Learning to be a Better Thinker
May 2, 2017 4:52 PM Subscribe
I love this Brian Harvey quote from this recent FPP: "[Voters] need the sophistication to understand dialectical tension, in which two contradictory views can both be aspects of the truth, without dissolving into relativism, in which everything and nothing is true." How do I develop that quality?
What can I read, watch, or keep tabs on in over to develop the ability to think clearly about complicated topics and develop my ability to be skeptical without being dismissive? (Besides more of Brian Harvey).
Relatedly, I'm working with someone who, despite being very intelligent and funny, has a very flat political view. He gets most of his news from conservative facebook memes and 4chan, casually mentions things like the media being in bed with Hillary over the last election or the NYT being fake news, but in a kind of frustrating quarter-joking way. He basically thinks "Everything and nothing is true," like from the quote.
In addition to resisting that kind of worldview for myself, how do you communicate well with that person, who I think on some level feels like actually caring about something is trying too hard?
What can I read, watch, or keep tabs on in over to develop the ability to think clearly about complicated topics and develop my ability to be skeptical without being dismissive? (Besides more of Brian Harvey).
Relatedly, I'm working with someone who, despite being very intelligent and funny, has a very flat political view. He gets most of his news from conservative facebook memes and 4chan, casually mentions things like the media being in bed with Hillary over the last election or the NYT being fake news, but in a kind of frustrating quarter-joking way. He basically thinks "Everything and nothing is true," like from the quote.
In addition to resisting that kind of worldview for myself, how do you communicate well with that person, who I think on some level feels like actually caring about something is trying too hard?
I think if this problem in terms of personal expertise. I'm a scientist working in a very specific field, so I aim to use examples from my field when I brush up against opinions like what you hear from your work buddy. This is an exercise, too, in avoiding jargon and striving for comprehensible distillations of difficult material. Which, honestly, is a very difficult task on its own.
As an example, I have an acquaintance who's a self-professed libertarian. He likes to say things like, "regulation is just a tool of an elite to control the market." He knows I'm a toxicologist, he knows I work with drug development, and he knows my work involves agencies like the FDA, so I couch my responses in that zone. As in: "It's touchy. Regulations are there to put some kind of controls on the market, but companies lie to the FDA all the time. Sometimes they get caught in those lies, and regulations say that you can't lie about what a medicine will do to your body and be allowed to sell it. That's why we call fake medicines "snake oil"--a hundred years ago, companies made all sorts of garbage claims about products that weren't much more than some oil and alcohol in a bottle. But sometimes those products weren't so benign. Maybe a company used antifreeze as a component, because we didn't know that antifreeze was toxic yet, and a bunch of people died because the company was allowed to sell whatever they wanted. That's a real thing, that happened--it was called Elixir Sulfanilamide and the fallout from that is why people pushed Congress to invent the FDA and all the rules the FDA enforces. We've grown up in an age that lets very few Elixir Sulfanilamides hit the market, and that's a good thing, right? Regulation makes sense when they keep a market from selling you poison, right? Does that make sense?"
TL;DR: Whatever your niche of expertise is, steer general conversations back to hard specifics with your gleaming beacon of trustworthy personal knowledge. Relate.
posted by late afternoon dreaming hotel at 6:05 PM on May 2, 2017 [4 favorites]
As an example, I have an acquaintance who's a self-professed libertarian. He likes to say things like, "regulation is just a tool of an elite to control the market." He knows I'm a toxicologist, he knows I work with drug development, and he knows my work involves agencies like the FDA, so I couch my responses in that zone. As in: "It's touchy. Regulations are there to put some kind of controls on the market, but companies lie to the FDA all the time. Sometimes they get caught in those lies, and regulations say that you can't lie about what a medicine will do to your body and be allowed to sell it. That's why we call fake medicines "snake oil"--a hundred years ago, companies made all sorts of garbage claims about products that weren't much more than some oil and alcohol in a bottle. But sometimes those products weren't so benign. Maybe a company used antifreeze as a component, because we didn't know that antifreeze was toxic yet, and a bunch of people died because the company was allowed to sell whatever they wanted. That's a real thing, that happened--it was called Elixir Sulfanilamide and the fallout from that is why people pushed Congress to invent the FDA and all the rules the FDA enforces. We've grown up in an age that lets very few Elixir Sulfanilamides hit the market, and that's a good thing, right? Regulation makes sense when they keep a market from selling you poison, right? Does that make sense?"
