But I think approximately everyone has at least one of those beliefs; it’s just not that obvious because many of these strange beliefs are idiosyncratic, and people often hide them from each other and sometimes even from themselves (by avoiding thinking about that belief, or by not reflecting on how crazy the belief would seem to others).

For one person, the weird belief may be their lucky coin (see this lovely essay that I learned about from @mariellevolz after writing a first draft of this essay).

For another person, it may be an unsupported belief that they are unlovable.

For a third person, it might be an attachment to a certain diet that they’re convinced would solve all sorts of problems if everyone would just go on it (like they did).

Or it could be a strange belief they learned from their childhood religion, which everyone except adherents of their exact denomination of their religion sees as ridiculous.

And so on.

Because I think just about everyone has strange false beliefs like this, I try not to judge people too much based on the fact that they have a “weird” belief that I think is way out of alignment with reality. Of course, even if I’m right, that doesn’t mean everyone is an equally “bad” thinker.

Some people think, “That person believes X, what an idiot,” and write the person off. I aspire not to do that based on one crazy belief but rather to look at a person’s beliefs and how they arrive at their beliefs more holistically.

Being an effective thinker is better measured by how we do, on average, on the important things (weighted by their importance) rather than the worst thinking we do on any single topic.

I also believe that with time and consistent effort, we all can get better at thinking clearly and that it’s a worthwhile investment for most people.

But even with hard work, we’re unlikely to get to zero weird false beliefs.

This piece was first written on February 2, 2024, and first appeared on my website on March 7, 2024.

A. our theoretical understanding of what things are “really” like (physics, atoms, etc.)

with

B. our direct, first-hand experiences as humans.

Examples:

(1) Ethics – most people experience a visceral feeling that some things are inherently and universally morally wrong (e.g., murdering children). Yet it’s unclear what, in the universe of atoms (or in physics), could make (or explain) something being “wrong.”

(2) Free will – we feel as though we constantly make choices (e.g., picking options that we didn’t have to pick). Yet the possibility of choices is hard to square with the existence of laws of physics as we know them. Where could a choice possibly fit into those laws?

(3) Consciousness – we each know we are conscious (in the sense of having experiences / there being something it is like to be us) because we directly witness our own experiences. Yet it’s unclear how or why configurations of atoms could ever give rise to internal experiences.

(4) Identity – we feel like we have a unique, persistent, indivisible identity. Yet, if we imagine thought experiments involving splitting, copying, or rebuilding brains in the physical world, it’s hard to see how a unitary identity could be maintained in those circumstances.

(5) Knowledge – there seem to be many things we each intuitively know to be true (our own names, what orange juice tastes like, how to tie our shoelaces), yet it’s hard to explain what the state of “knowing” these things corresponds to in the world, or to define what “knowing” is.

(6) Mathematics – we all know it’s true that 1+1 = 2 and that the number 2 “exists” in some sense. But it’s hard to say in what sense this is true/existent because numbers and addition don’t seem to exist in the physical realm the way that, say, a particular sandwich does.

This piece was first written on December 23, 2020, and first appeared on this site on April 17, 2023.

Suppose that the vast majority of people identify themselves as being either part of group Apple, Banana, or Cherry and that these groups are typically viewed as being mutually exclusive (e.g., few people say they are “Apple-Bananas”). Furthermore, suppose that on the issues where Apples, Bananas, and Cherries all reach different conclusions, you agree with 65% of the positions of Apples, 15% of the positions of Bananas, 5% of the positions of Cherries, and the remaining 15% of issues you don’t agree with any of the three groups. So clearly, you agree with Apples far more often than Bananas or Cherries, yet on 35% of issues, you don’t agree with Apples (even though it’s the group you agree with most often on other issues).

In this case, how should you think about your group identity, and what should you call yourself?

Option 1: Call yourself and think of yourself as an Apple. This seems to be by far the most common solution.

Advantages:

• It’s simple.
• It conveys a lot of information about your beliefs very quickly.
• It describes the set of positions that you are closest to agreeing with (so if you were forced to pick one group, it would clearly be the right choice).
• It’s what most people would do in your position.
• It is what people expect you to do.
• It is less confusing to other people than other options are.
• It makes it clear what side you’re on.
• It builds trust with other Apples. Apples will be more likely to join your efforts to fight against Bananas and Cherries. People will have the sense that they understand you. Your alignment with Apple may help increase the power of the Apple group (which you may or may not want) and may cause you to bolster Apple’s causes more greatly.

