I’ve read a few books about the quirks in human judgment, including Nudge and Predictably Irrational.
Fine, now I know those quirks are there. What do I do with them?
That question led me to Julia Galef’s The Scout Mindset.
It felt less like a difficult system of reasoning and more like a way to get a little distance from my own thoughts. Something close to metacognition, maybe. Mostly, it gives me ways to turn a question around.
When I want to believe it, I change the question
When a claim suits me, I collect reasons to believe it. When it doesn’t, I start looking for holes.
I may think I’m applying the same standard each time, but the question itself changes to fit the answer I want. It sounds obvious written down. I can think of plenty of times I’ve done it.
The book attributes two neat questions to psychologist Thomas Gilovich:
- When I want it to be true: “Can I believe it?”
- When I don’t: “Must I believe it?”
Put side by side, the standards are rigged from the start. Sneaky. Also very familiar.
Knowing about this habit does not make it disappear. It would be nice if saying, “Right, I’ll be objective from now on,” fixed everything. It probably won’t. This stuff runs deep.
What I liked about the book is that it does not ask me to overcome the habit through willpower. Instead, it flips a role or changes part of the situation so I can look at my judgment from another angle.
What would I do if this weren’t mine?
The outsider test felt like the easiest one to use.
Take a project that is already on fire. I can ask, “If I took this over today, would I keep doing it the same way?” Suddenly, all the reasons that seemed convincing a minute ago start looking weaker.
“If a friend came to me with this problem, what would I tell them?” works too. Once it is no longer my story, it starts to look a little different.
Questions worth keeping around
The book offers five thought experiments for checking whether bias is tugging at a judgment. I would forget the names alone, so I’m keeping examples here too.
- Double Standard Test
- Question: Would I apply the same standard if our positions were reversed?
- Example: Do I call someone else’s missed deadline “poor planning” while excusing mine because “urgent work came up”?
- Outsider Test
- Question: What would I say if a friend brought me this problem?
- Example: Imagine that the thing bothering me now is a friend’s problem, and they are asking me for advice.
- Conformity Test
- Question: If everyone around me took the opposite view, would I still feel the same way? Am I letting the group decide for me?
- Example: If everyone suddenly started saying, “That tool isn’t very good,” would I still want to use it?
- Selective Skeptic Test
- Question: Would I examine the evidence just as closely if it supported the other side?
- Example: Am I accepting claims that fit my position without bothering to check the evidence?
- Status Quo Bias Test
- Question: If I were already in a different situation, would I deliberately choose to return to this one?
- Example: If I were already working at a new company, would I choose to go back to my current job?
Two more are worth keeping:
- Equivalent Bet Test
- Question: My own prediction or a lottery with known odds. If the payout were the same, at what odds would I genuinely feel indifferent between them?
- Example: Would I rather bet that I will finish the work by the weekend, or take a lottery ticket with an 80% chance of winning? If I choose the lottery, I can lower its odds until either bet feels equally good. That number is probably closer to my real confidence.
- Ideological Turing Test
- Question: Can I explain the opposing position well enough that someone on that side would say, “Yes, exactly”?
- Example: Instead of dismissing opponents of remote work as people who “just want to monitor employees,” can I explain their concerns in terms they might actually use, such as the difficulty of onboarding new hires or sharing small bits of information informally?
None of these produces the right answer in one shot. They might, however, give me enough distance from my usual way of thinking to notice something I was missing.
This felt close to metacognition
As I read, I kept thinking that this felt close to metacognition.
The Japanese subtitle describes the book as “meta-logic training.” To me, though, it felt less like a technical exercise in logic and more like looking at my own thinking from one level up.
“Where am I standing right now?” “What am I assuming?” “What if this weren’t my problem?” Before rushing toward an answer, I stop and check my current position. It feels like looking down at myself from slightly higher up.
The book never calls this metacognition. That is just my reading of it, but framing it this way made the ideas click for me.
If you already know a fair amount about metacognition and cognitive biases, some parts of the book may feel repetitive.
Just one question for now
I probably won’t remember all five thought experiments every time I need them. For now, when I’m stuck, I’ll ask just one question: “If a friend came to me with this, what would I say?”
I do not need to doubt every thought I have. I just need enough distance to look at it for a moment. Taking small detours around my habits feels more realistic than trying to fix them through willpower. That sounds like a better fit for me.
