Your Higher Mind thinks like a scientist

I've followed Tim Urban and his Wait But Why blog off and on for quite a few years. Not long ago Urban published a book online, What's Our Problem? A Self-Help Book for Societies. I took a look at it, but I much prefer reading print books. Fortunately, Urban eventually came out with a "real" book.

When I got an offer from Urban to buy his book directly from the printer (it's self-published), I did just that. It arrived a few days ago. I'm enjoying it, in part because I like the quirky illustrations crafted by Urban. The book also is on Amazon, for a higher price.

Here's what Urban has to say about the difference between our Higher Mind and Primitive Mind, and how the Scientist is a manifestation of the Higher Mind. You'll see that dissent and skepticism is how the Scientist pursues truth, which is why these are values I promote on this blog and aspire to myself.

Your Higher Mind is aware that humans are often delusional, and it wants you to be not delusional. It sees beliefs as the most recent draft of a work in progress, and as it lives more and learns more, the Higher Mind is always happy to make a revision. Because when beliefs are revised, it's a signal of progress -- of becoming less ignorant, less foolish, less wrong.

Your Primitive Mind disagrees. For your genes, what's important is holding beliefs that generate the best kinds of survival behavior -- whether or not those beliefs are actually true. The Primitive Mind's beliefs are usually installed early on in life, often based on the prevailing beliefs of your family, peer group, or broader community.

The Primitive Mind sees those beliefs as a fundamental part of your identity and a key to remaining in good standing with the community around you. Given all of this, the last thing the Primitive Mind wants is for you to feel humble about your beliefs or interested in revising them. It wants you to treat your beliefs as sacred objects and believe them with conviction.

So the Higher Mind's goal is to get to the truth, while the Primitive Mind's goal is confirmation of its existing beliefs. These two very different types of intellectual motivation exist simultaneously in our heads. This means that our driving intellectual motivation -- and in turn, our thinking process -- varies depending on where we are on the Ladder at any given moment.

In the realm of thinking, then, the Ladder's four rungs correspond to four ways of forming beliefs. When your Higher Mind is running the show, you're up on the top rung, thinking like a Scientist. 

When you're thinking like a Scientist, you start at Point A and follow evidence wherever it takes you...The Scientist's default position on any topic is "I don't know." To advance beyond Point A, they have to put in effort, starting with the first stage: hypothesis formation.

Top-rung thinking forms hypotheses from the bottom up. Rather than adopt the beliefs and assumptions of conventional wisdom, you puzzle together your own ideas, from scratch. This is a three-part process. 

(1) Gather information. When Scientists want to learn something new, they try to soak up a wide variety of information on the topic. The Scientist seeks out ideas across the Idea Spectrum, even those that seem likely to be wrong, because knowing the range of viewpoints that exist about the topic is a key facet of understanding the topic.

(2) Evaluate information. If gathering info is about quantity, evaluating info is about quality. There are instances where a thinker has the time and the means to collect information and evidence directly -- with their own primary observations, or by conducting their own studies. But most of the info we use to inform ourselves is indirect knowledge: knowledge accumulated by others that we import into our minds and adopt as our own.

...That's why perhaps the most important skill of a skilled thinker is knowing when to trust. Trust, when assigned wisely, is an efficient knowledge-acquisition trick... But trust assigned wrongly has the opposite effect. When people trust information to be true that isn't, they end up with the illusion of knowledge -- which is worse than having no knowledge at all.

So skilled thinkers work hard to master the art of skepticism. A thinker who believes everything they hear is too gullible, and their beliefs become packed with a jumble of falsehoods, misconceptions, and contradictions. Someone who trusts no one is overly cynical, even paranoid, and limited to gathering new information only by direct experience. Neither of these fosters much learning.

The Scientist's default skepticism position would be somewhere in between, with a filter just tight enough to consistently identify and weed out bullshit, just open enough to let in the truth.

(3) Puzzle together a hypothesis. ...As the gathering and evaluating processes continue, the Scientist grows more confident in their puzzling. Eventually, they begin to settle on a portion of the Idea Spectrum where they suspect the truth may lie. Their puzzle is finally taking shape -- they have begun to form a hypothesis. 

Imagine I present to you this boxer, and we have this exchange.

You'd think I was insane.

But people do this with ideas all the time. They feel sure they're right about an opinion they've never had to defend -- an opinion that has never stepped into the ring. Scientists know that an untested belief is only a hypothesis -- a boxer with potential, but not a champion of anything. 

So the Scientist starts expressing the idea publicly, in person and online. It's time to see if the little guy can box. In the world of ideas, boxing opponents come in the form of dissent. When the Scientist starts throwing ideas out into the world, the punches pour in. 