Disadvantages:

• It provides incorrect information about 35% of your positions. Now that you identify as an Apple, if someone criticizes Apple, you are more likely to feel defensive or as if the criticism is being aimed at you. When Apples do something bad, you may be tempted to downplay it or deny it instead of criticizing it.
• Others will expect you to dislike Cherries (who are currently the standard enemy of Apples). Apples will diss on the Cherry or Banana groups in front of you and expect you to join in on the fun. When Cherries or Bananas do something good, you may feel tempted to downplay it or deny that it was good.
• You may feel increasing discomfort about the 15% of positions where you agree with Bananas and the 5% of positions where you agree with Cherries, and so you may start revising those positions so that you are more like an Apple or at least stop talking about them.
• You may altogether stop contradicting Apple’s views publicly because you feel it weakens your group or makes Apple uncomfortable. Bananas and Cherries will trust you less and feel more disconnected from you.
• You may be more likely to frame what’s happening in society as primarily a battle between Apples, Bananas, and Cherries.
• You may be less likely to discover correct perspectives that are not Apple’s perspectives, especially if they are Cherry’s perspectives.
• You may start believing false things that Apples say.
• You may be more likely to find Banana and Cherry news annoying, so increasingly read only Apple news.
• You may be more likely to find Bananas and Cherries annoying, and so increasingly spend time only with Apples.

Option 2: Say that you don’t identify strongly with any of the groups. If pressed for more information, say that while your positions tend to be closer to Apple positions than Banana or Cherry positions on average, your views aren’t accurately represented by any of the major groups and that you often disagree with Apple positions, so it isn’t very accurate to say you are an Apple.

Advantages:

• You may feel less pressure to say you agree with things that you don’t actually agree with.
• You may generally feel freer to express whatever non-Apple opinions you have.
• You won’t transmit as much inaccurate information about your beliefs (since you won’t be aligning yourself with a group that you disagree with on 35% of positions).
• Bananas and Cherries will trust you more because you don’t identify as an Apple. People may listen more to the details of what you believe rather than assuming that they already know.
• You may find it easier to pick out the best and truest positions coming from each group, especially the Banana and Cherry groups.
• You may find it easier to change your mind about standard Apple positions.
• You may find it easier to see the flaws in each group and to criticize any of the groups when you think they deserve it.
• You may feel freer to develop your own positions that are different than those held by any of the three groups.
• People will develop a more complex and nuanced model of your views once you’ve had a chance to describe them in detail rather than bucketing you.

Disadvantages:

• People might find it odd that you aren’t taking sides.
• People may be confused at first about what you believe.  It will take people longer to gain a basic (simple) understanding of your views (though they may end up with a deeper understanding of your views once you’ve had time to elaborate). The conversation about your identity may not end as quickly, and you may have to explain yourself.
• Apples may trust you less because they won’t know if you are in their group.
• Some Apples may feel annoyed that you aren’t supporting the Apple cause in its war against the Cherries.
• Some may say you are missing the bigger picture and that the important thing is defeating the Cherries (not highlighting differences you have with the group you already agree with on 65% of issues), so just take the Apple side, and let’s go to battle already.

If this conundrum is one that you face, I think it’s worth taking a minute or two to carefully consider which of these options is the better one.

This piece was first written on August 18, 2017, and first appeared on my website on March 12, 2025.

Sometimes it’s useful to model yourself in the future as a different person. This person is a great deal like you, to be sure, but it’s not you precisely. You can’t choose what this future person will do. This person’s goals and values may not quite be yours. And not just because the you of the future will (hopefully) be wiser, but also because the you of the future will be truly different. 

There’s an old cliché: If you want to make sure that something gets done right, do it yourself. Well, your future self isn’t quite you. Your future self may not be as motivated as you are now. The you of the future may have lost your ambition, your sense of being able to make things better, or your excitement. That you may not even agree with you about what right means. So if you want to make sure something gets done right, do it right now. Don’t trust that stranger of the future.

You can’t make your future self do what you want, but you can give your future self suggestions. We all give ourselves future suggestions for tomorrow (with notes) or for next week (on our calendars), but too rarely do we give ourselves suggestions for months or years from now. And here’s a great way to do it:

Futureme lets you send yourself an email in the future (anytime at least 30 days from now). You can even include a picture of what you look like now (pointing a finger, perhaps). It could be that you want to remind yourself next month about why it’s worth continuing your pet project, in case you start slacking. Or maybe you want to remind yourself in a year about your long-term goals, to help make sure you stay on track. Or maybe in 5 years you want to ping yourself with a recap of some of your core values, and why it’s so important to live by them.

Talk to your future stranger.