This Simple Tool Will Improve Your Critical Thinking

0:00 This video is sponsored by boot.dev.

0:02 Learn software development through

0:04 immersive gamified experiences.

0:06 Go to boot.dev and use code wonder to get 25%

0:09 off your first annual plan.

0:11 Shawn's grandfather had passed [music]

0:13 away just 2 days earlier.

0:14 Though they weren't especially close, it was still

0:16 very affecting for Shawn.

0:18 His grandfather, who was a military veteran,

0:20 was a highly regimented and disciplined

0:22 individual.

0:23 This was quite a contrast

0:24 against Shawn's personality as someone

0:26 who prioritized fun, casualness, and

0:28 going with the flow.

0:30 Most of their conversations together carried some

0:32 undertone of his grandfather attempting

0:34 to urge him toward greater self-control

0:36 and discipline.

0:37 This made it all the

0:38 more unsettling when just after

0:40 midnight, the shaker bottle Shawn used

0:42 for his post-workout drinks fell off the

0:44 top of his fridge and crashed under the

0:46 floor, seemingly by itself and out of

0:48 nowhere.

0:49 He could barely sleep the rest

0:51 of the night.

0:52 The next day when he met up with his

0:54 girlfriend Marie, he of course told her

0:56 about the incident the first chance he

0:57 got.

0:58 "I'm telling you that was my

0:59 grandfather," Shawn said, sitting across

1:02 from Marie at a small table just outside

1:04 of a cafe.

1:05 I think it was his weird way

1:06 of reminding me to focus on my health,

1:09 to go back to the gym.

1:11 He would literally always say that.

1:12 Isn't that crazy?

1:14 Marie thought to herself for a moment.

1:16 She didn't want to dismiss Shawn's

1:18 theory outright, but she was a hardened

1:19 materialist and was far from [music]

1:21 convinced.

1:22 Her and Shawn's relationship

1:23 was still somewhat new, and so Marie

1:25 felt like this was perhaps a good

1:27 opportunity to see if and where she and

1:29 Shawn aligned in their world views and

1:31 to test out the malleability of their

1:32 conversations.

1:34 Marie reached across the

1:35 table and held Shawn's hand.

1:37 Yeah, that's super [music] weird.

1:38 So unsettling, she said.

1:41 There was a short

1:41 moment of silence before she continued.

1:44 But don't you think maybe there's a

1:45 simpler explanation?

1:46 Maybe the bottle was already sort of on the edge of the

1:48 fridge and as you opened and closed the

1:50 door more over time, it just sort of

1:52 slid to a spot where it would likely

1:54 fall with just the slightest movement or

1:56 draft.

1:56 [music] Just a really weird

1:57 coincidence.

1:59 This moment embodied something profound

2:01 about not only Shawn and Marie's

2:03 dynamic, but also about beliefs and

2:05 disagreements more broadly.

2:07 Inside nearly every explanation and every

2:09 disagreement between explanations [music] are the mechanisms and

2:12 principles through which individuals

2:13 decide what they believe is true.

2:15 how we navigate between and around perception,

2:18 meaning, and evidence.

2:19 And Shawn and Marie were for the first time revealing

2:22 their mechanisms and principles to each

2:24 other.

2:25 Regardless of whether Marie

2:26 realized it or not, here she was using

2:29 what is known as a philosophical razor,

2:31 a rule or principle for determining the

2:33 explanations for things by cutting away

2:35 all the less likely ones.

2:37 Specifically, she was using what is known as AAM's

2:40 razor, which suggests that the simplest

2:42 explanation for something that requires

2:44 the fewest assumptions is most likely to

2:46 be the correct one.

2:47 This principle has long been used in science and philosophy

2:50 as a way of cutting through confusion

2:52 and complexity.

2:53 Though, of course, the

2:54 simplest explanations aren't always the

2:56 true ones.

2:56 They just tend to be more

2:58 likely.

2:58 The more assumptions or premises

3:00 an argument requires, the more complex

3:02 the alignment of factors [music] must

3:03 be, and the less likely it will be true

3:05 compared to simpler alternatives.

3:07 For Marie and Shawn, the argument that the

3:09 bottle falling was due to gravity and

3:11 natural explainable movement is far

3:13 simpler and requires far fewer

3:14 assumptions than a supernatural event.

3:18 I've had that bottle up there forever,

3:20 Shawn said.

3:21 It's never fallen.

3:22 Nothing's fallen.

3:23 Then 2 days after my grandfather

3:25 dies, that specific thing falls.

3:28 Come on.

3:28 That's a little too much of a

3:29 coincidence for me.

