argument is

disbelieved,

the intellectually dishonest person

often resorts to panic,

distortion,

or deflection.

The discussion becomes something to

win,

and they do it by any means possible.

They’ll exaggerate,

misinterpret,

cry false equivalencies,

or simply change the subject.

Defense becomes the name of the game.

There is an inability to answer yes or

no questions without having to justify;

there is never a straightforward answer

given.

Over time,

an intellectually dishonest person can

lob so many of these defenses and

tactics so often and repetitively that

they even talk themselves into

believing something they used to know

wasn’t entirely on solid ground to

begin with.

Like abiding by the ego,

the most dangerous side effect of

intellectual dishonesty is the

potential to warp reality on a mass

scale.

As mentioned earlier,

we engage in self-deceptions out of

self-defense.

But furthermore,

nothing is quite as narcotic as the

need to be right;

and to maintain that feeling,

we lie to ourselves.

Switching from a track of intellectual

dishonesty to one of clear thinking

isn’t a cakewalk.

It requires leaving behind established

beliefs and biases that are difficult

to let go of.

In the process,

you leave yourself feeling vulnerable

and inadequate.

Uttering,

“I don’t know” or “I was

wrong” for the first time can be

painful.

But consider that the bravado and

bluster you showcase in intellectual

dishonesty paints a far worse picture

of you.

Obstacles To Honest Thought.

Our egos play a large part in obscuring

clear and critical thought,

but even if you are able to quash it

and eventually separate your thinking

processes from it,

there are still many habits that cloud

our thinking.

Just like dealing with the ego,

they might be so habitual and heavily

ingrained that you can’t find the

truth with a compass.

The three common obstacles are

intellectual laziness,

willful ignorance,

and adherence to sacred cows.

They each impact our ability to see

truth in different ways.

Intellectual laziness.

Especially in today’s

technology-driven society where answers

are easier and quicker to obtain than

ever before,

we tend to expend very little energy

into intellectual pursuits.

Our brains seek the fastest of

superficial confirmations of facts and

then head straight for the beach for a

few hours.

The goal is ease and certainty rather

than accuracy.

It’s easy and it feels like you’ve

done what you’re supposed to.

This in itself leads to chronic jumping

to conclusions.

But there’s more to an intellectually

lazy person than just seeking comfort.

They prefer that other people do the

thinking for them.

They’ll happily defer to the beliefs

of a friend,

social media memes,

or dubious experts to define their

convictions.

They outsource their critical thinking

and seek to substitute it with apparent

authority figures,

which inevitably leave large gaps of

understanding.

You have to wonder at what point they

are creating their own opinions instead

of parroting what they have heard from

often-questionable sources.

Aside from not being discerning with

sources,

the intellectually lazy person also

doesn’t want to take the effort to

change their mind,

and they’ll pursue that stasis to the

ends of the earth.

In the pursuit of maintaining

consistency over seeking truth,

they’ll only consider information

that will back up what they want to

believe,

whether it’s debunked science or a

far-flung conspiracy theory.

Even if they’re presented with clear

evidence and reasoning,

they’ll refuse to consider any of it,

or reject it out of hand without

understanding a single part of it.

They seek the path of least resistance.

As such,

they over-value stability,

and are resistant to change.

Saying “I don’t know” is not

preferred because it requires extra

work to juggle multiple

perspectives—it’s not an easy,

comfortable state.

It’s much easier to be able to latch

onto one opinion or perspective.

When an intellectually lazy person does

take the mantle and try to do their own

research,

they’ll often stop after a cursory

glance—and even then,

they’ll probably only look at

material that supports their own

beliefs.

They seek to oversimplify and remove

nuance from complex issues.

After all,

it’s more effort to have to

understand your errors and change your

perspective.

If they get backed into a corner by

someone rationally challenging their

views,

you just might see the ego start to

rear its ugly head.

Like all the other aspects of clear

thinking,

avoiding intellectual laziness becomes

an exercise in building habits of

self-awareness and

metacognition—thinking about your own

thinking.

Ask yourself if you are merely seeking

an answer or if you are actually

seeking the truth.

These different paths prescribe

incredibly different courses of action.

