4 ms·

Some of the most intelligent, knowledgeable, respected-in-their-field distant family members of mine are like that. I've spent decade trying to figure it out, b

Some of the most intelligent, knowledgeable, respected-in-their-field distant family members of mine are like that. I've spent decade trying to figure it out, because selfishly it's terrifying and I don't want it happening to me. One thing that seems to be common and is my working hypothesis, is that they're so smart and so respected in their field (or, in subset of cases, arrogant), that they simply trust themselves more than anybody else. There is nobody in their family and friends who can truly "slap some sense into them"; provide perspective, course-correct, nudge into objective reality or mainstream story, whatever we call it. I've actually asked a couple of them point blank - and they admitted, nope, there's nobody that they trust more than themselves. Couple of them even said - if you don't have trust and faith in yourself, you're weak. So I'm hoping I'm somewhat inoculated against going off the deep end by having at least 3 people in my life (wife, sister, and one good friend) who can, and have, slapped some sense into me when I was going off the rails.

Swizec 4y ago
I was reading a book on cognitive biases recently and the part that really stuck for me was: The smarter you are, the more likely you are to fall prey to the Narrative Bias/Fallacy. Super smart people are so good at constructing plausible narratives that they can convince themselves of almost anything. You have to actively look for ways to disprove your own narratives. This is hard because they sound so plausible.
- troutwine 4y ago
  What book was that? I'd be interested in giving it a read.
  - Swizec 4y ago
    Looking at my Audible history it was either Think Again by Adam Grant or Super Thinking by Gabriel Weinberg. Can't remember exactly.
    - troutwine 4y ago
      Much obliged.
- NikolaNovak 4y ago
  Perfect; that sounds like exactly what I've observed - in others as well as myself - but I did not have a name, so now I can google better, thx :) (any recommendations on that specific book?)
- pklausler 4y ago
  So smart people don't know when they're wrong because they're smart enough to convince themselves that they're right, and dumb people don't know when they're wrong, because they're too dumb to see how dumb they're being. We can't win.
  - Swizec 4y ago
    Yes, I think the lesson to take away is that you want not only to be smart, but also wise and humble. Wise enough to realize you need to poke holes in your ideas, humble enough to fix your hypothesis when facts change.
    - unclebucknasty 4y ago
      >wise and humble...you need to poke holes in your ideas... But where does critical thinking come in? Seens there should be a heuristic or generalized approach for deciding what to believe. Epistemology, I suppose. And this should all preface the formation of our ideas in the first place.
- naniwaduni 4y ago
  protip: you can do this without being overwhelmingly smart, too. You need only be smart enough to convince yourself
- pps 4y ago
  > You have to actively look for ways to disprove your own narratives Socratic Method is one way, I can recommend "The Socratic Method - A Practitioners Handbook" by Ward Farnsworth.
somenameforme 4y ago
I'd argue that there is no nobody you should trust more than yourself. This does not mean disregarding expertise or imagining that you know, or can know, everything. But the moment that you grant final primacy over your own thoughts to somebody other than yourself is the moment that that person can make you believe, and consequently act, in nearly any way. And, at scale, that's quite a disconcerting thought. When people trust themselves above all it means we'll never have a utopia because we all can't help but believing some pretty stupid stuff at times. But at the same time we'll never have an absolute dystopia, because the diversity of thought ensures we'll never all fall off the deep end, or be pushed off it, together.
- GauntletWizard 4y ago
  You shouldn't need someone you trust more than yourself to slap sense into you. You should view someone whom you trust strongly (but less strongly than your own thoughts) arguing hard as an indicator, even if you disagree with them. You should be able to ask "Why do we disagree", and trace that back to (hopefully) some simple but core value difference, like "I like hotdogs and they like hamburgers".
  - jakelazaroff 4y ago
    Your trust in someone also doesn't need to apply equally on all topics. I'm much likelier to trust a virologist over myself about virology than about the best way to cook pasta.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- AlexandrB 4y ago
  Science, as a discipline, is all about not trusting yourself because you can fool yourself easily if you're not careful.
- kelnos 4y ago
  This is kinda a weird take to me, because I don't see "trust someone else more than yourself" as equivalent to "grant final primacy over your own thoughts to someone else". I trust myself very little when it comes to many topics, because I have next to zero expertise in them, and I know that "common sense" often does not lead us to good decisions on topics where we have little understanding. That doesn't mean I'm going to outsource decision-making to others who are experts on those topics, but I am probably going to most often do what they say, after applying their information to my own situation and determining what seems reasonable and doable. As an example, I will most likely get the Omicron-tuned COVID vaccine when it becomes available, assuming the relevant experts I trust say that it's a good idea. I have no idea if I really need it, but the non-zero threat of long COVID, coupled with the fact that we still know fairly little about the long-term effects of having contracted COVID, means I would rather face the very low risk of vaccine complications than increase my risk of getting COVID, with the attendant risk of it being something that causes lingering health problems for some significant part of my life. I won't be outsourcing my decision-making to a third party, but I recognize that I do not trust my expertise in this field (since I do not have any), and will allow those with expertise to heavily inform my decision.

