Author: lexmirnov

  • Alan Jacobs — How to Think

    Alan Jacobs — How to Think

    Scientists say: Thinking is painful, and it’s hard not to agree — try, for instance, to disprove this statement logically, and soon you’ll feel that tension, a kind of pressure inside your head, as if your very nature protests against using your brain for such impractical matters. But Mr. Jacobs, the author of the boldly-subtitled “Survival Guide for a World of Odds”, goes even further, claiming that thinking is risky.

    One might ask how a deeply personal, internal process could be risky. But here’s the catch: thinking is never truly internal. Many different factors shape it, one of the most prominent being the society and the groups we belong to

    Humans need to belong and fear expulsion. Yet thinking—especially when it challenges dominant ideas—might not only get us expelled but push us to leave circles we’re deeply rooted in.

    Such an ideology-dominant group, the author states, is easily identified by attitude towards “outside ideas”, specifically, whether it tolerates not even accepting, but simply reviewing them. In such a group, there are wrong books, and you hide what you’re reading as not to be shunned with “I can’t believe you’re reading that crap“.

    It’s not all that bleak, though. There’re healthy groups, writes Mr. Jacobs, which tolerate different opinions: such of like-hearted people, though not necessarily like-minded; those, who may disagree or differ on means, but definitely share the ends.

    Feeling + Thinking

    It’s from this premise the author begins to review the rules and pitfalls of thinking, the power to be finely aware and richly responsible. I found myself asking: is it that great to be “richly responsible”, at all? I mean, show me an adult who wants more responsibility. And the answer I came up with — nothing’s great about it, if we think of the Other as of potential enemy (danger, opponent etc.). But as soon as we embrace the idea that this alien humanoid creature (your ordinary John Smith or Mary Sue) might as well be a friend, a companion, helpful, and reliable, and useful (!) — only then we suddenly care about responsibility, too.

    That’s why thinking must be rational, but isn’t limited to rationality: the feeling is equally important, and the skill to feel, to imagine and empathise must be learned and honed. This, I think, is an answer enough to madmen (as by Chesterton’s definition) who proudly condemn adults who are still fascinated with fiction, and other not-that-practical media.

    Learning to feel is effectively training that Kahneman’s “System 1”, “flashing” it with a right bias.

    Don’t Look Anywhere (#only_there)

    In the contemporary, largely virtual world the borders and directions signs we limit ourselves with are literally embodied with hashtags, abbreviations and other forms of simplification. While probably necessary to navigate the sea of information (on the other hand, who said it’s necessary to navigate it in the first place?), the simplification they lead to condemns us to separation, and what’s much worse, ad-hoc misunderstanding. Who would really want to try and understand the #other_group_member, while it’s evident he’s wrong?

    And if it weren’t enough, the “positive simplification” is equally dangerous. The cheerful both-ander doesn’t know what he’s about. The popular claims of “all people believing in the same God”, or „wanting nothing but love and peace“ are slacking on confrontation, on discussion and the painful necessity to agree to disagree.

    He is (Not Only) One of Those

    Again, the simplification itself is inevitable. Mr. Jacobs compares it to triage, a procedure seemingly cruel, but the best possible for saving those who still can be saved. But as soon as we deal with a particular person, his group becomes one of his qualities, not his essence. And to understand, and therefore interact effectively, one must overcome the temptation to treat this person as „one of those“.

    Open Mind and Sunk Costs

    One might think that open mind is the key to understanding. No, it’s not, because such a thing never exists in the first place: in the world that gives you nothing we need something to believe in, or at least consider proven and established. Constant questioning one’s core beliefs seems dangerous, as Mr. Jacobs quotes W. H. Auden, „The same rules apply to self-examination as apply to auricular confession: be brief, be blunt, be gone.“ The real danger lies in the mind too closed, a fanatical one, to which everything proves that it’s right. Although extreme it seems, we all are prone to this fallacy: too great is the temptation of rigidity, considering the informational fire hose we’re all under. And what’s more, too natural for is to cling to the sunk costs, be it some once-fancy NFT on stock exchange or a belief nothing can change your mind about — the latter being a sure enough sign of the sunk cost influence. Such a definition is all the more valuable because it comes from a member of Anglican church, one of the most conservative Christian denominations.

    Of Humbleness

    No matter how true the author might seem, we can’t expect from ourselves always to look at the Other with such an attitude. Instead, he calls us to forbearance: simply to suppress our gag reflex when encountering the disgusting RCO, the Repugnant Cultural Other. Only then, having taken a deep breath, or better yet, short physical work, you get a chance to see a person, who, under other circumstances, might have been you.

    Why Bother, Anyway?

    It’s foolish to consider thinking a project, that is, a path with a destination. The proper way to approach your thinking ability is to consider it your wealth, one that can grow exponentially, if maintained properly. And as the book hints, this wealth might not be all that virtual.


    How to Think?” is not one of those books you read in one sitting: I must admit, I’ve found it a bit boring to read more than one chapter at once. Maybe it’s because of its complexity, by which I mean not the “clever” terms or expletive phrases, but rather multiple quotations, examples and inline commentaries. Still, it’s a relatively easy read. One might argue that the ideas aren’t that new, and most are dated 1st century A.D. It may be true, and the author even provided “The Thinking Person’s Checklist”, which can serve as a TL;DR. But it’s those quotations and commentaries that enrich the book, provoking the reader’s own thoughts and, maybe, daring him to disagree. We are given a chance to view the age-old ideas through a practical and up-to-date lens, and only for that the book is worth reading.