What's Our Problem?: A Self-Help Book for Societies

Product Information

If you're insulting or denouncing your partner in discussion, that's your "low mind" talking. If you're trying to shut the other person up, that's your "low mind" talking. If you're refusing to answer a relevant question because the answer would be detrimental to your point, that's your "low mind" talking. If you're refusing to agree on objectively obvious common ground with someone you disagree with, that's your "low mind" talking. If you're declaring victory over someone on the main point because you have caught them admitting uncertainty or making a mistake on just a supporting point, that's your "low mind" talking. Sports fan — We’re slightly more biased. We’ll still accept the rules of the game, but we really want our team to win. Whatever is good for our team, we’re likely to believe.

The problem is, we’re not just reading this book – we’re writing it. And at the moment, it’s being written by a bunch of spoiled, immature toddlers. You see, society isn’t maturing in the way that we’d like. Tribalism, false news, floundering institutions, and political division are just some of the problems that define the tumultuous times we live in. Do a self-audit: Where in your internal life is your Primitive Mind holding the reins? What are the triggers that activate your Primitive Mind and leave you buried in fog? Where do you tend to be at your best—consistently high rung, wise, and grown up? What is it about those moments that gives your Higher Mind such a strong advantage? Can you replicate that elsewhere?”We live in a world where two main competing tribes are essentially living in separate realities. This isn’t a good environment for high-rung thinkers who thrive on open debate and freedom of speech. Now, this can be a touchy subject, so Urban asks that you approach it with an open mind. In the interest of upsetting everyone equally, let’s look at modern lower-rung thinking from both sides of the political spectrum. Narrowcast Media: Tim explains how it’s become more profitable for TV companies to serve a narrow audience, such as Republican or Democratic voters, instead of trying to serve everyone. Therefore, we got outlets such as Fox News and CNN, which serve their distinct audiences and present every event in a light that favors their side. TV companies do not try to present both sides, to stay moderate, or to explain the complexity of issues. At the end, after explaining in great detail how there can be social equilibria that greatly discourage the high mind use, at least near politics, Urban finally offers his solution: “awareness and courage”. We should just defy our social incentives and “climb” to our higher minds. First, stop saying what you don’t believe, then start saying what you “really think” in private, then say it in public. After all, “for many of us, the fear of putting it all out there is mostly in our own heads.” Sure some will like you less, but you should more respect the others who will like you more. So now we have echo chambers – the breeding ground of the low-rung thinker who doesn’t want to have their sacred views challenged. And this homogeneity leads to people becoming more extreme in their views – the hypercharged tribalism we see today.

The first part of our solution is awareness, and the gateway to awareness is humility… The most important thing for us to remember is that we do our rational and moral thinking with a not-that-smart tool that was designed to keep an ancient primate alive. Staying aware of this can help us be our wisest selves and reach our potential… So the first call to action is: Put your own mask on before helping others.”Zealot — We are no better than religious zealots, refusing any dissenting information. We hold on desperately to our beliefs and defend them viciously. No amount of facts or differing opinions will change our mind. The thesis is clearly laid out and is compelling. That is, there is more to politics than a simple right/left divide. There is a full matrix, with progressive and clear thinking on each end of the spectrum, as well as emotionally driven argumentative silliness on each end of the spectrum. I totally agree! It makes sense. And the illustrations are a lot of fun and fully inspired. Tim lays out good examples of this thinking, and he even touches on the recent downward slide of the Republican Party into the emotionally driven argumentative ridiculous stuff that we have all witnessed since about 2015. I thought he was brave for going there, as I feared it might alienate half of his readership to do so. One precaution about the book: you, as a reader, need to remember that the concepts and distinctions the author presents are just thinking frameworks for simplifying the analysis. No one is ultimately just a Higher or Lower thinker, and there is no binary High or Low mindedness in our brains. Someone might be a more Higher-minded thinker than you on one topic, and you might be more Higher-minded on another. You might be a Low-rung thinker about one topic now, and maybe after some research, you will understand the complexity of the situation and will start being more Higher-minded. And the same applies to the SJF grouping that Tim defines - it’s useful to characterize the movement, but don’t fall into the trap of characterizing anyone who has a far-left view on a topic as a cultish radical Social Justice Fundamentalist - maybe once you start talking to them, they actually have valid evidence and arguments. Think about how people think rather than what they think. This book lays out several clear and present social trends, describing them not in terms of left and right, or right and wrong, but on an axis of thought vs. fear. I walked away not reveling in confirmation that Trumpism is a huge threat to our country, but that SJF is its doppelgänger, and I am complicit in supporting it. I am not cheering for my side quite as hard, and see better how well-meaning movements have created a narrative for the Right that is real and valid. Mom was right: the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

For a start, don’t say things that you don’t believe. Sounds obvious, but speaking out against a group can be scary. If you find yourself conforming because it feels safe, dig a bit deeper for the courage to say what you truly feel. beliefs are usually installed early on in life (often based on the prevailing beliefs of your family, peer group, or broader community). Now, the far-left isn’t much better than the far-right, and Tim focuses a lot on the problem of “wokeness” and Social Justice Warriors (or, as he calls them, Social Justice Fundamentalists, SJFs). Human nature is a constant, and when you put that constant into different environments, it produces different behavior. That makes environment the independent variable. And human environments are complicated—they include the physical environment, the surrounding people and cultures, the prevailing beliefs and belief systems, and the laws and rules.” Let’s apply our ladder metaphor to extreme political views. It’s easy to look at fundamentalist attitudes and talk about the far right or far left, but a better way is to think of them as lower left, or lower right on the ladder – it’s how they think, not what they think.From the creator of the wildly popular blog Wait But Why, a fun and fascinating deep dive into what the hell is going on in our strange, unprecedented modern times. The third rung is where problems start. Here your primitive mind has a much greater influence. Now you’re “thinking like an attorney.” You’ll argue or defend a point no matter how truthful or logical it is. You’re not just motivated to be right, you’re obligated. On this rung, you’ll see people claiming that the earth is flat or the CIA is after them, with no amount of evidence changing their minds. The book glosses over an ivermectin-peddler (Weinstein) and a (partially) Koch-funded institute (FIRE) and hopes that readers don't notice. The anecdotes/data from those sources may still be valid, but from the reader's perspective it feels dishonest to not hang a lampshade on the anti-science/conservative bias that immediately comes to mind.