To see truth,

you don’t stop researching something

the minute you find your viewpoints (or

their opposites)

validated.

You seek information from as many sides

and sources as you can and accept that

some real evidence you come across

might make you uncomfortable.

You would engage in this search

firsthand,

as opposed to listening to other

people’s anecdotes.

You would seek to discover nuance and

not settle at the first explanation

that seems plausible.

You would treat your assumptions as

just that,

assumptions and not fact or truth.

It sounds exhausting,

but the more you use these muscles,

the easier it gets.

Willful ignorance.

It’s one thing to be intellectually

dishonest through mental laziness and

prioritizing your comfort over the

truth,

but it’s quite another thing to know

you’re relying on faulty information,

mislead others,

but keep on doing it anyway.

This is called willful ignorance,

and it’s worse than mere intellectual

laziness.

Willful ignorance is making a

deliberate choice to disregard the

truth.

Examples include the conspiracy

theorist who won’t consider any

information that exposes the holes in

their argument,

like people in the ‘60s who thought

Paul McCartney was dead,

and rejected clear evidence like his

giving new television interviews

frequently (“It was an imposter!”)

and releasing new music (“It was the

same imposter!”).

But willful ignorance happens in less

fringe situations as well - In the

1990s,

when tobacco companies knew that

science had proven their product was

harmful,

they fought to suppress the data and

deny its authority by claiming it was

“inconclusive."

If you assume that tobacco companies

weren’t knowingly poisoning their

customers,

they turned a blind eye to compelling

evidence simply because they wanted to

believe it so badly.

It’s the equivalent of plugging your

ears,

covering your eyes,

and loudly screaming

“LA-LA-LA-LA-LA” to deny something.

There’s more than innocent ignorance

behind those that practice willful

ignorance - They consciously opt to

spurn the truth,

with statements ranging from the

relatively benign (“It’s none of my

business”)

to the dismissive (“I don’t want to

know”).

Such brazen refusal is usually a sign

that the speaker knows there’s

something wrong with their position and

merely wants to escape the proceedings.

Several reasons might be at play when

someone displays willful ignorance.

Remember,

denial typically serves the ego.

They could just be insecure about their

beliefs and want to avoid information

that would conflict with them.

They may want to escape the

responsibility to change that comes

with new knowledge—to paraphrase the

Jack Nicholson movie quote,

they “can’t handle the truth!"

Alternately,

they may simply perceive ignorance as

the psychologically healthier option -

They prefer to “stay positive” and

preserve the relative tranquility of

“not knowing."

This harms you because without the

truth,

and without acknowledging your possible

role in it,

improvement is impossible.

It’s like when the “Check Engine”

light goes on in one’s car.

They can rationalize it away by saying,

“Oh,

that light goes on all the time.

It’s irrelevant."

Then they continue to ignore it,

until one night they try to start the

car and it won’t turn over.

More personally,

we see willful ignorance when someone

refuses to acknowledge hard evidence

that their partner might not be totally

truthful with them,

continuing to stick silently by their

side thinking things will get better by

just pretending nothing’s wrong.

Knowing that your beliefs or facts

don’t align with reality is important.

Willful ignorance is short-circuited by

making the simple yet tough decision to

start with facts and then find a

conclusion,

instead of starting with the conclusion

and then finding the facts to support

it.

Some reading this will find the risks

of losing willful ignorance too much to

endure.

Still others will say there’s nothing

wrong with being willfully ignorant if

it makes them happy.

But don’t confuse this comfort zone

for clear thinking.

Adherence to sacred cows.

Certain subjects,

ideas,

people or groups are considered by some

to be off-limits when it comes to

criticism or even critical analysis.

These items are called “sacred

cows,” in reference to the Hindu

belief that the cow is a holy animal

that must not be eaten or disrespected.

Discussing sacred cows can be extremely

problematic,

because they speak directly to

people’s core of faith,

belief and identity.

For our purposes,

sacred cows can include anything from

long-established cultural traditions,

religious practices,

political beliefs,

and even industry practices.

Anything that is held out to be the

unquestionable truth,

or above truth itself,

is a sacred cow.

In everyday terms,

they are “touchy subjects."

