Clear Thinking Strategies Top Minds Use to Succeed!
00:00:00 The Art of Clear Thinking
00:05:14 The Armored Ego.
00:21:32 Obstacles To Honest Thought.
00:34:01 On Forming Opinions.
00:41:49 “Strong opinions which are lightly held” is a helpful rule of
thumb.
"The Art of Clear Thinking" by Patrick King
Hear it Here: https://bit.ly/clearthinkingking
Struggling to think clearly and make sound decisions? You're not alone!
In this video, we'll explore key ideas from Patrick King's book "The Art
of Clear Thinking: Mental Models for Better Reasoning, Judgment,
Analysis, and Learning."
We'll delve into the concept of intellectual honesty and how it's the
foundation of clear thinking. We'll also discuss the obstacles that
prevent us from thinking honestly, such as our ego and biases.
By understanding these challenges, you'll be better equipped to identify
and overcome them. The video will also introduce the concept of mental
models, which are powerful tools for simplifying complex situations and
making better judgments.
Whether you're looking to improve your decision-making skills, avoid
logical fallacies, or simply think more critically, this video offers
valuable insights and practical takeaways.
Ready to upgrade your intellectual toolkit? Get your copy of "The Art
of Clear Thinking" here: https://bit.ly/clearthinkingking
In this video, we'll cover:
What is intellectual honesty and why is it so important?
The biggest obstacle to intellectual honesty (and how you can
overcome it)
How our biases and blind spots cloud our judgment
The difference between real logic and deceptive reasoning
Practical tips for thinking independently
Transcript
The truth
Speaker:doesn’t cost you anything,
Speaker:but a lie could cost you everything.
Speaker:- Unknown.
Speaker:What do we mean when we talk about
Speaker:clear thinking?
Speaker:Given a minute or two to consider that
Speaker:question,
Speaker:most of us could come up with a
Speaker:definition related to intelligence.
Speaker:Usually,
Speaker:it depends on our goals at the moment.
Speaker:Some might mix it up with fast
Speaker:thinking—where that happens
Speaker:automatically and often outside of our
Speaker:consciousness.
Speaker:Speed is prized over accuracy.
Speaker:They see a certain object or situation,
Speaker:and immediately draw a conclusion based
Speaker:on their own past experience out of
Speaker:urgency.
Speaker:Others might confuse it with
Speaker:reactionary thinking,
Speaker:which sounds like “my instincts are
Speaker:telling me this."
Speaker:It’s establishing a belief based on
Speaker:an emotional hunch,
Speaker:which isn’t thinking at all.
Speaker:Or possibly,
Speaker:clear thinking is mixed up with simple
Speaker:thinking.
Speaker:Here,
Speaker:concepts that are easy to grasp are
Speaker:closer to the truth than more
Speaker:complicated ideas.
Speaker:This might happen because a clear
Speaker:solution is desired,
Speaker:and too much information can muddy the
Speaker:waters.
Speaker:On the other hand,
Speaker:the opposite confusion can hold true
Speaker:where clear thinking is seen as
Speaker:complicated thinking - analyzing every
Speaker:single bit of information,
Speaker:supporting and opposing,
Speaker:no matter how insignificant or
Speaker:questionable their sources may be.
Speaker:All of us have practiced those kinds of
Speaker:thinking in the past and may have had
Speaker:confidence in our convictions based on
Speaker:them.
Speaker:Maybe even once or twice we’ve been
Speaker:right when using them.
Speaker:(Although it’s probably the real life
Speaker:equivalent of a stopped clock being
Speaker:correct twice a day.)
Speaker:Fast and reactionary thinking will help
Speaker:you when a car is hurtling your way and
Speaker:you aren’t sure which way to leap;
Speaker:any direction is fine as long as it’s
Speaker:safe.
Speaker:Simple thinking will help you when
Speaker:certainty is more valued than accuracy.
Speaker:Complicated thinking will help you when
Speaker:pedantry and accuracy are valued more
Speaker:than speed.
Speaker:But none of those mental models will
Speaker:reliably help you understand,
Speaker:learn about,
Speaker:and determine the truth of what’s
Speaker:right in front of you.
Speaker:Clear thinking is reasoning,
Speaker:determination based on evidence,
Speaker:critical analysis,
Speaker:and simply following the trail of
Speaker:cookie crumbs where it leads,
Speaker:not where you want it to lead or where
Speaker:you think it should lead.
Speaker:It emphasizes trying to find the
Speaker:objective truth and not being led
Speaker:astray by what we see at first glance.
Speaker:It is the magnifying glass that shows
Speaker:the important details that make all the
Speaker:difference,
Speaker:while tuning out those that are red
Speaker:herrings.
Speaker:Adapting to clear thinking on a
Speaker:regular,
Speaker:practiced basis will help you become
Speaker:more understanding,
Speaker:perceptive,
Speaker:and insightful.
Speaker:Committing yourself to a deliberate and
Speaker:unbiased way of thinking is not
Speaker:necessarily about doing better in
Speaker:school or at your job—though it
Speaker:certainly aids those pursuits.
Speaker:It’s mostly about viewing the world
Speaker:for what it is and being able to
Speaker:discern the naked truth of what you see.
Speaker:There are elements of thinking like a
Speaker:scientist,
Speaker:gaining self-awareness of your own
Speaker:biases,
Speaker:and learning to be strict with yourself.
Speaker:It can be difficult,
Speaker:but you just may realize how flawed
Speaker:your thinking has been in the past.
Speaker:Not everybody is comes out of the womb
Speaker:thinking with crystal clarity,
Speaker:but everybody has the capacity to gain
Speaker:it as a habit.
Speaker:This book intends to offer a set of
Speaker:principles and practices that will help
Speaker:you think more honestly and rationally.
Speaker:I hope to present clear thinking as a
Speaker:core component of your life that you
Speaker:need to instill;
Speaker:it’s a skill that will reward you in
Speaker:virtually all aspects of your waking
Speaker:life.
Speaker:It’s how you solve for actual
Speaker:solutions to your problems,
Speaker:instead of hoping that the clock
Speaker:happens to be right.
Speaker:The first aspect of crystal-clear
Speaker:thinking is intellectual honesty,
Speaker:which is when you’re honest with
Speaker:yourself and others,
Speaker:and your first obligation is to the
Speaker:pursuit of truth rather than any other
Speaker:motive.
Speaker:We frequently lie to others when we
Speaker:want to protect ourselves from their
Speaker:judgment.
Speaker:For instance,
Speaker:if someone makes fun of your writing
Speaker:skills,
Speaker:you’ll utter an excuse about how you
Speaker:were distracted,
Speaker:lazy,
Speaker:and not putting in your full effort.
Speaker:Also,
Speaker:your computer was on the fritz that
Speaker:day,
Speaker:so you couldn’t perform any editing.
Speaker:Sure.
Speaker:This type of reaction is not
Speaker:intellectually honest,
Speaker:but it’s understandable and natural.
Speaker:But what happens when you begin to tell
Speaker:the same lies to yourself,
Speaker:and you are unable to tell where the
Speaker:truth begins or ends?
