A friend in college was going through a tough time and I was thinking of what I could do to console him. That day, I walked through the library and saw this quote on a poster:
“People will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel.” - Maya Angelou
I’d seen the quote before, and it seemed to finally hit home. My friend will forget what I do and what I say, but he won’t forget how I make him feel. How do I make him feel better?
But wait… is this quote even true? I realized I wasn’t sure. I’ve remembered plenty of things people said and did to me in life.
And even if the quote was true, was it helpful? I can control what I say and what I do, but I cannot control how I make others feel. For example, I could compliment someone and that may backfire and make them feel angry—if they thought I was being disingenuous.
Yes, Maya Angelou was a famous writer; she won a Pulitzer Prize, a Tony award, and multiple Grammy awards; her face was plastered on posters with eloquent quotes across libraries the world over. But in this case, in my humble opinion, she was wrong.
Which made me wonder… who else is wrong? What other untrue ideas have I been unconsciously following?
Sturgeon’s Law
I have since become a fan of “Sturgeon’s Law”, popularized by the philosopher Daniel Dennett: 90% of everything you hear or read is total bullshit.
People say a lot of things. People write a lot of things. Most of them are, at best, misleading or incomplete; at worst, they are totally false. I don’t think most people are intentional liars. But humans are prone to all kinds of biases and assumptions that distort what they say to others.
This even applies to most of what you learned in college. For example, I discovered years after my “Introduction to Macroeconomics” course in college that almost every topic was taught through the lens of Keynesian theory; a theory that is popular and well-respected, but also one theory among many that economists fiercely debate. I had gone into the world thinking I knew the basics of macroeconomics, while in fact I had such a narrow view of the topic that it was utterly useless, even counterproductive—in other words, bullshit.
To me, critical thinking means questioning the validity of everything you see and hear, in order to better develop your own worldview. According to a study conducted by the career coaching organization 80,000 Hours, critical thinking is the #2 most employable skill—with the lowest risk of being replaced by AI—across all fields (second only to “good judgment”). It’s more useful in the workplace than time management, spoken communication, or any hard skill like writing or programming.
The CAR process
Of course… that study may be bullshit, too. So might this entire post—and everything in this blog! I try to write as accurately as possible, but of course, I have my own biases and blind spots. Only you can determine what is true.
The goal is not to attain total cynicism, but rather a healthy amount of skepticism. To do so, here is a process for critical thinking that I dubbed CAR: Comprehend, Analyze, Revise.
1. Comprehend – “What are they saying?”
Before you worry about whether something you read is true, you must first understand what it is really trying to convey. Sometimes this is easy; for example, if you read a straightforward claim like “6 people in the U.S. died this year from tripping on a garden hose.” Other times it can be difficult; for example, if you read “Garden hoses are incredibly dangerous”—what exactly does “dangerous” mean? Compared to what? You may have to dive into the fine print to understand what the claim is.
This gets trickier with messages that are conveyed by stories: in TV shows, song lyrics, and of course, poetry (sorry, Maya). Even stories that are entirely fictional often imply things about the way people are or the way the world is. It takes some reflection to figure out what an artist is trying to convey—or, more importantly (since often their intentions are unknowable), what you think the story has conveyed to you.
2. Analyze – “Do I agree?”
Utilize your common sense, life experiences, and the entire corpus of knowledge in your head. But one counterargument isn’t enough—go through multiple iterations of “on the one hand, on the other hand” to tease out the deeper layers.
For example, let’s evaluate the claim: “Everyone should have the right to free speech.” We often take this one for granted (and I happen to believe it), but the reasons are not so simple.
On the one hand, what if someone uses their right to free speech to intentionally offend someone else? On the other hand, who gets to deem what is “offensive”? Someone could claim that being told garden hoses are totally safe offends them, and ban others from saying it.
On the other hand, it doesn’t seem crazy to have some universal standards for what kind of speech is beyond the pale. For example, the law doesn’t let anyone use their right to free speech to incite direct violence. So clearly, the right shouldn’t protect all speech. On the other hand, if we start banning certain kinds of speech, we won’t be banning that thought—people may still think vile things, and know we won’t have an accurate understanding of what the populace believes.
On the other hand… You get the point.
I could do this all day! But at some point, you’ll arrive at a conclusion—and most of the time, the claim you are evaluating won’t be a timeless philosophical quandary, so the process will be much quicker. (For example, “no, I don’t think garden hoses are that dangerous.”)
3. Revise – What do I now believe?
A) If you agree with the claim, you now need to incorporate it into your worldview. Which existing beliefs does it challenge, or force you to adapt?
B) If you disagree with the claim, build an argument against it—one that can convince others (just as you’ve been convinced) that it’s false. And, think of the negative consequences of other people believing the claim.
C) If you’re unsure, what more evidence would you need in order to believe/disbelieve the claim? And, where can you start looking for that evidence?
The Brita filter
Of course, it’s not always worth it; sometimes you just want to enjoy some music, or turn your brain off. That’s fine.
But, be careful about not doing this enough. In the internet era, information comes at us faster than we can process it. Seemingly everyone with an opinion Tweets it or makes a TikTok video about it—as a result, the average person probably spends 80% of their time consuming content and only 20% thinking about it. I think the more ideal balance is closer to 20% consuming and 80% thinking. Otherwise, we risk letting these opinions infiltrate our worldviews unquestioned.1
Think of your mind as a Brita water filter. Water (new information and opinions) gets poured in through the top. Your filter (mind) seeks to comprehend, analyze, and revise your existing beliefs in response to it—the water that passes through the filter makes it down into the jug (your worldview). It’s clean and delicious.
But if you pour too much water at the top, the filter cannot process it fast enough, and the water spills over the top. Now, you’ve ended up with dirty, unfiltered water mixed in your jug.
In other words, you’ve ended up with all kinds of opinions whose validity you’ve never tested. You might find yourself saying “I believe X,” then someone asks you “why?”, and you’re stumped. In other words: they are hollow beliefs. Critical thinking—and consuming content slowly enough to let your filter work its CAR magic—is the only way to end up with fewer hollow beliefs.
Being a grownup means taking responsibility for what you believe to be true.
Don’t worry, I plan to share a new post about once every four weeks. So that gives you 1 day to read it, and 27 days to reflect on it.
My takeaway from this is not really to read less per se but to be more mindful of what I read and what content I consume. Feel like a lot of what I read, while obviously prone to biases like you said, is way better than TikTok or whatever else I’d be doing instead
I agree with Maya in this respect: a person retains their feelings about someone longer than what that other person said or did. Not sure she meant that one person is necessarily responsible for how another feels, just that actions and attitudes do engender feelings in other people, which feelings persist.