To say anything critical of those

hallowed institutions and figures is

considered blasphemy by those who

follow them.

But are they accurate,

truthful,

and deserving of such a label?

What gives them their status,

and what makes them more correct than

anything else?

Is it simply a result of “doing

things for the sake of doing them as

they have always been done”?

To be clear,

this is not a point about discussing

the merits of the Hindu belief

regarding the cow.

This is a point about questioning your

beliefs and separating long-held

assumption from fact.

Intellectually honesty dictates that no

subject,

belief,

or person should be free from critical

thinking or questioning.

If you honestly engage in this process,

sooner or later you’re going to step

directly onto someone’s sacred cow,

even your own.

This is when you encounter something

that you believed to be

incontrovertible truth,

and when you come into conflict with

that,

how will you react?

Will you be able to follow the evidence

where it leads,

or ignore it by deferring to your

sacred cow?

But it’s a dangerous discussion.

It sparks intense defensiveness.

Centuries of chaos and bloodshed have

resulted from these attitudes.

You might have your own internal

battles on the matter.

As with many things in life,

discomfort here is a sign of something

significant occurring.

There is no tenet or belief that should

be accepted completely on blind faith.

Every single one of them should be open

to scrutiny and investigation.

The best ideas and principles will

stand up to such inquiry—the truth

will always be defensible.

Only beliefs that rely on falsehoods,

outdated thought or misinformation will

lose out.

Imagine that you (after having traveled

through time)

are working diligently to construct a

theory on whether or not the planets

orbit the sun,

or everything orbits the Earth.

You may recognize this as the debate

between heliocentrism and geocentrism,

respectively.

Geocentrism was indeed considered a

sacred cow.

Where would we be if it wasn’t taken

off its pedestal and intensely

questioned and ultimately proven

incorrect by Nicolaus Copernicus?

If you have a sacred cow,

the biggest step is to at least

recognize and admit that it is a sacred

cow rather than a fact.

People are free to believe what they

want,

but they are not free to present what

they want as truth or fact.

This idea is behind the famous Zen

teaching of Linji Yixuan - “If you

meet the Buddha on the road,

kill him."

This means that one shouldn’t be so

beholden to knowledge of a certain

person or belief system,

and if they have the opportunity,

to destroy it or them to gain clarity

of thought.

What are your sacred cows?

Why do you consider them sacrosanct and

beyond reproach?

•What beliefs or subjects are

off-limits with you?

•What are you unwilling to be

critical of or criticize?

•What are you unwilling to discuss

honestly without growing defensive?

•What do you feel must not be

questioned?

Take time to question and at least

identify them.

The goal isn’t to change your mind

about your beliefs,

it’s just to gain a better

understanding of what your beliefs are

built upon.

That actually may strengthen your

beliefs.

But don’t be afraid or panicked if

doubt creeps in—investigate that too.

You’re not betraying yourself if you

do that;

you’re using your brain for its

intended purpose.

Questioning your sacred cows isn’t

about being disrespectful or rude,

it’s about knowing that the truth

fears no questions,

nor does it need you to defend it any

more than gravity,

logic,

or mathematics needs you to defend them.

On Forming Opinions... “Opinions are

like mouths,

everyone has one."

Have you ever heard this phrase,

or a more vulgar version?

It means that opinions are natural to

have and inescapable.

However,

this doesn’t say anything about their

accuracy or the unfortunate consequence

that many people like to substitute

their opinions for fact.

Sound opinions can only come from

intellectual honesty.

Especially in the times we live,

when it seems like it’s more

important to have loud and

quickly-delivered beliefs,

going out of your way to take

deliberate steps in establishing your

views is vital.

Philosopher Bertrand Russell identified

some of the pitfalls of making hasty

opinions,

as outlined in one of the essays that

comprised his anthology The Basic

Writings of Bertrand Russell.

He may not have known it at the time,

but he was one of intellectual

honesty’s first proponents.

His approach was to ensure that they

aren’t clouded by sentiment,

bias,

or corrupt thinking.

Accordingly,

one of Russell’s lasting legacies is

the work he did in the philosophy of

logic,

which first started with Aristotle.

