> If you understand systems-- why and how they work-- you don't need to necessarily challenge everything. In fact, if you don't sufficiently understand a system

> If you understand systems-- why and how they work-- you don't need to necessarily challenge everything. In fact, if you don't sufficiently understand a system then "challenging everything" can signal a lack of awareness and tacitly limit your options. But how would you reach that recognition of the system with confidence without interrogating it? What if your confidence in the system itself was informed by coincidence, bias and genetic fallacies? > For example, the local mechanic can look at the queue of other customers and decide it isn't worth the time to attempt to convince Socrates that fixing the steering fluid leak is urgent. Oh my, "something something Engels was wrong..." Nevermind that, Socrates might still be inclined in an era of plentiful information to get a second opinion and quote on a damage car if the bill is quite large. This is not at all unusual. Perhaps we might appeal to a parent who says, "Oh yeah, that mechanic has never left me dissatisfied" and then at least we are slightly decreasing the chance that pure proximity and chance defined our preferences? Which you in fact suggest, in the next paragraph. Is this not at least some form of interrogation? > In fact it's "turtles all the way down," because even when Socrates told me of that encounter, I could see just how deep down the rabbit hole I'd have to go to have any effect on their course of action. So I did my due diligence with the weaker position of, "I've never gotten a suspicious estimate from that mechanic." Same with at least two other people Socrates talked to. It seems though like even this modest decision is something the article urges us not to do, because evidence self-doubt or deliberation is itself a novel "mind killer". The article itself is somewhat incoherent on this point, suggesting that: >> We live in the age of abundance. It's never been easier to passively consume the opinions of others. It's also never been more dangerous. Isn't a professional and authoritative opinion exactly what Socrates is paying his mechanic Euthyphro for here? I think maybe you've misinterpreted the article. The article urges folks to avoid consuming the opinions of people who don't agree with you already, because their opinions might be compelling. >> Our minds - when fed the first piece of information you come across - are like crops without a ring of protection. They’re vulnerable and waiting to be destroyed. By being deliberate about what we consume and what we believe, we develop a ring of protection. Which is a bit weird because, well, did these opinions the author wants to defend emerge from a perfect void housing only the spirit of Descartes? Is not the ultimate implicit and coincidental bias the one our parents furnished us with? The author is arguing that people dare not consider any opinions than these, because they might be invalidated. But it's not clear why that would be so bad. Who says changing your mind when new information presented is bad? If we're prone to proximity biases, genetic fallacies and post-hoc rationalizations; then aren't we approaching something closer to objectivity by re-evaluating our opinions over time? While we will never remove all bias, we can certainly strive to remove some and that seems somehow better if we accept the article's premise that it's somehow bad to be manipulated by others. Honestly, I wonder if you read the article carefully.