3:30 I know this stuff

3:31 can seem crazy to people who have never

3:33 experienced it, but I'm telling you,

3:34 it's real.

3:36 Hm.

3:36 Marie uttered.

3:38 I've just never experienced anything like that

3:40 supernatural in my [music] whole life.

3:43 Why would I never experience anything

3:44 like that?

3:45 She asked earnestly.

3:47 I don't know.

3:47 Not everybody does, I guess.

3:49 But I think if you accept it as a possibility,

3:51 you start to notice instances of it.

3:54 But how would someone accept it without ever

3:56 having evidence of it?

3:57 Personally, I think for a claim that big that there

4:00 are supernatural entities and phenomena

4:02 interacting with the physical world,

4:04 there would need to be super clear

4:05 evidence.

4:06 All I've ever encountered are

4:08 other people's personal anecdotes and

4:09 maybe some ambiguous, very questionable

4:11 videos online.

4:14 Here, Marie pulled out another razor,

4:16 this one referred to as the Sean

4:17 Standard, popularized by astronomer Carl

4:20 Sean.

4:21 It states that extraordinary

4:22 claims require extraordinary evidence.

4:25 In other words, to make large claims

4:27 about what is true, particularly when

4:28 the claims undermine expectations,

4:30 norms, perceptions, or scientific

4:32 understanding, then the evidence for the

4:34 claims must be proportionally large.

4:36 Like with how Maria is applying it, it's

4:38 not meant to discount extraordinary

4:40 possibilities outright, but rather help

4:42 provide a standard of measurement for a

4:44 claim's burden of proof.

4:45 If Shawn is going to suggest something otherworldly

4:48 happened, his evidence, at least for

4:50 Marie, must rise to meet the

4:51 implications of that claim.

4:54 But how can you just dismiss people's

4:56 experiences?

4:57 Isn't that evidence in and

4:58 of itself?

4:59 Shawn said, "I'm telling you,

5:00 this was beyond explanation, and we have

5:02 no way of proving it wasn't something

5:04 supernatural, right?" He continued,

5:06 [music] "Yeah, you're right." Marie

5:09 responded sincerely.

5:10 "But doesn't that also mean you have no way of proving it

5:12 was?

5:13 If you could say something is

5:14 supernatural without evidence, can I say

5:16 that it isn't without evidence?" Shawn

5:19 thought to himself for a minute, looking

5:20 away.

5:21 His argument had just been sliced

5:23 with another razor, this time with

5:25 Hitchens razor, named after popular

5:27 British author Christopher Hitchens.

5:29 It suggests that what can be asserted

5:31 without evidence can also be dismissed

5:33 without evidence.

5:34 As Maria alluded to,

5:36 the burden of proof always rests on

5:37 those who make the claim, and without

5:39 that burden being met, a productive

5:41 discussion becomes very unlikely.

5:44 But isn't the absurdity of the event

5:46 evidence of something supernatural?

5:48 Shawn finally said, "I think absurdity

5:50 is evidence of expectations being

5:52 undermined, but not necessarily what

5:54 they are being undermined by.

5:56 I totally get why you might add greater

5:57 significance to [music] it, though.

5:59 And I'm not saying other explanations are

6:00 impossible.

6:01 I'm just saying less likely,

6:03 I guess." So, if your cup just started

6:05 floating right now and then flew across

6:07 the street, what would you say?

6:09 Shawn said matterof factly.

6:11 I would say something very weird happened, but I

6:13 would need to be able to know and test

6:14 all the variables to say why.

6:16 And what if you couldn't?

6:18 What if nothing was

6:18 testable or knowable?

6:20 Then I guess I

6:20 wouldn't claim I knew what happened,

6:22 Marie said.

6:23 H Shawn murmured with a

6:25 little concession in his tone.

6:27 I suppose this stuff could be debated then, but

6:29 just not settled, he continued.

6:31 Is it really worth debating then?

6:33 Marie responded.

6:35 Here, Marie used one final razor to

6:38 shave the entire discussion down to

6:39 scraps.

6:40 Alders's razor popularized by

6:42 mathematician Mike Alder which says that

6:45 what cannot be settled by experiment or

6:47 observation is not worth debating.

6:49 Though this is a powerful way of

6:51 narrowing in on only what can be

6:52 practically engaged with like in the

6:54 case of Marie here.

6:55 It can also risk

6:56 taking everything down with it because

6:58 of course so much of reality cannot be

7:00 settled by clear experiment or

7:02 observation.

