In most cases, I don\u2019t have deep expertise in the topic I\u2019m reading about. The research literature the authors cite is unfamiliar to me. I don\u2019t know whether the proposed idea is a near-consensus opinion or some quirky theory held by a fringe minority.<\/p>\n
As a result, reading big-idea books can lead to a common pattern:<\/p>\n
- \n
- You know nothing about a topic, X, and have few or no strong preconceived ideas.<\/li>\n
- You read an author with a bold proclamation, Y, which they claim is the right way to think about X. They support this claim with fancy citations, graphs, and impressive rejoinders to objections you hadn\u2019t even considered.<\/li>\n
- You leave convinced that Y is the right way to think about X. <\/li>\n
- Someone points out some of the flaws in Y. Maybe you read a different<\/em> book about all the reasons Y is the wrong way to think about X!<\/li>\n
- Now you feel hoodwinked. That original author, who proposed Y, had tricked you! What seemed obvious no longer does, and you\u2019re unsure what to believe.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
If you\u2019ve been through this cycle a few times, it\u2019s hard not to become cynical. What\u2019s the point of reading books if you frequently end up getting suckered in by bad ideas? How can you learn new things without getting seduced by misleading arguments?<\/p>\n
Why \u201cCritical Thinking\u201d Doesn\u2019t Work<\/h2>\n
The classic advice for dealing with this problem is that we need to become better \u201ccritical thinkers.\u201d There are many different versions of this advice, but some of them include:<\/p>\n
- \n
- We should insist on high-quality evidence.<\/strong> Randomized controlled trials with preregistered designs! Careful econometric methods to distinguish correlation from causation! Large sample sizes! Except such high-quality evidence often doesn\u2019t exist. Even when it does, aggregating it can be difficult\u2014authors frequently cite an excellent study that supports their conclusion, while ignoring equally good research that does not.<\/li>\n
- We should point out invalid arguments and logical fallacies.<\/strong> Other critical thinking advocates argue that we should read carefully and note reasoning mistakes. Was that an ad hominem<\/em> attack<\/a>? Did the author beg the question<\/a> in the conclusion? This approach sounds smart, but it assumes all arguments are reached through deduction and laid out as a syllogism. However, most reasoning is inductive (and abductive<\/a>) rather than deductive. At the same time, many fallacies of logical deduction are still good heuristics for other forms of reasoning (is it ad hominem<\/em> to accept the word of a credentialed scientist specializing in the topic over a random internet weirdo?), this approach is not a cure-all for wrong thinking. <\/li>\n
- We should invest effort to think deeply about ideas and decide for ourselves what to think.<\/strong> In this view, there\u2019s no method at all. Critical thinking is simply being smart about ideas and not letting sloppy ones trick you. Unfortunately, when reading a book, we\u2019ve already set ourselves up to lose\u2014the author has spent years<\/em> thinking through an argument we\u2019ve never even considered before. They\u2019ve planned their rhetorical moves well in advance, while we must improvise counterarguments while reading.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
I don\u2019t believe critical thinking is a skill at all. Instead, most of what we refer to as critical thinking is simply knowing more about the topic being discussed. Experts can spot the fallacies in certain arguments because they\u2019ve steeped themselves in the history of ideas and debates in the field for years. Newcomers have not, and therefore cannot.<\/p>\n
But therein lies our difficulty: how do you read a book like an expert without actually being one?<\/p>\n
Why Reading \u201cHostile\u201d Book Reviews is the Key to Smarter Reading<\/h2>\n
Generating a thoughtful rebuttal to a well-presented idea is hard. It requires a lot of expertise and mental effort, more than most of us are willing or able to expend on a book we bought because it looked interesting.<\/p>\n
Instead, the best solution is to seek out the best counterarguments available. These arguments are typically made by competing experts within the same field. What do those experts say is wrong with the book\u2019s idea?<\/p>\n
It may sound like reading a rebuttal would simply be an undoing of the original book\u2019s thesis. If you read a book and then then read its rebuttal, wouldn\u2019t you just be left with a confusing mess?<\/p>\n
But in practice, it usually doesn\u2019t work this way. Most books you read don\u2019t present a singular thesis; rather, they present an enormous collection of ideas and their implications. When you read rebuttals, they invariably zoom in on a few weak points in the author\u2019s argument.<\/p>\n
\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.scotthyoung.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Reading-books-connections.jpg\")
<\/figure>\n<\/div>\nIn fact, reading rebuttals can often bolster your appreciation of the original idea because you come to know which parts are conceded by even its most strident critics. When even your opponents admit that you\u2019re right about something, it\u2019s a strong sign that at least that part of your idea is correct.<\/p>\n
More importantly, reading thoughtful rebuttals outsources the expertise and extensive thinking required to find the flaws in big ideas to someone qualified to find them. Invariably, someone who has spent their entire life reading and thinking about a topic will do a better job noticing what\u2019s wrong with an idea than you will.<\/p>\n
How to Use This Strategy to Think Better<\/h2>\n
My preferred source for this type of rebuttal is scholarly book reviews. These tend to be written by experts in the field, whereas journalistic book reviews are often written by a non-expert (although this isn\u2019t always true; be sure to check the byline). To find these scholarly reviews, simply go to Google Scholar and type \u201cName of Book\u201d and \u201creview\u201d to find some examples.<\/p>\n
If this fails, another strategy is to find the book itself on Google Scholar and click \u201ccited by\u201d to find something that discusses the book rather than simply references it. If many authors have cited that particular book, you can search for reviews or critiques within the articles that have cited the original work. <\/p>\n
- We should point out invalid arguments and logical fallacies.<\/strong> Other critical thinking advocates argue that we should read carefully and note reasoning mistakes. Was that an ad hominem<\/em> attack<\/a>? Did the author beg the question<\/a> in the conclusion? This approach sounds smart, but it assumes all arguments are reached through deduction and laid out as a syllogism. However, most reasoning is inductive (and abductive<\/a>) rather than deductive. At the same time, many fallacies of logical deduction are still good heuristics for other forms of reasoning (is it ad hominem<\/em> to accept the word of a credentialed scientist specializing in the topic over a random internet weirdo?), this approach is not a cure-all for wrong thinking. <\/li>\n
- Now you feel hoodwinked. That original author, who proposed Y, had tricked you! What seemed obvious no longer does, and you\u2019re unsure what to believe.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n