Speaker:What if you start to believe that
Speaker:you’re an undiscovered Ernest
Speaker:Hemingway,
Speaker:but for your laziness and broken
Speaker:keyboard?
Speaker:That is the true risk with a lack of
Speaker:intellectual honesty,
Speaker:and it presents a huge obstacle to
Speaker:clarity of thought and staying rooted
Speaker:in reality.
Speaker:The Armored Ego... As you just saw with
Speaker:the example about your writing prowess,
Speaker:protecting yourself from others is
Speaker:often the reason we are intellectually
Speaker:dishonest.
Speaker:In fact,
Speaker:the first barrier in almost any kind of
Speaker:self-improvement comes from the ego’s
Speaker:need to protect itself.
Speaker:Sometimes our thinking is erroneous
Speaker:because we don’t see all the factors
Speaker:involved in a situation,
Speaker:or we are too hasty to jump to a
Speaker:conclusion.
Speaker:Those are errors in observation or
Speaker:perception.
Speaker:But those reasons pale in comparison to
Speaker:the ego’s power to distort your
Speaker:thinking.
Speaker:Someone who’s underperforming at work
Speaker:might feel the need to protect their
Speaker:perceived skills and talent by
Speaker:deflecting responsibility to “The
Speaker:boss has always had it in for me.
Speaker:And who trained me?
Speaker:Him!
Speaker:It’s all his fault one way or
Speaker:another."
Speaker:Someone who trips and falls yet fancies
Speaker:themselves graceful will blame the fact
Speaker:that it rained six days ago,
Speaker:their shoes have no grip,
Speaker:and who put that rock there anyway!?
Speaker:Someone who fails to make the school
Speaker:basketball team will grumble that the
Speaker:coach hated them,
Speaker:they weren’t used to that particular
Speaker:style of play,
Speaker:and they didn’t really want to make
Speaker:the team anyway.
Speaker:This is what it sounds like when the
Speaker:ego steps in to protect itself.
Speaker:There’s so much justification and
Speaker:deflecting going on that it’s
Speaker:difficult to know what is real and what
Speaker:is not.
Speaker:Clear thinking becomes impossible.
Speaker:This all stems from the universal truth
Speaker:that nobody likes to be wrong or to
Speaker:fail.
Speaker:It’s embarrassing and confirms all of
Speaker:our worst anxieties about ourselves.
Speaker:Instead of accepting being wrong as a
Speaker:teachable moment or lesson,
Speaker:our first instinct is to run from our
Speaker:shame and cower in the corner.
Speaker:This is the same reason we will persist
Speaker:in an argument to the death,
Speaker:even if we know we are 100% wrong.
Speaker:If the ego had a physical
Speaker:manifestation,
Speaker:it would be sizable,
Speaker:sensitive,
Speaker:and heavily armored (to the point of
Speaker:going on the offensive)—essentially a
Speaker:giant porcupine.
Speaker:When the ego senses danger,
Speaker:it has no interest or time to consider
Speaker:the facts.
Speaker:Instead it seeks to alleviate your
Speaker:discomfort in the quickest way possible.
Speaker:And that means you lie to yourself so
Speaker:you can keep the ego safe and sound.
Speaker:We try to cover up the truth,
Speaker:deflect attention from it,
Speaker:or develop an alternative version that
Speaker:makes the actual truth seem less
Speaker:hurtful.
Speaker:And it’s right in that moment that
Speaker:intellectual dishonesty is born.
Speaker:Are any of those convoluted theories
Speaker:likely to withstand any amount of
Speaker:scrutiny?
Speaker:Probably not,
Speaker:but the problem is that the ego
Speaker:doesn’t allow for acknowledgment and
Speaker:analysis of what really happened.
Speaker:It blinds you.
Speaker:Let’s be clear - These aren’t lies
Speaker:that you dream up or concoct in advance.
Speaker:You do not intend to lie to yourself.
Speaker:You don’t even feel they’re lies.
Speaker:You may not even know you’re doing
Speaker:it,
Speaker:as sometimes these defense mechanisms
Speaker:can occur unconsciously.
Speaker:They’re not explicitly intellectually
Speaker:dishonest because you want to delude
Speaker:yourself.
Speaker:Rather,
Speaker:they’re automatic strategies that the
Speaker:constantly neurotic ego puts into
Speaker:action because it’s terrified of
Speaker:looking foolish or wrong.
Speaker:Unfortunately,
Speaker:that’s the worst zone to be in,
Speaker:as it means you don’t know what you
Speaker:don’t know.
Speaker:Over time these ego-driven errors in
Speaker:thinking inform your entire belief
Speaker:system and give you rationalized
Speaker:justifications for almost everything.
Speaker:You never make any sports team because
Speaker:the coaches always hate you,
Speaker:and you keep failing the driving test
Speaker:because your hand-eye coordination is
Speaker:uniquely special.
Speaker:These lies become your entire reality,
Speaker:and you rely on them to get yourself
Speaker:through problematic situations or to
Speaker:dismiss efforts to find the truth.
Speaker:We’re not talking about just giving
Speaker:excuses for why you aren’t a violin
Speaker:virtuoso;
Speaker:this manner of thinking can become the
Speaker:factors that drive your decisions,
Speaker:thinking,
Speaker:and evaluations of anything and anyone.
Speaker:Let’s take Fred.
Speaker:Fred was an ardent fan of a pop star
Speaker:his whole life.
Speaker:He grew up listening to their music and
Speaker:formed a lot of his identity around his
Speaker:admiration for him.
Speaker:We’re talking an entire bedroom wall
Speaker:filled with posters of this star,
Speaker:and outfits that were replicas of this
Speaker:star’s clothes hanging in his closet.
Speaker:Late in his career this pop star was
Speaker:put on trial for a serious crime.
Speaker:Fred steadfastly stood by his pop star
Speaker:idol,
Speaker:even as lurid details of his case were
Speaker:reported by courtroom reporters to the
Speaker:press.
Speaker:“Nobody I admire this way would ever
Speaker:be guilty of this,” Fred said.
Speaker:“It’s all just a conspiracy put
Speaker:together by the people who resent him
Speaker:for whatever reason."
Speaker:The pop star was ultimately found
Speaker:guilty and sentenced to multiple years
Speaker:of prison.
Speaker:Fred had showed up outside the
Speaker:courthouse bearing a sign that
Speaker:protested his star’s innocence.
Speaker:Even as compelling evidence was
Speaker:eventually released to the press,
Speaker:Fred maintained that the pop star was
Speaker:absolutely innocent,
Speaker:dismissing all of the victims’ claims
Speaker:by protesting that they were
Speaker:“jealous” and “just trying to get
Speaker:the spotlight themselves."
Speaker:Why would Fred continue to insist,
Speaker:against all reasonable and provable
Speaker:evidence,
Speaker:that his idol was innocent?
Speaker:Because his ego was so wrapped up in
Speaker:his worship of the pop star that it was
Speaker:predisposed to consider him blameless.