7:03 And in the words of Alder

7:04 himself referring to his own razor,

7:06 "While the insistence on ensuring that

7:08 any statement is testable by observation

7:10 undoubtedly cuts out the crap, it also

7:13 seems to cut out almost everything else

7:14 as well." [music] "Maybe not for the purposes of truth,

7:19 but for [music] wonder and the openness

7:21 to possibility, I think it is worth

7:23 debating," Shawn concluded.

7:26 Marie thought to herself for a moment, then

7:28 she smiled.

7:30 "I agree with that

7:31 actually," she said.

7:33 Good, Shawn said, smiling back.

7:35 The two lifted and

7:36 clinkedked their coffee cups together.

7:38 Here, Marie and Shawn together [music]

7:41 pointed at something perhaps more

7:42 important than the dynamics and methods

7:44 of argumentation.

7:45 That is, how and why

7:46 we might argue to begin with what

7:48 arguments are worth having, how we might

7:50 go about them successfully, and what the

7:52 ultimate goals of an argument are or

7:54 should likely be.

7:56 Fundamentally, an argument arises when

7:58 two or more parties hold and express

8:00 conflicting beliefs about a phenomenon.

8:02 Being a species that sees reality

8:04 through the [music] tiny pinhole of its

8:05 consciousness, whose view is

8:07 significantly skewed by time, place,

8:09 culture, and personal psychology, it is

8:11 only natural that people often see,

8:13 feel, and believe different things.

8:15 Moreover, our sense of identity is

8:17 largely built on these experiences and

8:19 beliefs.

8:19 [music] So, any challenge to

8:20 them could feel like a challenge against

8:22 us.

8:23 Being wrong or admitting to being

8:25 wrong is an existential threat.

8:27 [music] It hurts to be wrong in general, but it

8:29 is unbearable when it is about something

8:31 we've built our identity, life, or

8:33 worldview around.

8:35 In these moments, it

8:36 is revealed to us just how fallible,

8:38 ignorant, [music] and brittle we are.

8:40 That part or all of our source of

8:42 meaning or truth, which we have used as

8:44 an anchor against the currents of

8:45 futility, is [music] weak or touching

8:47 nothing.

8:49 As a result, for many of us, we

8:51 don't see arguments as opportunities for

8:52 new understandings or more optimal

8:54 outcomes.

8:55 Instead, we often see them as

8:57 opportunities to reaffirm ourselves and

8:59 feel the pride of ownership over some

9:01 material of reality, regardless of the

9:03 material's use or validity.

9:05 But of course, the irony is in arguing chiefly

9:08 to win and in holding so tightly onto

9:10 our belief anchors, we only work to

9:12 perpetuate the depth of our ignorance

9:14 and our susceptibility to being wrong.

9:16 We remain stuck in place as the world

9:18 flows by us.

9:20 This is why it is so

9:21 crucial to learn how to argue well.

9:23 Not to always win, but to always be

9:25 improving how we think and see the

9:26 world.

9:27 [music] To maintain greater

9:28 openness to possibility and the adoption

9:30 of new, better ideas.

9:32 To paraphrase world champion debater

9:34 Boso, intelligence is knowing how to win

9:37 an argument.

9:38 Wisdom is knowing whether

9:39 an argument is worth engaging in, which

9:41 parts, if any, and why.

9:44 In a world that is increasingly

9:46 fragmented by technology and algorithms,

9:48 where information abounds, but shared

9:50 [music] truths have seemingly been

9:51 eroded by the overflow, there's no

9:53 shortage of things to argue over.

9:55 Everything has always been up for

9:57 debate.

9:57 But now there is so much more of

9:59 everything.

10:01 More optimally, dealing with this

10:02 condition [music] of the world does not

10:03 involve winning more arguments, but

10:05 participating in them more selectively

10:07 and thoughtfully.

10:10 So suggests [music] a simple framework

10:11 for this called the Rissa framework.

10:13 Before engaging in any disagreement, we

10:15 [music] should ask the following four

10:16 questions.

10:18 One, is it real?

10:20 That is, is the disagreement based off of a genuine

10:22 divergence or is it a simple

10:24 misunderstanding?

10:25 Two, is it important?

10:27 Does the subject warrant time and effort and could debate

10:30 around it produce a meaningful,

10:32 productive outcome?

10:33 Three, is it specific?

10:36 Is the disagreement over

10:37 something clear and concrete?

10:39 And four, [music] are we aligned?

10:41 That is, are all

10:42 parties aligned on the goal of the

10:44 argument?

10:44 Specifically, one that is fair

10:46 and results in resolution for so if the

10:49 answer to any of these questions is no,

10:51 then the argument is likely best avoided

10:53 or at least paused [music] and reframed

10:55 until those conditions can be met.

