How to Think: A Survival Guide for a World at Odds  (Alan Jacobs)

How to Think: A Survival Guide for a World at Odds
Amazon BR
Thinking Fast and Slow foi um dos livros mais maneiros que li em 2016. Nele, Daniel Kahneman apresenta os dois sistemas que formam o nosso pensamento: o sistema 1, emocional, rápido e intuitivo, e o sistema 2, racional e mais lento. Se Kahnenam traz um lado mais neuropsicológico do pensamento, em How to Think: A Survival Guide for a World at Odds, Jacobs busca o viés social — ou como o autor afirma: a arte do pensar. Não pensamos sozinhos; o pensamento e suas armadilhas são guiados pela necessidade de pertencer. Com essa premissa, o autor busca explicar alguns fenômenos como a extrema polarização política em redes sociais e os debates em seções de comentários online, que não raro tomam proporções bizarras.

Em How to Think: A Survival Guide for a World at Odds , Jacobs também traz à mesa boas práticas contra o ego e a birra, uma dupla que adora ficar de plateia e influenciar discussões. “Dar 5 minutos” a uma nova ideia, evitando responder a ela com uma refutação imediata, e entender que debates não são guerras são um bom começo para tal. Em vez de recorrer às clássicas falácias lógicas do pensamento, Jacobs propõe a arte do pensar de forma mais honesta, com o objetivo de entender, aprender e ponderar. Em tempos de extremismos, fake news e canalhices de discurso, uma excelente leitura.

Em resumo, algumas das propostas de Jacobs para pensar de forma mais clara:

1. Espere 5 minutos antes de responder ou refutar. Dê uma volta; deixe a informação ser digerida.
2. Não debata para ganhar. Debata para aprender.
3. Evite pessoas nervosas, cegas pela emoção: não alimente os trolls.
4. Você não precisa ter uma opinião sobre tudo.
5. Se o seu grupo social exige que você pondere sobre tudo, pondere sobre sua escolha de grupo.
6. Procure pessoas com cujas opiniões você não concorda. Escute. Aprenda. Avalie.
7. Perceba quais são as suas respostas emocionais. A arte do pensar coloca na balança o emocional e o racional.
8. Antes de dar uma resposta, resuma os argumentos da outra parte de forma honesta — entendi corretamente seus argumentos?
Avaliação: 4/5

Quotes:

⇢ “For me, the fundamental problem we have may best be described as an orientation of the will: we suffer from a settled determination to avoid thinking. Relatively few people want to think. Thinking troubles us; thinking tires us. Thinking can force us out of familiar, comforting habits; thinking can complicate our lives; thinking can set us at odds, or at least complicate our relationships, with those we admire or love or follow. Who needs thinking?”

⇢ “But for people of all ages, some form of genuine membership is absolutely necessary for thinking. We have already seen that it is not possible to “think for yourself” in the sense of thinking independently of others; and we have likewise seen how the pressures imposed on us by Inner Rings make genuine thinking almost impossible by making belonging contingent on conformity. The only real remedy for the dangers of false belonging is the true belonging to, true membership in, a fellowship of people who are not so much like-minded as like-hearted.”

⇢ “To think independently of other human beings is impossible, and if it were possible it would be undesirable. Thinking is necessarily, thoroughly, and wonderfully social. Everything you think is a response to what someone else has thought and said. And when people commend someone for “thinking for herself” they usually mean “ceasing to sound like people I dislike and starting to sound more like people I approve of.””

⇢ “G. K. Chesterton wrote, “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment. He is not hampered by a sense of humour or by charity, or by the dumb certainties of experience. He is the more logical for losing certain sane affections. Indeed, the common phrase for insanity is in this respect a misleading one. The madman is not the man who has lost his reason. The madman is the man who has lost everything except his reason.””

⇢ “Establishing and holding a position in that way is natural, probably inevitable, but it can lead to errors. You become resistant to acknowledging that the facts have changed; you become entrenched. You’ve devoted a lot of time and energy to establishing your ground, protecting it from assault. To change now would be, it seems to you, to admit that all that work was for nothing.

Amazon BR

Deixe uma resposta

O seu endereço de e-mail não será publicado. Campos obrigatórios são marcados com *