Speaker:For him to believe the truth would have
Speaker:meant a devastating blow to almost
Speaker:everything he believed in (I worship a
Speaker:criminal?
Speaker:What does that say about me?),
Speaker:and the ego wasn’t going to let that
Speaker:happen for a minute—even if it meant
Speaker:making him deny what was fairly
Speaker:compelling and unshakable proof that
Speaker:the star was guilty.
Speaker:In your pursuit of truth and clear
Speaker:thought,
Speaker:your ego will rear its ugly head like
Speaker:the enraged porcupine.
Speaker:It has set up a series of tactical
Speaker:barriers to keep you from learning
Speaker:something that might upset your belief
Speaker:system,
Speaker:and it is only after you can reign in
Speaker:your ego that you are open to learning.
Speaker:After all,
Speaker:you can’t defend yourself and listen
Speaker:at the same time.
Speaker:Defense mechanisms are the specific
Speaker:ways we protect our ego,
Speaker:pride,
Speaker:and self-esteem.
Speaker:These methods keep us whole when times
Speaker:are tough.
Speaker:The origin of the term comes from
Speaker:Sigmund Freud.
Speaker:You just might recognize these two
Speaker:defense mechanisms put forth by his
Speaker:daughter,
Speaker:Anna Freud - denial and rationalization.
Speaker:Denial is one of the most classic
Speaker:defense mechanisms because it is easy
Speaker:to use.
Speaker:Suppose you discovered that you were
Speaker:performing poorly at your job.
Speaker:“No,
Speaker:I don’t believe that report ranking
Speaker:all of the employees.
Speaker:There’s no way I can be last.
Speaker:Not in this world.
Speaker:The computer added up the scores
Speaker:incorrectly."
Speaker:What is true is simply claimed to be
Speaker:false,
Speaker:as if that makes everything go away.
Speaker:You are acting as if a negative fact
Speaker:doesn’t exist.
Speaker:Sometimes we don’t realize when we do
Speaker:this,
Speaker:especially in situations that are so
Speaker:dire they actually appear fantastical
Speaker:to us.
Speaker:All you have to do is say “no”
Speaker:often enough and you might begin to
Speaker:believe yourself,
Speaker:and that’s where the appeal of denial
Speaker:lies.
Speaker:You are actually changing your reality,
Speaker:where other defense mechanisms merely
Speaker:spin it to be more acceptable.
Speaker:This is actually the most dangerous
Speaker:defense mechanism,
Speaker:because even if there is a dire
Speaker:problem,
Speaker:it is ignored and never fixed.
Speaker:If someone continued to persist in the
Speaker:belief they were an excellent driver,
Speaker:despite a string of accidents in the
Speaker:past year,
Speaker:it’s unlikely they would ever seek to
Speaker:practice their driving skills.
Speaker:Rationalization is when you explain
Speaker:away something negative.
Speaker:It is the art of making excuses.
Speaker:The bad behavior or fact still remains,
Speaker:but it is turned into something
Speaker:unavoidable because of circumstances
Speaker:out of your control.
Speaker:The bottom line is anything negative is
Speaker:not your fault and you shouldn’t be
Speaker:held accountable for it.
Speaker:It’s never a besmirching of your
Speaker:abilities.
Speaker:It’s extremely convenient,
Speaker:and you are only limited by your
Speaker:imagination.
Speaker:Building on the same prior example of
Speaker:poor job performance,
Speaker:this is easily explained away by the
Speaker:following - your boss secretly hating
Speaker:you,
Speaker:your co-workers plotting against you,
Speaker:the computer being biased against your
Speaker:soft skills,
Speaker:unpredictable traffic affecting your
Speaker:commute,
Speaker:and having two jobs at once.
Speaker:These flimsy excuses are what your ego
Speaker:needs to protect itself.
Speaker:Rationalization is the embodiment of
Speaker:the sour grapes fable - A fox wanted to
Speaker:reach some grapes at the top of a bush,
Speaker:but he couldn’t leap high enough.
Speaker:To make himself feel better about his
Speaker:lack of leaping ability,
Speaker:and to comfort himself about his lack
Speaker:of grapes,
Speaker:he told himself the grapes looked sour
Speaker:anyway,
Speaker:so he wasn’t missing out on anything.
Speaker:He was still hungry,
Speaker:but he’d rather be hungry than admit
Speaker:his failure.
Speaker:Rationalization can also help us feel
Speaker:at peace with poor decisions we’ve
Speaker:made with phrases such as,
Speaker:“It was going to happen at some point
Speaker:anyway."
Speaker:Rationalization ensures you never have
Speaker:to face failure,
Speaker:rejection,
Speaker:or negativity.
Speaker:It’s always someone else’s fault!
Speaker:While comforting,
Speaker:where do reality and truth go amidst
Speaker:all of this?
Speaker:Out the window,
Speaker:mostly.
Speaker:Intellectual honesty requires you to
Speaker:first defeat your natural tendencies to
Speaker:be dishonest.
Speaker:Thoughts dictated by self-protection
Speaker:don’t overlap with clear,
Speaker:objective thoughts.
Speaker:What Is Intellectual Honesty (and
Speaker:Dishonesty)?
Speaker:With our biggest obstacle addressed,
Speaker:it’s time to examine the traits of
Speaker:the honest thinking we want to seek out.
Speaker:And what are the traits of dishonest
Speaker:thinking that we want to avoid?
Speaker:It’s time to spell out how to embody
Speaker:our goals of seeing the world as
Speaker:objectively as humanly possible.
Speaker:Intellectual honesty is a commitment to
Speaker:finding the truth,
Speaker:wholly,
Speaker:unconditionally,
Speaker:no matter what it might cost.
Speaker:It’s seeking out facts and reality,
Speaker:regardless of how uneasy,
Speaker:inopportune or distasteful that truth
Speaker:makes us feel.
Speaker:Often it involves what our ego would
Speaker:rather pretend doesn’t exist.
Speaker:It is the understanding that speed and
Speaker:certainty are completely unimportant
Speaker:when compared to accuracy.
Speaker:The intellectually honest person is
Speaker:tireless about learning from all
Speaker:perspectives.
Speaker:They accept viewpoints that might
Speaker:differ from their own.
Speaker:They understand that reasonable people
Speaker:can hold opposing ideas.
Speaker:They’re swift in respecting the good
Speaker:points their opponents might bring up,
Speaker:and they’re not afraid to admit when
Speaker:their own argument might contain flaws
Speaker:or faults.
Speaker:They’re quick to concede when their
Speaker:own biases,
Speaker:prejudices or emotions might be
Speaker:informing their thinking.
Speaker:Someone who’s committed to
Speaker:intellectual honesty is committed to
Speaker:the absolute facts of a matter and
Speaker:allows those facts alone to form their
Speaker:judgment.
Speaker:They don’t exaggerate or overstate
Speaker:arguments,
Speaker:and they don’t deliberately
Speaker:misconstrue what evidence presents them.
Speaker:They don’t make the truth adapt to
Speaker:their thinking.
