Do It Like Darwin

Seeing clearly also means seeing both sides of the table. For that, we have a mental model brought to you by none other than Charles Darwin himself.

00:17

if Darwin attended Harvard in: 1986

Biologist E.O. Wilson estimated that Darwin's IQ would have been around 130 or so - high, but not quite the level (140) where the word "genius" starts getting mentioned. He was obviously very bright, but the point is that he possessed a different skill that led him to his accomplishments.

Darwin was relentless about learning.

He devoured information about all the topics he was interested in pursuing. He hoarded facts and was hyper-diligent about taking notes. His ability to hold attention was legendary, and his work ethic was tireless. Darwin's thinking was purposely slow because he was so fastidiously detail-oriented. He believed that to have any authority on any topic, one needed to develop deep expertise on it, and expertise doesn't happen overnight (or in a month or in a year).

And here's where he deviated to the point that we want to use him as a mental model: Darwin's method was so all-encompassing that he even gave deep attention to information that countered or challenged his own theories. This approach forms the backbone of his golden rule as he expressed in his autobiography and the mental model we attribute to him. The basic guideline of Darwin's golden rule was to be more than just open to contradicting or opposing ideas - indeed, Darwin gave it his fullest attention:

I had, also, during many years, followed a golden rule, namely, that whenever a published fact, a new observation or thought came across me, which was opposed to my general results, to make a memorandum of it without fail and at once; for I had found by experience that such facts and thoughts were far more apt to escape from memory than favorable ones.

Darwin completely immersed himself in evidence or explanations that went against his findings because he was aware that the human mind is inclined to dispose of those contrary views. If he didn't investigate them as fully as he could, he'd be likely to forget them, and that created mental dishonesty. Darwin knew that his own instinctual thinking could be a hindrance to finding the truth as much as it could help, and he established a way to ensure he wasn't missing out on any information.

Darwin handled all this conflicting information responsibly.

He genuinely considered material that might have disproved his assertions and took pains to fully absorb every single scenario, anomaly, and exception to his theories. He didn't filter out information that didn't support his beliefs; he was utterly immune to confirmation bias. More than anything else, Darwin didn't want to be careless in finding the truth - he knew that a half-cocked assertion solely intended to persuade others without much thought was intellectually dishonest. Doing so required more time and effort on his part, but he was committed.

Of course, the Darwinian golden rule calls back to intellectual honesty and the maxim "strong opinions but held lightly." It assumes intellectual humility: being unattached to any stances or theories and simply following the evidence.

Uniquely, Darwin forces a dialogue of skepticism back onto himself instead of onto others in defensiveness. He dispassionately questioned himself in a way that we reserve for others. He would direct questions inward, such as, What do you know? Are you sure? Why are you sure? How can it be proved? What potential errors could you have made? Where is this conflicting view coming from and why? As you can imagine, it takes quite a bit of self-discipline to constantly double-check yourself.

275

Darwin accurately realized that if you hold the belief that everyone else is wrong, you're in trouble. Unfortunately, the simplest explanation is that you are the one who's wrong.

Darwin knew he had to comprehend the arguments against his own theories more thoroughly than someone who made those arguments. He probably would have been a very poor salesman. This mental model is certainly not how most people think, and that's the beauty of it.

As an extension of Darwin's golden rule and embracing both sides of an issue, you must be willing to blindly follow the evidence. Wherever it points is where you go. It's likely that you'll have a narrative in your head beforehand, but it's something you have to put completely to the side.

You might find real evidence that supports your point of view - great. But you'll also find evidence that you don't necessarily want to face, the kind that offers cogent and reasonable arguments against your position. Even people who have devoted themselves to fearless truth-seeking might bristle at this kind of evidence and try to avoid or ignore it.

What would Darwin say? That's exactly the kind of evidence you should need to follow and follow to its utmost. It's a deceptively simple task - if you can resist the psychological discomfort it causes.

Treat all the evidence you receive by the same standards of reliability. All of it needs to pass the same sniff test. You must be circumspect of all evidence, and this means tending toward high-quality information more than high quantities of information.

Overall, Darwin's mental model is about one thing over all else: truth. Out of all the models in this book, this might be the one most neglected and abused of all.