“If the matter is one that can be

settled by observation,

make the observation yourself."

It’s one thing to believe facts and

opinions that you’ve read or heard

about,

and there are some that you can even

take for granted.

You’re secure in believing that bears

hibernate in winter,

even if you’ve never personally

tracked a bear as he’s preparing to

pack it in for the season.

Is it possible for you to observe them

yourself?

Other people have,

and it might be safe to take their word

on it for this one if you trust them.

When you can—especially when it comes

to opinions—you should try out your

beliefs yourself.

If you believe that a new shopping

center near your kid’s school is

creating heavy and unsafe traffic when

school lets out,

take a day or two to actually watch and

measure the traffic on the street to

back up your opinion.

Can it truly be your opinion if you

don’t have a basis for it?

Don’t just take others’ opinions

for your own,

no matter how persuasive your sources.

It’s a mistake to assert that you

know something when you don’t.

The more strongly you believe

something,

the higher the risk that you’re being

swayed by personal bias.

If you have a chance to test your

beliefs,

take it.

“If a contrary opinion makes you

angry,

you might subconsciously know you have

no good reason for your thinking."

The most volatile blow-ups we have in

intellectual discourse occur when

we’re discussing matters that are,

at heart,

unprovable.

We don’t get angry when we hear a

math equation;

“2 plus 2 equals 4” will not make

someone fly into a vicious rage unless

they’re extremely unstable.

It’s subjective matters of the spirit

that people clash over,

be it theology,

favorite music styles,

or whether their favorite sports team

“sucks."

If you find yourself getting

increasingly angry when you’re in a

debate with someone,

stop and think why you’re getting

incensed.

Russell suggests that you may

subliminally know that your viewpoint

isn’t necessarily backed up by the

strongest proof,

and you are dreading the inevitable

feeling of being wrong.

The more agitated and hotter you are

about defending yourself,

the higher the chance that you’re

standing on shaky intellectual ground.

If the ego is awakening,

there just might be a reason.

“Become aware of opinions outside

your social circle."

In fact,

seek them out.

Many times we adopt certain beliefs

because our friends and family believe

them.

For all intents and purposes,

those opinions become our reality.

Then,

we fear being ostracized or rejected by

the social circles we’re in if we

dare express a countering viewpoint.

Other times we may sincerely hold those

opinions but have no visibility into

what a counterpoint might look or sound

like.

Echo chambers are where strict,

dictatorial stances are left free to

develop and turn into ruthless dogma.

Seek out the viewpoints of people far

outside your immediate group of friends.

Don’t argue against them or refute

them.

Listen.

Read or watch the news sources of the

opponent if you can’t get out and

talk to them personally.

Understand that people live in

different worlds,

despite walking or sitting right next

to you on the subway.

In many cases you’ll find they might

have some good points.

And if you still find their views

repugnant or unhealthy—well,

that’s how they feel about you.

As unlikely as it seems,

exposure to the opposition is the best

way to find common ground,

decrease intolerance,

and balance your own opinions.

On a related note,

after gaining a bit of understanding of

other people,

try engaging in the thought exercise of

how someone with an alternate

perspective might respond to your

opinions.

There may be zero chance that you

actually change your mind on certain

things,

but at least you’ve gained

perspective and hopefully empathy.

“Be wary of opinions that flatter

your self-esteem."

Any politician will tell you that the

best way to instill a belief in a

certain individual is to appeal to

their ego.

They win over crowds by complimenting

their patriotism,

emotions and overall profile.

This should be self-evident—people

don’t get insulted into believing a

certain way,

but they can be cajoled and seduced

into it.

But just because a vendor calls you

beautiful or handsome doesn’t mean

the price of that jacket will fit your

bank account.

Beware when you’re hearing an opinion

from someone that makes you feel

validated and righteous all over.

Is it honest,

or is it pandering and flattering for

the purpose of gaining compliance?

There’s a chance it’s formed and

delivered in such a way that you

can’t help but be manipulated or

charmed into believing it.

No matter how sound or rational the

opinion might be,

check to make sure it’s as appealing

to your intellect more than your sense

of pride.

Thinking clearly means going more

deeply than your emotional reactions.

