I Think, Therefore, You’re Wrong
Greetings friends!
I’m more likely to be right, not because I’m unusually smart, although that’s part of it. It’s rather because of another quirk in my personality. I’ll start with the role of intelligence before turning to the quirk that makes me right annoyingly often.
You can use my method to be right more often, but it probably won’t come naturally.
Smart people work best with other smart people
Oh, how I envied Charlie Munger!
It’s not because he lived in good health to almost 100, although I think that would be great. Nor is it due to his billions in wealth, even though I too daydream about such riches.
No, the reason I envy Charlie Munger is that, as intelligent as he was, he worked with an equally smart business partner. Charlie described handling his disagreements with Warren Buffett by simply reminding him, “I’m right and you’re smart.”
What a wonderful phrase. A smart person knows they’re right and knows why. When they’re dealing with other smart people, they can count on those people to eventually get the point.
I’m smart... and I’m extremely grateful for it
It’s become taboo to discuss intelligence across societies. I understand why and while I find the taboo counterproductive, that’s another topic. I’ll limit myself to direct observation and first-hand experience.
Tested by educators in grade school and again 15 years later before heading to graduate school, my IQ appears to be in the top 1%. This is nothing I can take credit for, just the vagaries of nature. Not taking moral credit doesn’t make a high-IQ illusory, though.
Being in the top 1% of intellectual ability makes one 25 times more likely to earn a doctorate-level degree than the general population. This is where you find many successful doctors, lawyers, and business executives.
Not surprisingly, one’s earning power is linked to IQ as well. I’ve no doubt being smart put me in a position to earn well. I have a JD and an MBA and I worked as a lawyer in an executive role at a public company for many years.
A few months ago, I asked readers what their preference would be if they could choose between intelligence, attractiveness, and wealth. It was one of my most-commented articles and those comments were revealing.
James Bellerjeau
I’m tempted to say smart readers chose the intelligent answer (intelligence), while ugly, stupid people chose one of the other options. But that would be both incorrect and unkind—the sort of thing some writers do for cheap laughs.
Readers’ answers were nuanced and thoughtful and I saw valid arguments made for each of the three choices. At the same time, while I understand what led readers to choose beauty or wealth, I could see those choices were much more likely driven by emotion, not cool rationality.
That is the key to the quirk that’s made me an annoying debate partner.
I am low on empathy … and I don’t care how that makes you feel
I am not some psychopath completely lacking in empathy. Nor am I a sociopath, who has some understanding of what others feel but chooses to ignore it.
Too bad, or I could have leveraged my intelligence to become an oligarch or CEO. It’s also clear to me I could have had a fine criminal career had I further lacked morals and a value system.
No, thankfully I have feelings and I am aware that others have feelings. I rarely consider others’ feelings intuitively, however, or without consciously reminding myself to do so.
Unlike high intelligence, I find having low empathy decidedly less advantageous. I hurt people’s feelings by accident, I’m needlessly callous, and I am slow to pick up on social cues obvious to others.
Amidst these negatives, I’ve identified one significant positive: Most people make most decisions on an emotional basis and then rationalize them (if at all) afterward. I consider most situations analytically and dispassionately and only secondarily (if at all) consider the emotional implications.
This, it turns out, is a superpower. At least it’s a superpower if one’s goal is to avoid being passionately wrong. Incidentally, that is the name of the podcast I host with my friend, Randall Surles. If you want to go beyond the printed word and see and hear us in action, come check us out!
Clear seeing is immensely helpful to clear thinking
My education and my career honed my appreciation for this point: Successfully navigating the world requires an accurate perception of it.
From my psychology degree, I learned that people are a mess of emotions and predictably irrational behavior. From my economics degree, I learned that incentives directly drive behavior, both positive and negative. From my legal degree, I learned the power of dispassionately analyzing facts and applying a system of rules (the law) to those facts.
Entering the business world, I was amazed to see people confused about why events played out the way they did. Couldn’t they see the connection between the inputs and the outputs? Didn’t they realize that the design of systems not only predicted certain outcomes but virtually guaranteed them?
Apparently not. The reason, I came to understand, is that many people are led astray by their emotions. They live in the land of wishful thinking. This is what happens when you see what you want to see rather than the world as it actually is.
Wishful thinking applies both positively and negatively, so it’d be more accurate to call it delusional thinking. For example, some perceive slights where they do not exist. Others mistake a systemic advantage for anything but the gift it is.
I seem to dwell in delusional states less often than many people. My hypothesis is that I’m merely lucky to be low on the emotive scale. Together with above-average intelligence, that makes me more inclined to focus on the facts and consider what frame of reference is most useful for analyzing them.
Cogito ergo erras — and it’s not your fault
I think, therefore, you’re wrong. This sounds arrogant as hell, but now you know why I say it this way.
There are plenty of smart people in the world. A disproportionate number of them are here — after all, who is likely to be attracted to writing like this? I don’t fool myself that I’m smarter than many of my readers.
But what is less plentiful are people who can, by disposition like me or via practice like zen masters, put their emotions to the side and dispassionately look at a situation. That’s my default mode.
Thus, when I’ve written something you find yourself disagreeing with, the chances are good you’re wrong. It’s your wonderful human emotions that have led you astray.
If you find yourself incredibly annoyed with me right now, I understand. Really, I do. I'll try to make up for it next week.
In the meantime, if you can master your emotions enough to put them in the background while debating tough topics, you can take advantage of my method.
Be well.
If you’d like to be wrong less often and you’re not ready to simply agree with me, the next best thing is to read more of my work. Your friends will be amazed at how much smarter you’ve become.
Member discussion