Speaker:There is no circuitous logic or
Speaker:circular arguments,
Speaker:and questions are answered directly and
Speaker:without ulterior motive.
Speaker:If the ego senses danger,
Speaker:it acts swiftly to make most people
Speaker:spout an excuse,
Speaker:but the intellectually honest will
Speaker:throw themselves under the bus if that
Speaker:accurately reflects what happened.
Speaker:The intellectually honest person
Speaker:remains modest and neutral when
Speaker:they’re pursuing the truth.
Speaker:They reject double standards and
Speaker:hypocrisy,
Speaker:and they don’t pretend to be experts
Speaker:on things they don’t know anything
Speaker:about.
Speaker:For example,
Speaker:a courtroom judge is expected to ignore
Speaker:their own personal beliefs,
Speaker:withstand outside pressure,
Speaker:and make an unbiased decision on cases
Speaker:or procedures completely adherent to
Speaker:the rule of law.
Speaker:The evidence will tell a story,
Speaker:and the judge removes their own
Speaker:opinions,
Speaker:gives each side the same opportunity,
Speaker:and simply uncovers that story instead
Speaker:of seeking to write it themselves.
Speaker:An insurance adjustor investigating an
Speaker:accident,
Speaker:theoretically speaking,
Speaker:needs to block out both his company’s
Speaker:bottom line and their customer’s
Speaker:adverse situation,
Speaker:examine all the facts and events of the
Speaker:accident,
Speaker:and make their best judgment as to how
Speaker:it happened and which party is
Speaker:responsible.
Speaker:He is to assess according to the
Speaker:guidelines he is bound by,
Speaker:nothing more and nothing less.
Speaker:He cannot skip analyzing something
Speaker:because it is damaging to his
Speaker:company’s bottom line,
Speaker:and he must give the same weight to
Speaker:every factor he finds.
Speaker:There is an element of scientific
Speaker:thinking,
Speaker:where a hypothesis or assumption is
Speaker:something that is meant to be tested,
Speaker:and is certainly never confused with a
Speaker:conclusion or argument.
Speaker:“I don’t know” is a perfectly
Speaker:acceptable answer,
Speaker:and so is “You’re right,
Speaker:I am wrong."
Speaker:Each option is equally comfortable and
Speaker:easy to speak.
Speaker:An intellectually dishonest person,
Speaker:on the other hand,
Speaker:is often easily identified by how they
Speaker:react to anything that doesn’t
Speaker:support them.
Speaker:They either don’t accept hostile to
Speaker:opposing opinions through denial or
Speaker:rationalization,
Speaker:or are downright hostile and demeaning.
Speaker:You just get the sense that there is
Speaker:something to be protected or hidden.
Speaker:They evade questions like they are
Speaker:playing dodge ball,
Speaker:and they come up with roundabout
Speaker:answers to direct inquiries.
Speaker:Thoughts focused on being right don’t
Speaker:always overlap with reality or the
Speaker:truth.
Speaker:When it comes to reinforcing their own
Speaker:beliefs,
Speaker:the intellectually dishonest person
Speaker:stops their research the minute they
Speaker:find something that supports their
Speaker:assertion.
Speaker:They’ll cherry-pick evidence they
Speaker:agree with and completely omit proof
Speaker:that they’re wrong.
Speaker:They’ll mangle the truth until it
Speaker:suits them by making bad analogies,
Speaker:taking quotes out of context,
Speaker:and equivocating or minimizing key
Speaker:points.
Speaker:They’ll go off on tangents to
Speaker:misrepresent the facts of a situation,
Speaker:in some cases simply making stuff up to
Speaker:support their statements.
Speaker:Using straw man arguments is a favorite
Speaker:- these are fallacies in which one
Speaker:arguer exaggerates what their opponent
Speaker:said to the point of ludicrous,
Speaker:when in actuality that opponent said
Speaker:nothing of the sort.
Speaker:Innocent statement - “Maybe we should
Speaker:trust our government more."
Speaker:Straw man argument - “Oh,
Speaker:so you’re saying you want a fascist
Speaker:government and our very own Hitler to
Speaker:go along with?!"
Speaker:“…No,
Speaker:that’s not what I said at all."
Speaker:When they sense their argument is
Speaker:disbelieved,
Speaker:the intellectually dishonest person
Speaker:often resorts to panic,
Speaker:distortion,
Speaker:or deflection.
Speaker:The discussion becomes something to
Speaker:win,
Speaker:and they do it by any means possible.
Speaker:They’ll exaggerate,
Speaker:misinterpret,
Speaker:cry false equivalencies,
Speaker:or simply change the subject.
Speaker:Defense becomes the name of the game.
Speaker:There is an inability to answer yes or
Speaker:no questions without having to justify;
Speaker:there is never a straightforward answer
Speaker:given.
Speaker:Over time,
Speaker:an intellectually dishonest person can
Speaker:lob so many of these defenses and
Speaker:tactics so often and repetitively that
Speaker:they even talk themselves into
Speaker:believing something they used to know
Speaker:wasn’t entirely on solid ground to
Speaker:begin with.
Speaker:Like abiding by the ego,
Speaker:the most dangerous side effect of
Speaker:intellectual dishonesty is the
Speaker:potential to warp reality on a mass
Speaker:scale.
Speaker:As mentioned earlier,
Speaker:we engage in self-deceptions out of
Speaker:self-defense.
Speaker:But furthermore,
Speaker:nothing is quite as narcotic as the
Speaker:need to be right;
Speaker:and to maintain that feeling,
Speaker:we lie to ourselves.
Speaker:Switching from a track of intellectual
Speaker:dishonesty to one of clear thinking
Speaker:isn’t a cakewalk.
Speaker:It requires leaving behind established
Speaker:beliefs and biases that are difficult
Speaker:to let go of.
Speaker:In the process,
Speaker:you leave yourself feeling vulnerable
Speaker:and inadequate.
Speaker:Uttering,
Speaker:“I don’t know” or “I was
Speaker:wrong” for the first time can be
Speaker:painful.
Speaker:But consider that the bravado and
Speaker:bluster you showcase in intellectual
Speaker:dishonesty paints a far worse picture
Speaker:of you.
Speaker:Obstacles To Honest Thought.
Speaker:Our egos play a large part in obscuring
Speaker:clear and critical thought,
Speaker:but even if you are able to quash it
Speaker:and eventually separate your thinking
Speaker:processes from it,
Speaker:there are still many habits that cloud
Speaker:our thinking.
Speaker:Just like dealing with the ego,
Speaker:they might be so habitual and heavily
Speaker:ingrained that you can’t find the
Speaker:truth with a compass.
Speaker:The three common obstacles are
Speaker:intellectual laziness,
Speaker:willful ignorance,
Speaker:and adherence to sacred cows.
Speaker:They each impact our ability to see
Speaker:truth in different ways.
Speaker:Intellectual laziness.
Speaker:Especially in today’s
Speaker:technology-driven society where answers
Speaker:are easier and quicker to obtain than
Speaker:ever before,
Speaker:we tend to expend very little energy
Speaker:into intellectual pursuits.
