I’ve read a number of books in the last few years that tell
us how we think we’re being objective but we’re actually hostage to a laundry
list of various biases, many of which influence us subconsciously. Daniel
Kahneman’s Thinking, Fast and Slow probably is the most influential of these
books based on how frequently it is cited in the other books. While Jacobs’ How
To Think tills some of the same ground there is a difference. Jacobs’ personal background
helps him see how biases influence how different groups of people perceive the
world and think about it. Why do I say this? Because he straddles two worlds.
He is an academic (teaches in the Honors Program at Baylor University) while
also being a Christian. This gives Jacobs a unique perspective where he can see
how different groups perceive each other.
When
I hear academics talk about Christians, I typically think, That’s not quite right. I don’t believe you understand the people you
think you’re disagreeing with. And when I listen to Christians talk about
academics I have precisely the same thought.
Jacobs differs from Kahneman and others by saying that
thinking involves much more than recognizing and fighting our inherent bias. He
believes:
[W]e
suffer from a settled determination to avoid thinking. Relatively few people want to think. Thinking troubles us;
thinking tires us. Thinking can force us out of familiar, comforting habits;
thinking can complicate our lives; thinking can set us at odds, or at least
complicate our relationships, with those we admire or love or follow. Who needs
thinking?
Here is Jacobs’ suggested first step how to address this taken
from his Can
Evangelicals and Academics Talk to Each Other? in The Wall Street Journal.
[T]here
is a first step that all of us can take in resisting the hold of our Inner
Rings and the reflex to push away our “repugnant cultural others.”
The Inner Ring that Jabobs refers to is from a C. S. Lewis
talk titled “The Inner Rings” which describes our fear of being left out of our
preferred social group, of being considered an outsider to the ingroup that we
want to belong to. Jacobs’ discussion uses his term “repugnant cultural other”
(or RCO) throughout his book. RCO captures how we tend to be repelled by those
who disagree with us in politics, religion, or issues such as gun control.
Or another way to summarize his approach is:
The
person who genuinely wants to think will have to develop strategies for
recognizing the subtlest of social pressures, confronting the pull of the
ingroup and disgust for the outgroup. The person who wants to think will have
to practice patience and master fear.
I do disagree somewhat with Jacobs’ explanation why some
people cast those who disagree with them as enemies worthy of being demonized
and even disposed of.
When
you believe that the brokenness of this world can be not just ameliorated but fixed, once and for all, then people who
don’t share your optimism, or who do share it but invest in a different system,
are adversaries of Utopia. … Whole classes of people can by this logic become
expendable – indeed, it can become the optimist’s perceived duty to eliminate the adversaries.
I wouldn’t label people who think this way necessarily as
optimists. I’d say they’re sadly lacking in objectivity. They’re not asking
themselves why people who disagree with them could possibly take that position.
I’ve seen this especially rampant here in Massachusetts among my liberal
friends, where I’ve chosen in some cases not to get into arguments. I know a
couple people who have quit talking to me simply because I disagreed with their
support for Hillary Clinton as president. Having said that, I’ve also seen
conservative, libertarian and Objectivist friends treat people who disagree
with them in a less than civil manner.
Jacobs describes how each group creates their own keywords
so that allies can easily understand each other while judging other people by
their use of these keywords. (It reminds me of Arnold Kling’s Three Languages
of Politics in which liberals talk in terms of oppressors and the oppressed,
conservatives cast debates in terms of barbarism versus civilization and
libertarians judge whether acts impede our freedom or coerce us.) As Jacobs
correctly says, “keywords have a tendency to become parasitic: they enter the
mind and displace thought.” After all, it’s easier to slap labels onto ideas we
agree or disagree with than it is to objectively consider them.
Jacobs disagrees with the idealistic image of us as
independent thinkers who reach our conclusions unencumbered by the influence of
what others think. “Thinking is
necessarily, thoroughly, and wonderfully social. Everything you think is a
response to what someone else has thought and said.” I’m sure we can find
examples of people who indeed did heroically work out their ideas in isolation.
Based on the summaries of the abundant psychological research I’ve read in the
books on how we think, I do believe we are swayed by how our friends think and we
tend to surround ourselves with people who tend to agree with us. I agree with
Jacobs and others (like Jonathan Haidt, author of The Righteous Mind) that despite
our advancement from our caveman days we still are tribal in nature. However, I
also believe that we can strive for objectivity if we follow Jacobs’s advice
such as “when faced with provocation to respond to what someone has said, give
it five minutes.” Or “value learning over debating. Don’t ‘talk for victory.’ ”
Before I close let me say that Jacobs doesn’t say we should
never come to firm conclusions. “You simply can’t thrive in a state of constant
daily evaluation of the truth-conduciveness of your social world, any more than
a flowering plant can flourish if its owner digs up its root every morning to
see how it’s doing.”
I believe if you take the steps Jacobs puts in his final
chapter, The Thinking Person’s Checklist, you can still firmly hold and defend
your opinions while also accepting that people can disagree with you. You can
be secure in your beliefs without demonizing the other person.
At the beginning I said that I’ve read many books, not just
on how biases can affect us. For a number of these books after I finish them I sarcastically
ask, “Gee, how did the author shoehorn the contents of a three page article
into a 300 page book.” By that I mean the author took an idea that made a good
magazine article then expanded it into a book by adding filler and stories but
not much else. Jacobs’ book sets an example of how to do the opposite: how to
pack many ideas into a slim 156-page volume. His book could have
been titled How To Think -- and Write.