For Russell,

forming opinions is not something to be

taken lightly,

and a certain amount of responsibility

comes with it.

Others may not engage in this process,

but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t.

Charlie Munger,

the businessman and philanthropist who

is best known as financial partner to

Warren Buffett,

once said,

“I never allow myself to have an

opinion on anything that I don’t know

the other side’s argument better than

they do."

That view goes hand in hand with

Russell’s directives above to seek

ideas outside your social circle and

imagine how someone would argue back to

you.

Don’t just come up with a bullet list

of counteracting opinions—go deeply

into the opposition’s point of view.

You should become your own toughest and

most articulate critic.

We’re not programmed to do this

instinctively.

The brain has a strong inclination to

confirmation bias,

the tendency to only hear opinions that

support our own viewpoints that we’ll

explore later.

But ours is a brain that is programmed

for a combination of speed and

certainty,

not accuracy.

Acting decisively in the face of a

speeding truck can save your life,

while trying to determine truth can

leave you a splatter on the road.

But that’s not the situation we are

dealing with,

is it?

In the absence of threats to your life,

truth should always be the end goal,

and opinions should be formed only

after making an honest effort to pursue

it.

“Strong opinions which are lightly

held” is a helpful rule of thumb.

Have certainty in what you know,

but also be open to what you don’t

know and how it impacts your current

opinion.

Make your opinion a reflection of what

you currently know,

and keep updating it to adapt.

When you don’t attach to a particular

opinion,

you’ll find that truth becomes easier

and easier to see as well as find.

If you do feel an attachment,

it’s probably a sign that you are not

being guided by intellectual honesty.

Takeaways -

•If you reflect for a second,

clear thinking is not usually the goal

we have in mind.

We are usually after a combination of

quick,

simple,

or easy thinking.

However,

none of those things are particularly

accurate and won’t lead you to the

answers you seek.

Unfortunately,

it’s what we are wired to do,

and it takes conscious effort to slow

down and be thorough.

Most of the time,

we also want to quell our sense of

uncertainty,

which leads us to conclusions that,

while speedy,

are not focused on accuracy.

Intellectual honesty is about seeking

plain and unadulterated truth.

•One of clear thinking’s biggest

opponents is the ego.

This is when an argument,

stance,

or opinion is supported not by

evidence,

but by pride,

the need to be right,

and the desire to avoid shame and

embarrassment.

Ego keeps us deaf and blind if we allow

it to.

It serves a purpose,

but very quickly becomes detrimental to

your evaluation of the world,

as it has the power to warp reality

around you.

The most prominent defense mechanisms

we use are rationalization and plain

old denial.

•Along with the ego,

there are a few notable obstacles to

pursuing truth and clarity of thought.

They are intellectual laziness (I

can’t be bothered to understand or

research this,

so I will accept anything),

willful ignorance (I reject and deny

that there is something further to

understand),

and adherence to sacred cows (that

topic or stance is simply irrefutable

truth;

I refuse to question it).

•It’s easy to tell someone who is

intellectually honest versus dishonest.

It’s all about how arguments contrary

to their view are processed.

The intellectually honest focus on

understanding and following the

evidence where it leads.

The intellectually dishonest focus on a

narrative that they want to preserve,

and become defensive and sometimes

outright hostile.

The intellectually honest are able to

answer questions directly and without

justification;

the intellectually dishonest must

provide explanations,

roundabouts,

and deflections.

Usually,

it’s clear that there is something

being substituted for evidence that

shouldn’t be.

•Having an opinion is something we

all do,

but we must recognize that we often do

it based on insufficient information

and questionable evidence.

An opinion is one thing,

while forming a well-founded and

defensible opinion is quite another.

The latter,

as Bertrand Russell writes,

requires that you be wary of opinions

which flatter your self-esteem.

Imagine different biases and

perspectives,

look outside your immediate social

circle,

and question why an opposing opinion

might make you react emotionally.

It can be summed up with “Strong

opinions which are lightly held.”

This has been

The Art of Clear Thinking:

Mental Models for Better Reasoning,

Judgment,

Analysis,

and Learning. Upgrade Your Intellectual Toolkit. By Patrick King

Narrated by Russell Newton.