TL;DR
We all act based on models of the world. Good thinking means knowing how you might be wrong, understanding the assumptions beneath your models, and questioning them when the cost of being wrong is high. Unexamined certainty is often more dangerous than ignorance.
**
Over time, my writing has evolved into a multifaceted repetition of a simple core idea: that all human activity is the development (or belief in) various models of the world, accompanied by the endless quest for (or exercise of) the courage to act on our models of the world toward a teleological end.
In What/Where Are Your Counter Arguments, I added to my writing on the aspect of human activity that seeks to develop models of the world. I argued that the ability to form strong arguments for why one’s position on a given subject may be wrong is a good sign that the position in question was arrived at in a deliberate and holistically considerate manner. As this was only one of many possible litmus tests, I have taken some time to think of other tests that could be useful.
A little criticism of the idea that we are constantly developing (or holding onto) models of the world will almost naturally cause us to reflect on where our development starts and on which premises it is built. In a broader sense, this is about the assumptions we make every time we build a model.
While one cannot be wholly certain of the limitations of any model in their arsenal, an ability to clearly articulate the assumptions on which such models are built is a perfect place to start. The chief benefit of articulating the assumptions that underpin one’s models is that it facilitates an appreciation of contingencies and, in so doing, enables a better appreciation of alternate realities. A second, and less obvious, benefit is that the quest to articulate assumptions naturally ends in first-principle thinking; if we ask “why” and “what if” reasonably enough, we will get to the root of things.
Even though I have suggested that one should always consider the assumptions that underpin their models, I can easily think of situations in which the costs of this activity far outweigh the promised benefits. One such situation is when the actions emerging from the model in question do not deviate from what is conventional, and there is no clear advantage for the contrarian. The articulation of assumptions is therefore best pursued in proportion to the cost of being wrong and the benefit of being contrarian.
Mark Twain famously said that, “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”
Anytime you feel strongly about anything, a good point of reflection is to ask yourself, “What/where are my assumptions?” Because you can only say something because of other things that you know (or believe) to be true. It might help to stop and think about whether what you know for sure is as you think it to be, and to proceed with your thinking with a holistic appreciation of when what you think you know for sure ain’t just as you would have it.
What/Where are your assumptions?