Biased reasoning, oversimplification, logical fallacies, and questionable statistics are the weak spots that feisty dissenters look for, and every effective blow landed on the hypothesis helps the Scientist improve their ideas. This is why Scientists actively seek out dissent. 

As organizational psychologist Adam Grant puts it in his book Think Again:

I've noticed a paradox in great scientists and superforecasters: the reason they're so comfortable being wrong is that they're terrified of being wrong. What sets them apart is their time horizon. They're determined to reach the correct answer in the long run, and they know that means they have to be open to stumbling, backtracking, and rerouting in the short run. They shun rose-colored glasses in favor of a sturdy mirror.

...It's a long road to knowledge for the Scientist because truth is hard. It's why scientists say "I don't know" so often. It's why, even after getting to Point B in the learning process, the Scientist applies an asterisk, knowing that all beliefs are subject to being proven wrong by changing times or new evidence.

...When you're thinking like a Scientist -- self-aware, free of bias, unattached to any particular ideas, motivated entirely by truth and continually willing to revise your beliefs -- your brain is a hyper-efficient learning machine.

 

Comments

[Ron E.]

This idea of a ‘higher mind’ and a’ primitive mind’ could be very confusing and mis-leading. Talking in such a way gives the impression that there is such a ‘thing’ as a mind and also opens the way for people to interpret a so-called ‘higher mind’ as some sort of spiritual entity or thing to attain.

Anyway, I accept that ‘mind’ is generally a catch-all term for the many cognitive functions and that when our brains evaluate, ponder and plan it is using its store of information derived through a life-time of experiences.

Under Urban’s heading of ‘Evaluate Information’ he states: - “But most of the info we use to inform ourselves is indirect knowledge: knowledge accumulated by others that we import into our minds and adopt as our own.” Well, I’d say that all of our knowledge is indirect in that whatever we know and think about is derived from external sources (people and our environment). Apart from in-built instincts, we are not born with knowledge. And there is no ‘we’ that imports knowledge into our ‘minds’; rather, the brain automatically ‘files away’ and sorts experiences and info, perhaps to be re-called where and if appropriate.

I’m not overly convinced that scientists embody all the qualities described in this thread, although I get the point with regard to (anyone, not just scientists) evaluating the information we have presented to us – in terms of not glibly accepting popular conditioned beliefs and concepts as truth.

[um]

We are trained and probably biological made to accept information, external knowledge or "hear say" in the first 6 to 7 years as gospell truth, as part of the survival mechanism.

To question what was handed over to us in order to survive in nature and the artificial copy there of "culture" is psychological not that easy.

If one is trained to climb mountains with ropes and all sorts of safety measures it is not that easy to let it go and continue climbing without ropes. Climbing without safety matters requests also training. In order to bypass the warning signals of the survival system, one needs to develop an inner security system in terms of trust that goes with mastering a craft.

Hahahah ... logic and even science can be use as "rope climbing" and by using it to overcome the fear, the insecurity etc that comes with liberty

There are scientists, mostly not presenting themselves as skeptics and the users of science to cover up their own insecurities..

Standing on one's own feet takes time.

[um]

Wandering into the unknown without any of the usual commodities is not that simple and not even always possible given the circumstances a person find himself in.

And .. maybe only adverse circumstances makes it possible for a person to bring to the surface the "BEST of him or her self"

Why create another "have to" imagery for common people to be happy.
Help books, help the writer and the publisher to fill their pockets. and add to the frustration of the readers when they cannot act according the "generous" offered help.

[sant64]

I get used copies of Scientific American from my library. Many would say that Scientific American is the premier science journal.

One contributor of SA used Goldilocks and the 3 Bears as an analogy. Nothing wrong with that, except he apologized for using an analogy that normalized colonialism and the unjust appropriation of native lands. I had to read it twice - - was he making a joke? He had to be. No, he was in earnest.

Of course, SA was totally on the COVID bandwagon. Scientific proof that masks were essential to combat this existential threat. Remember COVID? Know anyone who wasn't already sick who died from it? Of course, you don't.

The SA I'm currently reading features a piece by a scientist who observes that "man and woman are only social categories," as science recognizes that man and woman is a distinction that has no basis in biology.

SA is also all about "fixing climate change." The most impractical and unrealistic project in human history. SA doesn't think so.

SA also has a piece about "Reestablishing Reality." It's about how the only proper course for human civilization is for Donald Trump to lose the election. Science says so.

Lastly, SA proposes that a new branch of the American government be formed pronto. You guessed it -- scientists! You see, according to SA democracy is most unscientific. The views and decisions of our elected leaders are likewise subpar. What's needed is a government that's run by scientists who will unerringly steer the country toward true progress - - vegan meals, electric vehicles, masks for everyone, high taxes to fight climate change, and above all else severe penalties for anyone who disputes the edicts of our scientists.

