My Constitution for Thinking in Public

The thinking trap it guards against

Motivated reasoning. We tend to examine unwelcome claims harder than welcome ones, especially when a group we belong to has a stake. Deciding in advance that truth wins is a way of noticing when belonging has started doing the judging.

In practice

A hypothetical example.

As often said

“Of course the new policy is a disaster. Everyone on my team can see that.”

Under this principle

“My team dislikes the policy, which tells me about my team. What I still need to know is what happened when similar policies were tried.”

Try it

Which belief of mine would be most awkward to give up in front of my friends, and have I checked it as hard as the ones I would happily drop?

The thinking trap it guards against

Confirmation bias. Once we hold a conclusion, we search for what supports it and read ambiguous evidence in its favour. Beginning with a question changes what you look for, which changes what you find.

In practice

A hypothetical example.

As often said

Searching for “evidence that remote work hurts productivity”, then listing what turned up.

Under this principle

Searching for “what happens to output when teams go remote, and when does it go well or badly?”, then noting what would count against my hunch.

Try it

The last time I researched something, what did I type into the search box: a question, or the answer I wanted?

The thinking trap it guards against

Miscalibration. Calibration means your confidence tracks how often you turn out to be right. Confident wording is persuasive, so it is tempting to borrow it when the evidence is thin. Readers cannot tell the difference unless you show them.

In practice

A hypothetical example.

As often said

“This supplement fixes sleep.”

Under this principle

“Several people I know say it helped, but I have not seen a fair comparison with people who did not take it. I suspect it is worth a cautious trial. I do not know that it works.”

Try it

Take a claim I made this week. Was it something I know, strongly suspect, find plausible, or am exploring, and did my wording say which?

The thinking trap it guards against

The straw man, and its remedy, steelmanning. It is easy to feel right by arguing against the weakest version of an opposing view. Steelmanning means building the strongest honest version first, so that if your view survives, it has earned it.

In practice

A hypothetical example.

As often said

“People who doubt the four-day week just do not want others to be happy.”

Under this principle

“The best objection is that some roles depend on continuous cover. Here is that objection at its strongest, and here is how far I think the evidence answers it.”

Try it

Could someone who disagrees with me read my summary of their view and say, “Yes, that is what I think”?

The thinking trap it guards against

Ad hominem. Attacking the speaker instead of the claim feels efficient, but it cuts both ways: a likeable person can be wrong, and an unlikeable one can be right. Keeping the two apart protects you from both flattery and contempt.

In practice

A hypothetical example.

As often said

“Why would we listen to someone who got last year’s forecast wrong?”

Under this principle

“Their last forecast missed. That is a reason to check this one carefully, not a reason to treat it as false.”

Try it

Which claim have I dismissed this month mainly because of who said it?

The thinking trap it guards against

Guilt by association. If merely studying an idea counts as agreeing with it, then nobody can look closely at the ideas they most need to understand. Explaining why people believe something is a different act from joining them.

In practice

A hypothetical example.

As often said

“You are reading their forum? Whose side are you on?”

Under this principle

“I want to know why people join, what they believe and what they get from it. Understanding that does not mean I agree.”

Try it

What belief do I find baffling? What would I need to learn to explain, fairly, why a thoughtful person holds it?

The thinking trap it guards against

Post hoc ergo propter hoc. “After this, therefore because of this.” Things that follow each other are not necessarily linked. Experience is real and often the first sign that something is worth investigating; it just cannot tell you, alone, why something happened.

In practice

A hypothetical example.

As often said

“I started a new routine and my headaches eased, so the routine fixed them.”

Under this principle

“My headaches eased after I started the routine. That is worth noticing and testing. Other things changed too, and symptoms often come and go on their own.”

Try it

Think of a story from my own life that I use as proof. What else changed around that time?

The thinking trap it guards against

The fundamental attribution error, and smuggled conclusions. We tend to read other people’s behaviour as character while excusing our own as circumstance. Related slips follow: from “bad motive” to “false claim”, or from “admirable person” to “correct argument”. Each question needs its own evidence.

In practice

A hypothetical example.

As often said

“He works for the industry, so his numbers are wrong.”