Speaker:Our brains seek the fastest of
Speaker:superficial confirmations of facts and
Speaker:then head straight for the beach for a
Speaker:few hours.
Speaker:The goal is ease and certainty rather
Speaker:than accuracy.
Speaker:It’s easy and it feels like you’ve
Speaker:done what you’re supposed to.
Speaker:This in itself leads to chronic jumping
Speaker:to conclusions.
Speaker:But there’s more to an intellectually
Speaker:lazy person than just seeking comfort.
Speaker:They prefer that other people do the
Speaker:thinking for them.
Speaker:They’ll happily defer to the beliefs
Speaker:of a friend,
Speaker:social media memes,
Speaker:or dubious experts to define their
Speaker:convictions.
Speaker:They outsource their critical thinking
Speaker:and seek to substitute it with apparent
Speaker:authority figures,
Speaker:which inevitably leave large gaps of
Speaker:understanding.
Speaker:You have to wonder at what point they
Speaker:are creating their own opinions instead
Speaker:of parroting what they have heard from
Speaker:often-questionable sources.
Speaker:Aside from not being discerning with
Speaker:sources,
Speaker:the intellectually lazy person also
Speaker:doesn’t want to take the effort to
Speaker:change their mind,
Speaker:and they’ll pursue that stasis to the
Speaker:ends of the earth.
Speaker:In the pursuit of maintaining
Speaker:consistency over seeking truth,
Speaker:they’ll only consider information
Speaker:that will back up what they want to
Speaker:believe,
Speaker:whether it’s debunked science or a
Speaker:far-flung conspiracy theory.
Speaker:Even if they’re presented with clear
Speaker:evidence and reasoning,
Speaker:they’ll refuse to consider any of it,
Speaker:or reject it out of hand without
Speaker:understanding a single part of it.
Speaker:They seek the path of least resistance.
Speaker:As such,
Speaker:they over-value stability,
Speaker:and are resistant to change.
Speaker:Saying “I don’t know” is not
Speaker:preferred because it requires extra
Speaker:work to juggle multiple
Speaker:perspectives—it’s not an easy,
Speaker:comfortable state.
Speaker:It’s much easier to be able to latch
Speaker:onto one opinion or perspective.
Speaker:When an intellectually lazy person does
Speaker:take the mantle and try to do their own
Speaker:research,
Speaker:they’ll often stop after a cursory
Speaker:glance—and even then,
Speaker:they’ll probably only look at
Speaker:material that supports their own
Speaker:beliefs.
Speaker:They seek to oversimplify and remove
Speaker:nuance from complex issues.
Speaker:After all,
Speaker:it’s more effort to have to
Speaker:understand your errors and change your
Speaker:perspective.
Speaker:If they get backed into a corner by
Speaker:someone rationally challenging their
Speaker:views,
Speaker:you just might see the ego start to
Speaker:rear its ugly head.
Speaker:Like all the other aspects of clear
Speaker:thinking,
Speaker:avoiding intellectual laziness becomes
Speaker:an exercise in building habits of
Speaker:self-awareness and
Speaker:metacognition—thinking about your own
Speaker:thinking.
Speaker:Ask yourself if you are merely seeking
Speaker:an answer or if you are actually
Speaker:seeking the truth.
Speaker:These different paths prescribe
Speaker:incredibly different courses of action.
Speaker:To see truth,
Speaker:you don’t stop researching something
Speaker:the minute you find your viewpoints (or
Speaker:their opposites)
Speaker:validated.
Speaker:You seek information from as many sides
Speaker:and sources as you can and accept that
Speaker:some real evidence you come across
Speaker:might make you uncomfortable.
Speaker:You would engage in this search
Speaker:firsthand,
Speaker:as opposed to listening to other
Speaker:people’s anecdotes.
Speaker:You would seek to discover nuance and
Speaker:not settle at the first explanation
Speaker:that seems plausible.
Speaker:You would treat your assumptions as
Speaker:just that,
Speaker:assumptions and not fact or truth.
Speaker:It sounds exhausting,
Speaker:but the more you use these muscles,
Speaker:the easier it gets.
Speaker:Willful ignorance.
Speaker:It’s one thing to be intellectually
Speaker:dishonest through mental laziness and
Speaker:prioritizing your comfort over the
Speaker:truth,
Speaker:but it’s quite another thing to know
Speaker:you’re relying on faulty information,
Speaker:mislead others,
Speaker:but keep on doing it anyway.
Speaker:This is called willful ignorance,
Speaker:and it’s worse than mere intellectual
Speaker:laziness.
Speaker:Willful ignorance is making a
Speaker:deliberate choice to disregard the
Speaker:truth.
Speaker:Examples include the conspiracy
Speaker:theorist who won’t consider any
Speaker:information that exposes the holes in
Speaker:their argument,
Speaker:like people in the ‘60s who thought
Speaker:Paul McCartney was dead,
Speaker:and rejected clear evidence like his
Speaker:giving new television interviews
Speaker:frequently (“It was an imposter!”)
Speaker:and releasing new music (“It was the
Speaker:same imposter!”).
Speaker:But willful ignorance happens in less
Speaker:fringe situations as well - In the
Speaker:1990s,
Speaker:when tobacco companies knew that
Speaker:science had proven their product was
Speaker:harmful,
Speaker:they fought to suppress the data and
Speaker:deny its authority by claiming it was
Speaker:“inconclusive."
Speaker:If you assume that tobacco companies
Speaker:weren’t knowingly poisoning their
Speaker:customers,
Speaker:they turned a blind eye to compelling
Speaker:evidence simply because they wanted to
Speaker:believe it so badly.
Speaker:It’s the equivalent of plugging your
Speaker:ears,
Speaker:covering your eyes,
Speaker:and loudly screaming
Speaker:“LA-LA-LA-LA-LA” to deny something.
Speaker:There’s more than innocent ignorance
Speaker:behind those that practice willful
Speaker:ignorance - They consciously opt to
Speaker:spurn the truth,
Speaker:with statements ranging from the
Speaker:relatively benign (“It’s none of my
Speaker:business”)
Speaker:to the dismissive (“I don’t want to
Speaker:know”).
Speaker:Such brazen refusal is usually a sign
Speaker:that the speaker knows there’s
Speaker:something wrong with their position and
Speaker:merely wants to escape the proceedings.
Speaker:Several reasons might be at play when
Speaker:someone displays willful ignorance.
Speaker:Remember,
Speaker:denial typically serves the ego.
Speaker:They could just be insecure about their
Speaker:beliefs and want to avoid information
Speaker:that would conflict with them.
Speaker:They may want to escape the
Speaker:responsibility to change that comes
Speaker:with new knowledge—to paraphrase the
Speaker:Jack Nicholson movie quote,
Speaker:they “can’t handle the truth!"
Speaker:Alternately,
Speaker:they may simply perceive ignorance as
Speaker:the psychologically healthier option -
Speaker:They prefer to “stay positive” and
Speaker:preserve the relative tranquility of
Speaker:“not knowing."
