What if cognitive biases are features, not bugs? This one I’ve been noodling on for a couple of days—I even asked my therapist (a PsyD) about it. Turns out, some researchers already think so. I was already aware of Mercier and Sperber’s argumentative theory of reasoning, but Gerd Gigerenzer’s “fast and frugal heuristics” framework was new to me. It treats biases as ecologically rational—good solutions to the environments they evolved in. Further reading: Gigerenzer, Rationality for Mortals (2008)
Why might insight be structurally resistant to manipulation? First, it’s important to know that I’ve been reading a lot about insight research lately and how insight-based problem solving is fundamentally different than analytical incremental problem solving. In fact, they are, or seem to be, mutually exclusive. As some of you know, I’m continuing to work on a framework for articulating ideas, and I’m doing my best to make it as resistant to manipulation as possible. Where I landed with Claude: Insight can’t be forced, only positioned for. That’s because manipulation is linear and incremental, whereas insight is discontinuous and self-generated, which may make structures for creating genuine belief change harder to weaponize than we think. Further reading: Kounios & Beeman, The Eureka Factor (2015)
What kind of logic am I actually using in my work? This one came up this morning in response to my description of how I approach the rationale-mapping process I use with clients. At which point, Claude introduced me to a form of reasoning I have literally never heard of before: Not deductive (which I thought it was). Not inductive. Turns out it’s closest to something called transcendental reasoning: asking “for this to be achievable, what must necessarily be true?” It has a long philosophical history, and, I believe, a very practical application. Further reading: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Transcendental Arguments”
What’s the difference between an idea winning socially and an idea surviving scrutiny? Turns out, a lot. An idea can win socially—gain momentum, attract followers, get implemented—without ever being genuinely tested. (Doesn’t that sound familiar? Sigh…) And an idea can survive scrutiny without ever winning socially. Conflating the two is where I believe much idea adoption may break down. I then wondered whether the fix is a two-step process borrowed from academic research: first, an idea earns standing (the argument that the idea is even worth testing is accepted), and only then is it tested, and tested publicly. My current view is that most ideas skip straight to implementation, which collapses both steps into one high-stakes, often irreversible trial. Further reading: Klein, “Performing a Project Premortem,” HBR (2007)
What could distinguish honest persuasion from manipulation—structurally, not just ethically? This one I already knew, and am fascinated by: Parrhesia, the ancient (and largely forgotten) Greek practice of fearless, full-rationale speech that absorbs the risk of rejection. I’m curious if and how this kind of transparency may be more than just ethical—I wonder if it’s structurally distinguishable from manipulation, and whether it might be contagious, in the best way. Further reading: Foucault, The Courage of Truth (1983–84 lectures)
*Hypnopompic, adjective: associated with the semiconsciousness preceding waking
Sometimes I wake up too early and start wondering about things. It’s one of my favorite times, because it’s often when my best ideas strike. That hypnopompic state—the threshold between sleep and waking—is when my brain seems most willing to make unexpected connections and follow threads wherever they go.
I figured some of these may be of use to others, so I thought I’d publish them when they strike.
My thinking partner, as it often is, was Claude. I talk to Claude at this hour partly because I don’t want to wake my husband… and partly because, on topics like these, Claude knows more than he does. (Sorry, babe.)
Good gosh! Love this - on "insight" I think you should check out a brain-slapping book - "Why Greatness Cannot Be Planned" by Stanley & Lehman - check this description, I'm telling you, it's a proper gale force wind of a read.
"Why does modern life revolve around objectives? From how science is funded, to improving how children are educated -- and nearly everything in-between -- our society has become obsessed with a seductive illusion: that greatness results from doggedly measuring improvement in the relentless pursuit of an ambitious goal. In Why Greatness Cannot Be Planned, Stanley and Lehman begin with a surprising scientific discovery in artificial intelligence that leads ultimately to the conclusion that the objective obsession has gone too far. They make the case that great achievement can't be bottled up into mechanical metrics; that innovation is not driven by narrowly focused heroic effort; and that we would be wiser (and the outcomes better) if instead we whole-heartedly embraced serendipitous discovery and playful creativity.
Controversial at its heart, yet refreshingly provocative, this book challenges readers to consider life without a destination and discovery without a compass."