Under this principle

“He has reason to prefer one outcome, so I will check the numbers carefully. Whether they hold up is a separate question I can answer by looking.”

Try it

Pick someone I dislike. Which of their claims do I reject because of what I think of them, rather than what I can show?

The thinking trap it guards against

The is/ought gap. Facts can tell you what happens if you do something. They cannot, alone, tell you whether you should. Passing a value judgment off as a finding ends the conversation too early, and gives evidence a job it cannot do.

In practice

A hypothetical example.

As often said

“The data prove we should close the office.”

Under this principle

“The data suggest costs would fall and some commutes would get longer. Whether that trade is worth it depends on what we value most, and that is what we should discuss.”

Try it

In my last real disagreement, if we had agreed on every fact, would we still have disagreed? About what?

The thinking trap it guards against

Belief perseverance and the unfalsifiable position. Beliefs can outlive the evidence that created them, particularly once they are part of how we see ourselves. A belief that nothing could overturn has stopped being a conclusion and become a commitment, which is fine, as long as you know which one you hold.

In practice

A hypothetical example.

As often said

“I have thought about this a lot, and I am sure.”

Under this principle

“I would change my view if the next two quarters came in well below the forecast. If nothing could move me, I should stop calling it a prediction.”

Try it

Finish this sentence about something I care about: “I would change my mind if…”

The thinking trap it guards against

Escalation of commitment. The more publicly we have said something, the more costly it feels to take it back, so we quietly edit, move on, or defend. A visible correction makes the cost of being wrong lower for everyone, including you next time.

In practice

A hypothetical example.

As often said

Changing a figure in a published piece and saying nothing.

Under this principle

“Correction: I said the figure doubled. It rose by about half. The conclusion in the last paragraph no longer holds, and I have changed it.”

Try it

What is the last thing I got wrong that someone else relied on? Did they hear about it from me?

The thinking trap it guards against

Curiosity as entitlement. Asking tough questions of an argument is different from demanding the private history of the person making it. Someone can stand behind a view without being required to explain what shaped it.

In practice

A hypothetical example.

As often said

“If you really believe that, tell me what happened to you.”

Under this principle

“I disagree with the argument, and here is why. If you ever want to share what shaped your view, I would be glad to listen.”

Try it

Where have I asked someone to justify a view with their personal story when the argument could have stood on its own?

The thinking trap it guards against

When the metric becomes the goal. When a measure such as clicks or shares becomes the target, it stops reliably measuring what you care about. Attention rewards what is certain, alarming and simple, and each of those can pull a claim away from what the evidence supports.

In practice

A hypothetical example.

As often said

“Everything you know about sleep is wrong.”

Under this principle

“Some of what is commonly said about sleep holds up. One popular claim does not, and here is why.”

Try it

Which of my last three headlines or opening lines would I rewrite if nobody were counting clicks?

The thinking trap it guards against

Incentive blindness. Our interests quietly shape what seems reasonable to us, even when we are sincere. Disclosure does not remove that influence, but it lets readers discount for it, which they can only do if they know.

In practice

A hypothetical example.

As often said

“This is the best tool on the market.”

Under this principle

“I am paid by the company that makes this tool. Here is what I think of it, and here is what its strongest competitor does better.”

Try it

What do I gain if people believe this? Would I say so out loud before anyone asked?

The thinking trap it guards against

The “trust me” shortcut. Handing over a conclusion is quicker than handing over the reasoning, and it leaves the reader dependent on you. Showing the question, the evidence and the doubts lets them check the work and reach their own view.

In practice

A hypothetical example.

As often said

“Trust me, I have looked into it.”

Under this principle

“Here is the question, here is what I found, here is where I am unsure. Check it, and see whether you end up in the same place.”

Try it

After I explain something, could the other person rebuild the reasoning without me?

The thinking trap it guards against

Diminishing returns on information. More research feels safe, because it postpones the risk of deciding. But at some point extra reading will not change the choice. Knowing roughly where that point sits is part of thinking well.

In practice

A hypothetical example.

As often said

“I need to read a bit more before I can decide.”

Under this principle

“Further reading is unlikely to change this decision. I will run a small trial, and I will look again if the first results surprise me.”

Try it

What decision am I postponing, and what new information would genuinely change it?