10:58 Though this is a solid framework,

10:59 [music] of course, things are rarely

11:01 that simple or clear.

11:03 And so recognizes this.

11:05 He says, "One of the limitations

11:06 of the RISA framework that I worry about

11:08 is that it is increasingly [music]

11:10 difficult to find the right kind of

11:11 alignment in people's interests for

11:13 wanting to engage in a disagreement.

11:15 So, if [music] you have two sides that

11:16 simply want to hurt one another's

11:18 feelings, that's some kind of alignment,

11:20 but not the right kind that leads to

11:22 productive conversations.

11:24 Moreover, our goals can often be hidden

11:27 from others and even ourselves.

11:29 We might think we want resolution, but what we

11:32 really want deep down is to hear our own

11:34 voice be the loudest.

11:36 And more broadly, who defines what is important, real, or

11:39 productive?

11:40 Are those not also up for

11:42 debate?

11:42 What framework might we use for

11:44 debating the meta layers of frameworks

11:46 themselves?

11:48 Needless to say, no matter what we do,

11:50 we have and will continue to find

11:52 ourselves in disagreements of all kinds,

11:54 big and small, serious and trivial,

11:56 worthy and [music] irrelevant, between

11:58 friends, family, groups, communities,

12:00 cultures, and nations.

12:02 Frameworks like Rissa are useful for determining what

12:04 arguments are worth getting into, and

12:06 philosophical razors are powerful tools

12:09 to help parse which ideas and

12:10 explanations are [music] worth taking

12:12 seriously within an argument.

12:14 But perhaps more important than any

12:15 framework or tool are the sensibilities

12:17 and attitudes we carry in and out of

12:19 arguments.

12:21 Ultimately, so much of the world of

12:23 selfhood of existence [music]

12:25 cannot be explained, tested or known, at

12:28 least not yet by us.

12:30 And so much of what

12:31 can be tested and seemingly known can

12:33 and often does change or reveal itself

12:35 to be wrong or incomplete, whether

12:37 through the flux of reality or the

12:39 improvement of our ability to interface

12:41 with reality.

12:43 And so we will win more

12:44 arguments and debates not by having the

12:46 last word or by walking away with the

12:48 prize of an opponent's concession, but

12:50 by recognizing and embracing perhaps the

12:53 only knowable consistent truth, we

12:55 almost never know what we are talking

12:56 about.

12:58 But just as Shawn and Marie

13:00 ultimately realized, this matters far

13:02 less than the fact that we are talking.

13:05 That together we are continuing to

13:07 wonder and question [music] and explore.

13:09 That we are expressing and listening.

13:11 That we are knowing and not knowing.

13:14 That we are trying and improving.

13:23 More than winning for the sake of

13:24 winning, the true prize of the game of

13:26 debate is becoming better and [music]

13:28 more capable in our thinking.

13:30 Carving away our errors or unawareness.

13:33 Considering things through this

13:34 game-like perspective is perhaps the

13:36 most effective way to improve in just

13:37 about any area of life.

13:39 That's why this video sponsor boot.dev is such a

13:42 fantastic fit for this video and such an

13:44 incredible platform for learning

13:46 software development.

13:47 In a world dominated by technology and distraction,

13:50 the best way to learn is one where you

13:52 never get bored.

13:53 And one of the smartest

13:54 things to learn is the very technology

13:56 that underpins the world.

13:57 Boot.dev embraces these truths [music] and

14:00 connects to the game lover in all of us.

14:02 Functioning as a programming RPG game,

14:04 it uses modern game design to help you

14:06 on your real world journey of learning

14:08 to code from beginner to expert.

14:10 Go on quests, fight bosses, earn XP, levels,

14:14 and achievements, all while building

14:15 actual projects.

14:17 You can learn Python,

14:18 SQL, and Go, build book bots, static

14:21 sites, explore cryptography, and so much

14:24 more.

14:24 Boot.dev also recently launched

14:26 the training grounds where you can

14:28 endlessly practice coding challenges

14:29 before embarking on your next quest.

14:31 In the end, you'll be able to embark on

14:33 your ultimate quest, taking what you

14:35 learn and applying it to passing

14:37 technical interviews, creating your own

14:38 web apps, or building a career in

14:40 software development.

14:42 And the median salary for back-end developers in the US

14:44 in 2024 was well over $100,000.

14:48 So, it's a fantastic path to pursue.

14:50 Go to boot.dev and use code wonder to get 25%

14:53 off your first annual plan.

14:56 And [music] of course, as always, thank you so much

14:58 for watching in general.

15:00 And see you next video.