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.