¶ The Art of Clear Thinking
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.
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.
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.
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
“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.