Speaker:This harms you because without the
Speaker:truth,
Speaker:and without acknowledging your possible
Speaker:role in it,
Speaker:improvement is impossible.
Speaker:It’s like when the “Check Engine”
Speaker:light goes on in one’s car.
Speaker:They can rationalize it away by saying,
Speaker:“Oh,
Speaker:that light goes on all the time.
Speaker:It’s irrelevant."
Speaker:Then they continue to ignore it,
Speaker:until one night they try to start the
Speaker:car and it won’t turn over.
Speaker:More personally,
Speaker:we see willful ignorance when someone
Speaker:refuses to acknowledge hard evidence
Speaker:that their partner might not be totally
Speaker:truthful with them,
Speaker:continuing to stick silently by their
Speaker:side thinking things will get better by
Speaker:just pretending nothing’s wrong.
Speaker:Knowing that your beliefs or facts
Speaker:don’t align with reality is important.
Speaker:Willful ignorance is short-circuited by
Speaker:making the simple yet tough decision to
Speaker:start with facts and then find a
Speaker:conclusion,
Speaker:instead of starting with the conclusion
Speaker:and then finding the facts to support
Speaker:it.
Speaker:Some reading this will find the risks
Speaker:of losing willful ignorance too much to
Speaker:endure.
Speaker:Still others will say there’s nothing
Speaker:wrong with being willfully ignorant if
Speaker:it makes them happy.
Speaker:But don’t confuse this comfort zone
Speaker:for clear thinking.
Speaker:Adherence to sacred cows.
Speaker:Certain subjects,
Speaker:ideas,
Speaker:people or groups are considered by some
Speaker:to be off-limits when it comes to
Speaker:criticism or even critical analysis.
Speaker:These items are called “sacred
Speaker:cows,” in reference to the Hindu
Speaker:belief that the cow is a holy animal
Speaker:that must not be eaten or disrespected.
Speaker:Discussing sacred cows can be extremely
Speaker:problematic,
Speaker:because they speak directly to
Speaker:people’s core of faith,
Speaker:belief and identity.
Speaker:For our purposes,
Speaker:sacred cows can include anything from
Speaker:long-established cultural traditions,
Speaker:religious practices,
Speaker:political beliefs,
Speaker:and even industry practices.
Speaker:Anything that is held out to be the
Speaker:unquestionable truth,
Speaker:or above truth itself,
Speaker:is a sacred cow.
Speaker:In everyday terms,
Speaker:they are “touchy subjects."
Speaker:To say anything critical of those
Speaker:hallowed institutions and figures is
Speaker:considered blasphemy by those who
Speaker:follow them.
Speaker:But are they accurate,
Speaker:truthful,
Speaker:and deserving of such a label?
Speaker:What gives them their status,
Speaker:and what makes them more correct than
Speaker:anything else?
Speaker:Is it simply a result of “doing
Speaker:things for the sake of doing them as
Speaker:they have always been done”?
Speaker:To be clear,
Speaker:this is not a point about discussing
Speaker:the merits of the Hindu belief
Speaker:regarding the cow.
Speaker:This is a point about questioning your
Speaker:beliefs and separating long-held
Speaker:assumption from fact.
Speaker:Intellectually honesty dictates that no
Speaker:subject,
Speaker:belief,
Speaker:or person should be free from critical
Speaker:thinking or questioning.
Speaker:If you honestly engage in this process,
Speaker:sooner or later you’re going to step
Speaker:directly onto someone’s sacred cow,
Speaker:even your own.
Speaker:This is when you encounter something
Speaker:that you believed to be
Speaker:incontrovertible truth,
Speaker:and when you come into conflict with
Speaker:that,
Speaker:how will you react?
Speaker:Will you be able to follow the evidence
Speaker:where it leads,
Speaker:or ignore it by deferring to your
Speaker:sacred cow?
Speaker:But it’s a dangerous discussion.
Speaker:It sparks intense defensiveness.
Speaker:Centuries of chaos and bloodshed have
Speaker:resulted from these attitudes.
Speaker:You might have your own internal
Speaker:battles on the matter.
Speaker:As with many things in life,
Speaker:discomfort here is a sign of something
Speaker:significant occurring.
Speaker:There is no tenet or belief that should
Speaker:be accepted completely on blind faith.
Speaker:Every single one of them should be open
Speaker:to scrutiny and investigation.
Speaker:The best ideas and principles will
Speaker:stand up to such inquiry—the truth
Speaker:will always be defensible.
Speaker:Only beliefs that rely on falsehoods,
Speaker:outdated thought or misinformation will
Speaker:lose out.
Speaker:Imagine that you (after having traveled
Speaker:through time)
Speaker:are working diligently to construct a
Speaker:theory on whether or not the planets
Speaker:orbit the sun,
Speaker:or everything orbits the Earth.
Speaker:You may recognize this as the debate
Speaker:between heliocentrism and geocentrism,
Speaker:respectively.
Speaker:Geocentrism was indeed considered a
Speaker:sacred cow.
Speaker:Where would we be if it wasn’t taken
Speaker:off its pedestal and intensely
Speaker:questioned and ultimately proven
Speaker:incorrect by Nicolaus Copernicus?
Speaker:If you have a sacred cow,
Speaker:the biggest step is to at least
Speaker:recognize and admit that it is a sacred
Speaker:cow rather than a fact.
Speaker:People are free to believe what they
Speaker:want,
Speaker:but they are not free to present what
Speaker:they want as truth or fact.
Speaker:This idea is behind the famous Zen
Speaker:teaching of Linji Yixuan - “If you
Speaker:meet the Buddha on the road,
Speaker:kill him."
Speaker:This means that one shouldn’t be so
Speaker:beholden to knowledge of a certain
Speaker:person or belief system,
Speaker:and if they have the opportunity,
Speaker:to destroy it or them to gain clarity
Speaker:of thought.
Speaker:What are your sacred cows?
Speaker:Why do you consider them sacrosanct and
Speaker:beyond reproach?
Speaker:•What beliefs or subjects are
Speaker:off-limits with you?
Speaker:•What are you unwilling to be
Speaker:critical of or criticize?
Speaker:•What are you unwilling to discuss
Speaker:honestly without growing defensive?
Speaker:•What do you feel must not be
Speaker:questioned?
Speaker:Take time to question and at least
Speaker:identify them.
Speaker:The goal isn’t to change your mind
Speaker:about your beliefs,
Speaker:it’s just to gain a better
Speaker:understanding of what your beliefs are
Speaker:built upon.
Speaker:That actually may strengthen your
Speaker:beliefs.
Speaker:But don’t be afraid or panicked if
Speaker:doubt creeps in—investigate that too.
Speaker:You’re not betraying yourself if you
Speaker:do that;
Speaker:you’re using your brain for its
Speaker:intended purpose.
Speaker:Questioning your sacred cows isn’t
Speaker:about being disrespectful or rude,
Speaker:it’s about knowing that the truth
Speaker:fears no questions,
Speaker:nor does it need you to defend it any
Speaker:more than gravity,
Speaker:logic,
Speaker:or mathematics needs you to defend them.