TL;DR: Whatever your niche of expertise is, steer general conversations back to hard specifics with your gleaming beacon of trustworthy personal knowledge. Relate.
posted by late afternoon dreaming hotel at 6:05 PM on May 2, 2017 [4 favorites]
Think about pop cultural things where you can hold two semi-contradictory ideas. For example, I really admire the craftsmanship of the band Rush. They're outstanding musicians, their lyrics have depth, and the music itself generates interesting tension. And yet, I can't stand listening to them. When I do, I laugh. They're just not enjoyable to listen to. But I think that's fascinating - that they can be so interesting and so uninteresting at the same time. If you think about it, there are a lot of examples like this. Eminem: great rapper, couldn't pay me to listen to him. Mad Men: beautiful set and costume design, putrid storytelling. The Voice: pure cheese, but oddly compelling. You can do this with things you like, too. I love Liz Phair's Exile in Guyville, but I've always hated the drumming on the record. This lets you consider the gray area between good and bad, and how, if you think about it, most things aren't totally black or white. It's easy to start with pop culture, because there's so much of it, and so many people willing to discuss it with you, but it doesn't actually matter.
You could also watch sports, especially football. So many athletes are truly despicable humans, but if they play for your favorite team, they're *your* despicable humans, man. You have to learn pretty quickly to separate the various aspects of the person, and the organization.
posted by kevinbelt at 6:20 PM on May 2, 2017 [1 favorite]
You could also watch sports, especially football. So many athletes are truly despicable humans, but if they play for your favorite team, they're *your* despicable humans, man. You have to learn pretty quickly to separate the various aspects of the person, and the organization.
posted by kevinbelt at 6:20 PM on May 2, 2017 [1 favorite]
Read history books, specially the serious stuff that does not try to spoon feed readers some BS as if we KNOW all the facts. The stuff that admits the limits of our knowledge and that we are making inferences.
Read cutting edge science articles, especially wrt to archaeology and paleontology.
Read comments on Hacker News.
Go find some of the good subReddits and read those.
It might help to read up on something like Meyers-Briggs and or books about things like multiple intelligences. Some brains are just wired a certain way. Expecting them to see it different is a like yelling at a deaf person on the expectation that if you are just loud enough, they will finally hear you.
If you do a Meyers-Briggs test, people who test as Judgers tend to want black and white, clear cut answers. People who test as Percievers tend to be more shades of grey types.
I test as a Perceiver. I can't even be limited to shades of grey. The world is a many colored, splendorous thing. I have a really high tolerance for ambiguity and for admitting I don't absolutely know everything for sure.
If you are more of a Judger, maybe cultivate some Perceiver friends?
Read up on the origin stories of varies rubrics, like Occam's Razor. Learn to use those rubrics effectively and in the manner they were intended, not the bastardized manner many people use.
Read less about politics and more about how actual reality works.
Also, consider just not engaging this co-worker. Maybe start a journal or blog and when he gets your goat, rant there and use it to sort out why you think what you think and so forth. Use him as inspiration for sorting your own ideas. Don't expect to change his mind.
posted by Michele in California at 6:33 PM on May 2, 2017 [1 favorite]
Read cutting edge science articles, especially wrt to archaeology and paleontology.
Read comments on Hacker News.
Go find some of the good subReddits and read those.
It might help to read up on something like Meyers-Briggs and or books about things like multiple intelligences. Some brains are just wired a certain way. Expecting them to see it different is a like yelling at a deaf person on the expectation that if you are just loud enough, they will finally hear you.
