How to Get Extraordinary Insights: Avoid These Two Thinking Fallacies
French philosopher René Descartes famously said “Cogito, ergo sum ", or “I think, therefore I am." Indeed, man is a “thinking” animal. However, there are many fundamental flaws in our thinking which hinder our ability to see through the distorted interpretations of reality provided to us by (mostly) the media and (so-called) experts. I believe that if we try to avoid just two of those flaws, which I discuss below, we can become better thinkers – and it can even lead us to extraordinary insights.
The “outsider” self-view
When we think about abstract concepts that only exist in our collective imagination – society, states, religions, political systems, ideologies, cultures, stock markets, etc. – we always think of ourselves an outsider, i.e., someone who is a dispassionate third-party observer. But, actually, we are neither an outsider nor a third-party observer.
We are an active “thinking” participant in the creation and preservation of the “myth” that we are thinking about, which itself is a product of people’s collective imagination. Therefore, our own thinking shapes and influences the very entity that we are thinking about.
These imagined entities derive their sustenance from reflexive thinking processes in which we are “thinking” participants. This is true about all “imagined” realities such as states, democracies, religions, and stock markets.
When we think about such concepts, if we consciously remind ourselves that we are not a neutral outside observer but a “thinking” participant who shapes them through our thought processes, we will be able to see things differently.
A reason for everything
Human beings need an appealing narrative backed by a convincing reason for almost everything that happen around us. When supported by some “reason,” post-hoc explanations sound really convincing.
And most often, we misconstrue correlation with causation. Journalists are infamous for making this grave error. In order to produce a more appealing narrative, they “attribute” everything to one or two — many a time, a singular reason — and create an illusion of causation in everything. Headlines like “Wall Street down on Chinese slowdown fears” and “White working class propels Trump to White House” sound very convincing but they are far from the truth if you analyze data.
In most cases, events such as stock market movements, currency fluctuations, election outcomes, and even terrorist attacks are the final visible results of the complex interactions of a number of invisible factors in their respective action realms. Nevertheless, one-dimensional explanations always look more plausible. And the media is filled with them, which the gullible readers are led to believe, most often.
If we consciously control our tendency to believe simplistic post-hoc narratives that link the outcome of an event with just one or two factors correlated with it, and recognize that there are many reasons for events and sometimes no apparent ones, we can see things in a better way. But it is easier said than done, but worth trying if we want to get amazing insights.
Disclaimer: The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed in the text belong solely to the author, and not necessarily to the author’s employer, organization, committee or other group or individual.