Speaker:On Forming Opinions... “Opinions are
Speaker:like mouths,
Speaker:everyone has one."
Speaker:Have you ever heard this phrase,
Speaker:or a more vulgar version?
Speaker:It means that opinions are natural to
Speaker:have and inescapable.
Speaker:However,
Speaker:this doesn’t say anything about their
Speaker:accuracy or the unfortunate consequence
Speaker:that many people like to substitute
Speaker:their opinions for fact.
Speaker:Sound opinions can only come from
Speaker:intellectual honesty.
Speaker:Especially in the times we live,
Speaker:when it seems like it’s more
Speaker:important to have loud and
Speaker:quickly-delivered beliefs,
Speaker:going out of your way to take
Speaker:deliberate steps in establishing your
Speaker:views is vital.
Speaker:Philosopher Bertrand Russell identified
Speaker:some of the pitfalls of making hasty
Speaker:opinions,
Speaker:as outlined in one of the essays that
Speaker:comprised his anthology The Basic
Speaker:Writings of Bertrand Russell.
Speaker:He may not have known it at the time,
Speaker:but he was one of intellectual
Speaker:honesty’s first proponents.
Speaker:His approach was to ensure that they
Speaker:aren’t clouded by sentiment,
Speaker:bias,
Speaker:or corrupt thinking.
Speaker:Accordingly,
Speaker:one of Russell’s lasting legacies is
Speaker:the work he did in the philosophy of
Speaker:logic,
Speaker:which first started with Aristotle.
Speaker:“If the matter is one that can be
Speaker:settled by observation,
Speaker:make the observation yourself."
Speaker:It’s one thing to believe facts and
Speaker:opinions that you’ve read or heard
Speaker:about,
Speaker:and there are some that you can even
Speaker:take for granted.
Speaker:You’re secure in believing that bears
Speaker:hibernate in winter,
Speaker:even if you’ve never personally
Speaker:tracked a bear as he’s preparing to
Speaker:pack it in for the season.
Speaker:Is it possible for you to observe them
Speaker:yourself?
Speaker:Other people have,
Speaker:and it might be safe to take their word
Speaker:on it for this one if you trust them.
Speaker:When you can—especially when it comes
Speaker:to opinions—you should try out your
Speaker:beliefs yourself.
Speaker:If you believe that a new shopping
Speaker:center near your kid’s school is
Speaker:creating heavy and unsafe traffic when
Speaker:school lets out,
Speaker:take a day or two to actually watch and
Speaker:measure the traffic on the street to
Speaker:back up your opinion.
Speaker:Can it truly be your opinion if you
Speaker:don’t have a basis for it?
Speaker:Don’t just take others’ opinions
Speaker:for your own,
Speaker:no matter how persuasive your sources.
Speaker:It’s a mistake to assert that you
Speaker:know something when you don’t.
Speaker:The more strongly you believe
Speaker:something,
Speaker:the higher the risk that you’re being
Speaker:swayed by personal bias.
Speaker:If you have a chance to test your
Speaker:beliefs,
Speaker:take it.
Speaker:“If a contrary opinion makes you
Speaker:angry,
Speaker:you might subconsciously know you have
Speaker:no good reason for your thinking."
Speaker:The most volatile blow-ups we have in
Speaker:intellectual discourse occur when
Speaker:we’re discussing matters that are,
Speaker:at heart,
Speaker:unprovable.
Speaker:We don’t get angry when we hear a
Speaker:math equation;
Speaker:“2 plus 2 equals 4” will not make
Speaker:someone fly into a vicious rage unless
Speaker:they’re extremely unstable.
Speaker:It’s subjective matters of the spirit
Speaker:that people clash over,
Speaker:be it theology,
Speaker:favorite music styles,
Speaker:or whether their favorite sports team
Speaker:“sucks."
Speaker:If you find yourself getting
Speaker:increasingly angry when you’re in a
Speaker:debate with someone,
Speaker:stop and think why you’re getting
Speaker:incensed.
Speaker:Russell suggests that you may
Speaker:subliminally know that your viewpoint
Speaker:isn’t necessarily backed up by the
Speaker:strongest proof,
Speaker:and you are dreading the inevitable
Speaker:feeling of being wrong.
Speaker:The more agitated and hotter you are
Speaker:about defending yourself,
Speaker:the higher the chance that you’re
Speaker:standing on shaky intellectual ground.
Speaker:If the ego is awakening,
Speaker:there just might be a reason.
Speaker:“Become aware of opinions outside
Speaker:your social circle."
Speaker:In fact,
Speaker:seek them out.
Speaker:Many times we adopt certain beliefs
Speaker:because our friends and family believe
Speaker:them.
Speaker:For all intents and purposes,
Speaker:those opinions become our reality.
Speaker:Then,
Speaker:we fear being ostracized or rejected by
Speaker:the social circles we’re in if we
Speaker:dare express a countering viewpoint.
Speaker:Other times we may sincerely hold those
Speaker:opinions but have no visibility into
Speaker:what a counterpoint might look or sound
Speaker:like.
Speaker:Echo chambers are where strict,
Speaker:dictatorial stances are left free to
Speaker:develop and turn into ruthless dogma.
Speaker:Seek out the viewpoints of people far
Speaker:outside your immediate group of friends.
Speaker:Don’t argue against them or refute
Speaker:them.
Speaker:Listen.
Speaker:Read or watch the news sources of the
Speaker:opponent if you can’t get out and
Speaker:talk to them personally.
Speaker:Understand that people live in
Speaker:different worlds,
Speaker:despite walking or sitting right next
Speaker:to you on the subway.
Speaker:In many cases you’ll find they might
Speaker:have some good points.
Speaker:And if you still find their views
Speaker:repugnant or unhealthy—well,
Speaker:that’s how they feel about you.
Speaker:As unlikely as it seems,
Speaker:exposure to the opposition is the best
Speaker:way to find common ground,
Speaker:decrease intolerance,
Speaker:and balance your own opinions.
Speaker:On a related note,
Speaker:after gaining a bit of understanding of
Speaker:other people,
Speaker:try engaging in the thought exercise of
Speaker:how someone with an alternate
Speaker:perspective might respond to your
Speaker:opinions.
Speaker:There may be zero chance that you
Speaker:actually change your mind on certain
Speaker:things,
Speaker:but at least you’ve gained
Speaker:perspective and hopefully empathy.
Speaker:“Be wary of opinions that flatter
Speaker:your self-esteem."
Speaker:Any politician will tell you that the
Speaker:best way to instill a belief in a
Speaker:certain individual is to appeal to
Speaker:their ego.
Speaker:They win over crowds by complimenting
Speaker:their patriotism,
Speaker:emotions and overall profile.
Speaker:This should be self-evident—people
Speaker:don’t get insulted into believing a
Speaker:certain way,
Speaker:but they can be cajoled and seduced
Speaker:into it.