Swizec 4y ago

I was reading a book on cognitive biases recently and the part that really stuck for me was: The smarter you are, the more likely you are to fall prey to the Narrative Bias/Fallacy. Super smart people are so good at constructing plausible narratives that they can convince themselves of almost anything. You have to actively look for ways to disprove your own narratives. This is hard because they sound so plausible.

troutwine 4y ago
What book was that? I'd be interested in giving it a read.
- Swizec 4y ago
  Looking at my Audible history it was either Think Again by Adam Grant or Super Thinking by Gabriel Weinberg. Can't remember exactly.
  - troutwine 4y ago
    Much obliged.
NikolaNovak 4y ago
Perfect; that sounds like exactly what I've observed - in others as well as myself - but I did not have a name, so now I can google better, thx :) (any recommendations on that specific book?)
pklausler 4y ago
So smart people don't know when they're wrong because they're smart enough to convince themselves that they're right, and dumb people don't know when they're wrong, because they're too dumb to see how dumb they're being. We can't win.
- Swizec 4y ago
  Yes, I think the lesson to take away is that you want not only to be smart, but also wise and humble. Wise enough to realize you need to poke holes in your ideas, humble enough to fix your hypothesis when facts change.
  - unclebucknasty 4y ago
    >wise and humble...you need to poke holes in your ideas... But where does critical thinking come in? Seens there should be a heuristic or generalized approach for deciding what to believe. Epistemology, I suppose. And this should all preface the formation of our ideas in the first place.
naniwaduni 4y ago
protip: you can do this without being overwhelmingly smart, too. You need only be smart enough to convince yourself
pps 4y ago
> You have to actively look for ways to disprove your own narratives Socratic Method is one way, I can recommend "The Socratic Method - A Practitioners Handbook" by Ward Farnsworth.

somenameforme 4y ago

I'd argue that there is no nobody you should trust more than yourself. This does not mean disregarding expertise or imagining that you know, or can know, everything. But the moment that you grant final primacy over your own thoughts to somebody other than yourself is the moment that that person can make you believe, and consequently act, in nearly any way. And, at scale, that's quite a disconcerting thought. When people trust themselves above all it means we'll never have a utopia because we all can't help but believing some pretty stupid stuff at times. But at the same time we'll never have an absolute dystopia, because the diversity of thought ensures we'll never all fall off the deep end, or be pushed off it, together.

GauntletWizard 4y ago
You shouldn't need someone you trust more than yourself to slap sense into you. You should view someone whom you trust strongly (but less strongly than your own thoughts) arguing hard as an indicator, even if you disagree with them. You should be able to ask "Why do we disagree", and trace that back to (hopefully) some simple but core value difference, like "I like hotdogs and they like hamburgers".
- jakelazaroff 4y ago
  Your trust in someone also doesn't need to apply equally on all topics. I'm much likelier to trust a virologist over myself about virology than about the best way to cook pasta.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
AlexandrB 4y ago
Science, as a discipline, is all about not trusting yourself because you can fool yourself easily if you're not careful.
kelnos 4y ago
This is kinda a weird take to me, because I don't see "trust someone else more than yourself" as equivalent to "grant final primacy over your own thoughts to someone else". I trust myself very little when it comes to many topics, because I have next to zero expertise in them, and I know that "common sense" often does not lead us to good decisions on topics where we have little understanding. That doesn't mean I'm going to outsource decision-making to others who are experts on those topics, but I am probably going to most often do what they say, after applying their information to my own situation and determining what seems reasonable and doable. As an example, I will most likely get the Omicron-tuned COVID vaccine when it becomes available, assuming the relevant experts I trust say that it's a good idea. I have no idea if I really need it, but the non-zero threat of long COVID, coupled with the fact that we still know fairly little about the long-term effects of having contracted COVID, means I would rather face the very low risk of vaccine complications than increase my risk of getting COVID, with the attendant risk of it being something that causes lingering health problems for some significant part of my life. I won't be outsourcing my decision-making to a third party, but I recognize that I do not trust my expertise in this field (since I do not have any), and will allow those with expertise to heavily inform my decision.