If you do a Meyers-Briggs test, people who test as Judgers tend to want black and white, clear cut answers. People who test as Percievers tend to be more shades of grey types.
I test as a Perceiver. I can't even be limited to shades of grey. The world is a many colored, splendorous thing. I have a really high tolerance for ambiguity and for admitting I don't absolutely know everything for sure.
If you are more of a Judger, maybe cultivate some Perceiver friends?
Read up on the origin stories of varies rubrics, like Occam's Razor. Learn to use those rubrics effectively and in the manner they were intended, not the bastardized manner many people use.
Read less about politics and more about how actual reality works.
Also, consider just not engaging this co-worker. Maybe start a journal or blog and when he gets your goat, rant there and use it to sort out why you think what you think and so forth. Use him as inspiration for sorting your own ideas. Don't expect to change his mind.
posted by Michele in California at 6:33 PM on May 2, 2017 [1 favorite]
This was Socrates/Plato's bread and butter.
Try reading some of the dialogues.
There is no better way to tease out the limits of someone's knowledge than to ask them questions. But you need to also have an idea of what those limits are.
For example:
'The government has no right to take my money'
Think about some questions you can ask. 'How did you get the money?' 'What is a government for?' 'Did you go to a public school?, drive here on public roads?'
You don't necessarily need to express a differing opinion, just play devil's advocate and figure out where he draws the line on his political views. Try and find contradictory opinions and force him to choose one or the other, etc. The end result should be to sow doubt, not to change his mind.
posted by empath at 7:43 PM on May 2, 2017 [1 favorite]
Try reading some of the dialogues.
There is no better way to tease out the limits of someone's knowledge than to ask them questions. But you need to also have an idea of what those limits are.
For example:
'The government has no right to take my money'
Think about some questions you can ask. 'How did you get the money?' 'What is a government for?' 'Did you go to a public school?, drive here on public roads?'
You don't necessarily need to express a differing opinion, just play devil's advocate and figure out where he draws the line on his political views. Try and find contradictory opinions and force him to choose one or the other, etc. The end result should be to sow doubt, not to change his mind.
posted by empath at 7:43 PM on May 2, 2017 [1 favorite]
A lot of what you're talking about are called "critical thinking skills," and there are a lot of resources to help people develop them. You might want to poke around and see what's helpful to you there.
If you do a Meyers-Briggs test, people who test as Judgers tend to want black and white, clear cut answers. People who test as Percievers tend to be more shades of grey types.
That's not actually what those terms mean -- the Perceiving vs. Judging trait is about how comfortable you are with decisions being up in the air, not about how comfortable you are with whether there contradictory facts or opinions in existence -- so don't trip out on that one.
posted by lazuli at 9:23 PM on May 2, 2017
If you do a Meyers-Briggs test, people who test as Judgers tend to want black and white, clear cut answers. People who test as Percievers tend to be more shades of grey types.
That's not actually what those terms mean -- the Perceiving vs. Judging trait is about how comfortable you are with decisions being up in the air, not about how comfortable you are with whether there contradictory facts or opinions in existence -- so don't trip out on that one.
posted by lazuli at 9:23 PM on May 2, 2017
« Older What stories about moral superiority exist in your... | Should we change realtors? How do we sell this... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
Personally, I'd communicate with a coworker like that by not engaging in politics with them.
What can I read, watch, or keep tabs on in over to develop the ability to think clearly about complicated topics and develop my ability to be skeptical without being dismissive?
There's a book called "You're not as crazy as I thought but you're still wrong" that is approachable and gives a good breakdown of both conservative and liberal viewpoints on hot-button topics. This helps me to work towards seeing more of the whole picture.
Self-awareness - notice those triggers that play into your pre-conceived notion. Click-baity news headlines, etc. What you are willing to believe without additional research? Why is that? What happens when, having noticed this, you start doing research?
Look for people who have the quality you wish to cultivate. Engage. Have conversations with them. When they share articles on social media, read the articles.
Good luck. I wish more people were asking themselves questions like this.
posted by bunderful at 5:28 PM on May 2, 2017