Speaker:But just because a vendor calls you
Speaker:beautiful or handsome doesn’t mean
Speaker:the price of that jacket will fit your
Speaker:bank account.
Speaker:Beware when you’re hearing an opinion
Speaker:from someone that makes you feel
Speaker:validated and righteous all over.
Speaker:Is it honest,
Speaker:or is it pandering and flattering for
Speaker:the purpose of gaining compliance?
Speaker:There’s a chance it’s formed and
Speaker:delivered in such a way that you
Speaker:can’t help but be manipulated or
Speaker:charmed into believing it.
Speaker:No matter how sound or rational the
Speaker:opinion might be,
Speaker:check to make sure it’s as appealing
Speaker:to your intellect more than your sense
Speaker:of pride.
Speaker:Thinking clearly means going more
Speaker:deeply than your emotional reactions.
Speaker:For Russell,
Speaker:forming opinions is not something to be
Speaker:taken lightly,
Speaker:and a certain amount of responsibility
Speaker:comes with it.
Speaker:Others may not engage in this process,
Speaker:but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t.
Speaker:Charlie Munger,
Speaker:the businessman and philanthropist who
Speaker:is best known as financial partner to
Speaker:Warren Buffett,
Speaker:once said,
Speaker:“I never allow myself to have an
Speaker:opinion on anything that I don’t know
Speaker:the other side’s argument better than
Speaker:they do."
Speaker:That view goes hand in hand with
Speaker:Russell’s directives above to seek
Speaker:ideas outside your social circle and
Speaker:imagine how someone would argue back to
Speaker:you.
Speaker:Don’t just come up with a bullet list
Speaker:of counteracting opinions—go deeply
Speaker:into the opposition’s point of view.
Speaker:You should become your own toughest and
Speaker:most articulate critic.
Speaker:We’re not programmed to do this
Speaker:instinctively.
Speaker:The brain has a strong inclination to
Speaker:confirmation bias,
Speaker:the tendency to only hear opinions that
Speaker:support our own viewpoints that we’ll
Speaker:explore later.
Speaker:But ours is a brain that is programmed
Speaker:for a combination of speed and
Speaker:certainty,
Speaker:not accuracy.
Speaker:Acting decisively in the face of a
Speaker:speeding truck can save your life,
Speaker:while trying to determine truth can
Speaker:leave you a splatter on the road.
Speaker:But that’s not the situation we are
Speaker:dealing with,
Speaker:is it?
Speaker:In the absence of threats to your life,
Speaker:truth should always be the end goal,
Speaker:and opinions should be formed only
Speaker:after making an honest effort to pursue
Speaker:it.
Speaker:“Strong opinions which are lightly
Speaker:held” is a helpful rule of thumb.
Speaker:Have certainty in what you know,
Speaker:but also be open to what you don’t
Speaker:know and how it impacts your current
Speaker:opinion.
Speaker:Make your opinion a reflection of what
Speaker:you currently know,
Speaker:and keep updating it to adapt.
Speaker:When you don’t attach to a particular
Speaker:opinion,
Speaker:you’ll find that truth becomes easier
Speaker:and easier to see as well as find.
Speaker:If you do feel an attachment,
Speaker:it’s probably a sign that you are not
Speaker:being guided by intellectual honesty.
Speaker:Takeaways -
Speaker:•If you reflect for a second,
Speaker:clear thinking is not usually the goal
Speaker:we have in mind.
Speaker:We are usually after a combination of
Speaker:quick,
Speaker:simple,
Speaker:or easy thinking.
Speaker:However,
Speaker:none of those things are particularly
Speaker:accurate and won’t lead you to the
Speaker:answers you seek.
Speaker:Unfortunately,
Speaker:it’s what we are wired to do,
Speaker:and it takes conscious effort to slow
Speaker:down and be thorough.
Speaker:Most of the time,
Speaker:we also want to quell our sense of
Speaker:uncertainty,
Speaker:which leads us to conclusions that,
Speaker:while speedy,
Speaker:are not focused on accuracy.
Speaker:Intellectual honesty is about seeking
Speaker:plain and unadulterated truth.
Speaker:•One of clear thinking’s biggest
Speaker:opponents is the ego.
Speaker:This is when an argument,
Speaker:stance,
Speaker:or opinion is supported not by
Speaker:evidence,
Speaker:but by pride,
Speaker:the need to be right,
Speaker:and the desire to avoid shame and
Speaker:embarrassment.
Speaker:Ego keeps us deaf and blind if we allow
Speaker:it to.
Speaker:It serves a purpose,
Speaker:but very quickly becomes detrimental to
Speaker:your evaluation of the world,
Speaker:as it has the power to warp reality
Speaker:around you.
Speaker:The most prominent defense mechanisms
Speaker:we use are rationalization and plain
Speaker:old denial.
Speaker:•Along with the ego,
Speaker:there are a few notable obstacles to
Speaker:pursuing truth and clarity of thought.
Speaker:They are intellectual laziness (I
Speaker:can’t be bothered to understand or
Speaker:research this,
Speaker:so I will accept anything),
Speaker:willful ignorance (I reject and deny
Speaker:that there is something further to
Speaker:understand),
Speaker:and adherence to sacred cows (that
Speaker:topic or stance is simply irrefutable
Speaker:truth;
Speaker:I refuse to question it).
Speaker:•It’s easy to tell someone who is
Speaker:intellectually honest versus dishonest.
Speaker:It’s all about how arguments contrary
Speaker:to their view are processed.
Speaker:The intellectually honest focus on
Speaker:understanding and following the
Speaker:evidence where it leads.
Speaker:The intellectually dishonest focus on a
Speaker:narrative that they want to preserve,
Speaker:and become defensive and sometimes
Speaker:outright hostile.
Speaker:The intellectually honest are able to
Speaker:answer questions directly and without
Speaker:justification;
Speaker:the intellectually dishonest must
Speaker:provide explanations,
Speaker:roundabouts,
Speaker:and deflections.
Speaker:Usually,
Speaker:it’s clear that there is something
Speaker:being substituted for evidence that
Speaker:shouldn’t be.
Speaker:•Having an opinion is something we
Speaker:all do,
Speaker:but we must recognize that we often do
Speaker:it based on insufficient information
Speaker:and questionable evidence.
Speaker:An opinion is one thing,
Speaker:while forming a well-founded and
Speaker:defensible opinion is quite another.
Speaker:The latter,
Speaker:as Bertrand Russell writes,
Speaker:requires that you be wary of opinions
Speaker:which flatter your self-esteem.
Speaker:Imagine different biases and
Speaker:perspectives,
Speaker:look outside your immediate social
Speaker:circle,
Speaker:and question why an opposing opinion
Speaker:might make you react emotionally.
Speaker:It can be summed up with “Strong
Speaker:opinions which are lightly held.”
Speaker:This has been
Speaker:The Art of Clear Thinking:
Speaker:Mental Models for Better Reasoning,
Speaker:Judgment,
Speaker:Analysis,
Speaker:and Learning. Upgrade Your Intellectual Toolkit. By Patrick King
Speaker:Narrated by Russell Newton.
