How to Think

[Old Things]

What's the right way to think?

We all have our opinions. Most of our opinions are not based on a data-driven method but instead based on what we want to be true. To be sure, there are some people who are better and worse at this, but the fact remains that most of what we believe is not based on evidence, but instead based on a variety of factors that lead us to the conclusions we have.

So, what is the right way to think?

We all make decisions. We all make judgments all the time. How do we make good decisions and judgments? It has to do with the data we put into our minds. The more true ideas you put into your head, the more aligned you will be with reality. With this comes the idea that there are generalists and specialists. Specialists are very good at diving headlong into a topic and don't come up for air for a very long time. Other people who are generalists (I used this dichotomy between specialists and generalists generally) tend to study like eating at a Chinese buffet. They grab a little of this and a little of that one plate at a time. But regardless of if you are more oriented to being a specialist or generalist, how do we comport what we think closer to reality?

In my mind, it all has to do with the type of information that we put into our heads or think about. A generalist can acquire just as much knowledge as a specialist, granted they both spent the same amount of time learning. I use learning here as the word and not research because sometimes we can come to the truth about things simply by thinking about them. Anyways, the quality of information we are pondering is paramount to having a worldview that comports with reality.

So, how do you choose which information in learning is more true than another? A rule of thumb for this is to view the information at different levels by zooming in and out. In other words, if something is very detailed but doesn't fit in the big picture, then that information isn't as good as it could be. Likewise, if the big picture makes sense, but the details are contradictory, then that is not going to be good either. So, try to choose information that provides answers on both micro and macro levels. If something makes sense when focusing on the details, it could still be practically useless. If something is wholistic in what it says but the details are not internally consistent, then it could just be cleverly disguised false rhetoric.

How this method works with both specialists and generalists:
For generalists, you are going to want to make sure that the information you are digesting is internally logically consistent. This means that you want to focus on the details of what you are observing to see if it makes sense internally. For specialists, you want to at least see that what you are observing makes some general practical application about things. In other words, you will want some general takeaways from what you are learning that apply to things broadly.

I have no evidence for this. It's just what I came up with while thinking about things. I am open to feedback on this.

 

[Hadoblado]

That's pretty insightful.

I think it's important to diversify whether you're a generalist or a specialist. Know at least one thing quite well, but not to the exclusion of all others.

People who don't know anything particularly well don't understand how much there is to know within any domain. They can be dismissive of the possibilities within any given domain because they lack the meta-awareness to comprehend how deep understanding can go. If your highest peak is a 4/10, then to you that 4 is a 10.

Likewise, people who specialise too much tend to lack perspective even within their expert domain. For example, a psychology major might not understand the shortcomings of the methods they use if they have no point of comparison (it blows me away how much statistical certainty other fields can have). It's also difficult to produce insights if your knowledge base is narrow.

I think you're spot on about zooming in and out.

For me, logical validity is the foundation of my small-picture processes. If the premises are true, is it logically possible to be wrong? Most of the time, the answer is still yes. Then comes evidence/statistics. Then the zooming in and out for converging evidence. A virtue I value is the capacity to hold mutually exclusive beliefs simultaneously, not because you think they're true (you know at least one is wrong), but because you're comfortable enough with uncertainty that you can forgo alignment until you have the evidence to do so properly. Exploration then becomes more of a passive process through conversation and browsing.

 

[fluffy]

A limit to my thinking is how much I can hold in my mental workspace. Any new problem I see the relationships needed to figure out can become overwhelming. Usually I go on what feel right in the moment or what intuitively seem the correct direction to go in.

The term used is called bounded rationality.

So much data is available and so much time to work on it. Filters by default must exist.

Priorities we set helps us in practice.

Over time we can build up expert understanding in some subjects but we also need to rely on others what they know and are good at.

The 4 out 10 where we think 4 is the 10 happens to all of us. We need to rethink all the time what we don't know as to what is possible.

 

[birdsnestfern]

I think of philosophy. I want to learn some of the classic philosophers thoughts so I can chose what works for me.

Stoicism concepts of philosophy:
You should not attach your self worth to the outcome, ONLY to the attempt. You have no control over what happens after the arrow leaves the bow. You control your opinions, your decisions, motivations, how often you practice, desires and aversions.

Under your control is to be loving and caring, do the best you can. Others opinions do not belong to you. Roles given to us are important, work in concert to make things better, compromise on demands of professional vs family. Fulfill your duty to obligations. Act the role appropriate to it. Play all roles harmoniously, ie, use measure for each role.
I believe staying open and learning each day and not becoming rigid in thought or belief is very important for life. Whatever helps us be more flexible, neuroplastic and happy is good, but I want to think holistically, see the whole picture. Stoicism helps filter in some rules to free me of judgements that don't help me move forward.
With people, ask opinions, but don't feel obligated. Just apply rules that fit a situation as best you can. Every day is so different, so you have to see things with new eyes each day. Maintain connection to the innocent pure soul you were at birth, and revive that part of yourself. Put your hand on your heart and actively change the world with emotion and feeling /get your heart supercharged in good ways so you can practice.
Go for a walk. Talk to at least one person a day if you can. Learn something, and keep aware of whats going on out there.

 

[dr froyd]

just be skeptical about everything, assume everyone is wrong about everything, and try to find a counterargument to every idea

it sounds like a joke probably but it forces you to always seek alternative viewpoints, and eventually you find some stuff that is difficult to refute