Conclusion: It's a mistake to blindly follow the dictates of a guru. But following the views of the science community has its own potential perils.

[realsciencejournals]

Sorry Sant 64, I do in fact know several people (otherwise healthy) who died from Covid. So be more cautious next time when making sweeping claims.

Scientific American, btw, is not regarded as the premier science journal. It is, rather, a popular magazine that happens to be focused on science and presents readable articles to the general public.

If you want journals that are regarded as premier in their field, I would refer you to the following:

NATURE
SCIENCE
CELL
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)

Perhaps if you focused less on your political agenda and studied actual science journals, you would realize that science strives for self-correction and that is why it is important to have it open sourced and referenced for cross checking.

Of course, politicians can lie with impunity, but that is okay provided it aligns with one's already preset agenda.

[Jim Sutherland]

@realsciencejournals,……listen to Real American Patriots , like Steve Bannon , who refuted to bow to the Libs, and went to Jail for it, and Donald Trump who took every thing the Libs could possibly do to destroy him, including shooting him in the head, now will have to get out of the MEGA way , and watch Politics change, not only here in the U.S., but in the world.

Buckle up, Butter Cup, and watch the Parade March by!

https://youtu.be/iv_iqqJV1P4

Jim Sutherland

[um]

@ Jim S.

I would I could understand your enthusiasm and that of Sant64

Personality I was never that focused on those that are put in the limelight but those in the background.

So, to give an example, I have a gut feeling that Hitler personally was no able to commit the atrocities that are attributed to his entourage.

Just half an hour ago there was something on our tv on the power that Musk can exercise over Trump due to supporting his campaign with money.. It was said that it is equal to the power of the oligarchs in Russia.

These people in the shadows of power, are not bound by anything.

Again as said several times ...not what they say and is said about them scares me but their body language and their mimicry ...and it scares me that you people rejoice in their taking over power ....and ... do not for a moment think that I support the changes in culture etc that some democrats are after ....but most of them have not those scary faces.

[Jim Sutherland]

@um,…Trump is a Strong Man that we need right now, to defeat the Globalists from ending our Democratic Republic. Unlike Trump’s 1st Administration , from 2016-2020 , He now knows who the real Swamp Creatures are. Many of them are Republicans, but in name only, because they are actually Liberal Globalist Moles. But Trump knows who they are this time, and won’t get back stabbed by them this time.

Steve Bannon has their numbers, and knows Trump’s enemies. If Kash Patel does what he has promised to do, as FBI Director, closes it down the 1st day he takes over, many Trump enemies will be prosecuted, convicted, and put in prison for many years.

Sant61 knows who they are, as I and other Americans do, who live in Red States, and have witnessed the deterioration of Law and Order in our cities.

I just got back from grocery shopping in Walmart, and had to go find a Clerk to unlock the glass door to the razor blades. When I finally found some one, I asked why I could no longer buy razor blades. Was Management worried us old people would cut our selves? She said no, it’s because of Increased theft that only can be reduced only by locking up any thing that may be used as weapons. They quit selling guns and ammo years ago.

Jim Sutherland

[Jim Sutherland]

Actually, I have never lived in a Red State. They have always been Blue. Maine, Connecticut, California, and now, Virginia solid Blue because of the Military Industrial Complex, but with a Republican Governor.

Liberals have always wanted Government free stuff, unearned , but at the expense of working Tax Payers supporting them.

Jim Sutherland

[Spence Tepper]

Your higher mind knows. But that knowledge can't be evaluated. Evaluation is middle brain at best.
Because evaluation is against accepted criteria, and those are just your opinions about facts.

So there is knowledge...
And there is opinion, however well informed.

There is what you know and trust.
And there is the truth.

And the two may be quite far apart, but from your distance, they may look identical.

Your opinion and the truth are not the same things.

Higher mind can take you there, but that is beyond evaluation, which is tied to a specific view, specific premeses, specific beliefs. Those are all pieces of paper at best.

[spence tepper]

Use all your best rational thinking to arrive at what you need to live.
But stop short of trying to figure out what anyone else needs.
To do that, just learn to listen, to observe, to respect.
Don't let your immense pride in a very temporal view of what you take as "truth" to run over the wisdom of simple observation.

The blog above ends with forming an hypothesis. But it misses item 4.

4. Test, observe, and learn continuously. To test, to learn, requires an ability to control that test which we set up according to our hypothesis, using the strictest principles of control, so that we actually put all opinion aside when we conduct that experiment.

And the experiment is living.

That's not part of item 2 or 3, as the author incorrectly claims.

The test of an hypothesis must be entirely free of that hypothesis in order for a true test.

Use your opinion to get to a decision.

Then engage item 4, the missing item,

4. Once you decide, leave that opinion behind and begin to discover. And, in wonder, never stop discovering.

This is why the author of the blog is unscientific. They mis-represent the philosophy of science altogether, missing this, the most important element.

The test of any hypothesis must be free of any element of that test biased by that hypothesis. The hypothesis you used to set up the experiment must be tossed aside the second that experiment begins. Then, pure recording, pure observation must be all. Otherwise, you just see your biases corrupting the validity of what you observe.

Read that again if you need to.

That means our life, our daily life that is the true test of who and what we are, how we live, must be largely free of these ill formed opinions. We make them as best we can because we must make decisions. But once the decision is made, they have zero value. We go back to learning, rather than replacing learning with justification, excuses, false arguments that were out of date eons ago.

Opinions aren't higher mind. The author is entirely mistaken. Awareness is higher mind.

Understanding is the top of mind, and that is often at a level beyond both language and thinking.

All science begins and ends with Wonder, with discovery.

It doesn't end with opinion, which are at best temporary place holders.

It ends with understanding, which is a constant discipline of pure observation and awareness.
And that requires extremely controlled conditions, including internal controls on our low-rent opinions.

[patriotism?]

JIM,

A "lib" didn't shoot Donald Trump. A deranged human being did.

And "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel." Particularly with someone who lies without impunity, whether it is a republican or a democrat.

Trump is all about Trump, and that is evident from day one.

And so are most politicians, with exceptions that I cannot think of right now.

[Jim Sutherland]

#patriotism,….Libs seeded the conditions in the Media and Liberal Democrat Administration to recruit insane Assins. Most likely, CIA MKULTRA Clone.

No doubt, Trump is not a Saint or a Sant, but he is the Mob Boss Gangster of the time to neuter our poisoned Wokesters , who have been grooming our youngsters for decades in all Liberal Arts Colleges, in addition to even the Ivy League Universities , who are operated and owned by Liberals, who choose to keep our borders open to Rift Raft while defending Ukraine’s borders.

Jim Sutherland

[Appreciative Reader]

Enjoyed this post, thanks Brian. Resonated with all of it, completely.

----------

There clearly are people who are without the drive towards truth. I find it difficult to wrap my head around how that can be.

That is, I can understand --- not approve of, but understand --- someone deliberately dissembling away and/or lying and/or misrepresenting things for personal gain. That is despicable, but at any rate something one can understand. But I simply cannot grok how people might, within themselves, be missing this drive towards truth! And yet, some/many clearly do.

----------

But of course, as your article points out, this isn’t about people per se, as about people’s tendencies. Tendencies within each and every one of us. So that, we would do well to look out for such within our own selves: that first and foremost! And also recognize that it is fallacious to imagine that someone that lacks that drive in some matters and at one point in time, will necessarily lack that drive always and in every matter.

But, that nuance notwithstanding: we sometimes tend to take as a given that everyone will share in the drive for arriving at truth. So that impasses follow either basis bona fide disagreements over sussing out the evidence at hand, or from miscommunication. It is good realize that that is not necessarily the case always. It is good to realize that one reason for an impasse might simply be because some do not even seek the truth at all, but merely confirmation of their pet bias, no matter the contortions and the twisting employed to keep up that illusion. And that it is wise to desist from fruitless discussion with such after a point.

[Appreciative Reader]

Sorry Sant 64, I do in fact know several people (otherwise healthy) who died from Covid. So be more cautious next time when making sweeping claims. (...)

Posted by: realsciencejournals | December 19, 2024 at 06:57 PM

----------

A "lib" didn't shoot Donald Trump. A deranged human being did. (...)

Posted by: patriotism? | December 20, 2024 at 01:19 PM

----------

@realsciencejournals, and @patriotism? :

It is good that you bring out these matters of factuality here. They are obvious points, and indeed the latter I'd pointed out myself here some weeks back: but it is good that you clearly present the facts here.

Heh, in context of this thread, though, and also in context of my comment immediately preceding: there may not be much point to doing it, as far as changing how these people think about matters of factuality. For the reasons spelled out in this post of Brian's, and in my comment above.

Which is not to suggest, for a moment, that corrections of the sort you're presenting here are out of place. On the contrary. We should have more of such voices of reason, particularly given these present bleak times, so that the voices of reason and sanity are not completely drowned under the cacophony of misinformation as well as deliberate disinformation. It's a thankless task: but thank you for doing it nevertheless.