Stop Being an NPC

When we encounter new information that conflicts with our current beliefs, we typically follow one of the preceding options:

1. Ignore the new information.
2. Place it into your existing belief system, regardless of whether it is consistent with your other beliefs.
3. Create an ad hoc explanation to keep our beliefs intact.
4. Adjust or revise our existing beliefs.

Since the last option is typically the most demanding, and humans are programmed through evolution to conserve energy, people usually choose the first two options unless the information is crucial to their survival.

Many of the fallacies or biases we have developed were ingrained because they were effective in environments where being quick and efficient was more important than being accurate, as conserving energy was one of the greatest challenges.

The issue is that most of us no longer live in environments where we can’t afford to think things through. Our world has become so abstract and reliant on complex systems with many layers, that we may be living in a time where thoughtful analysis of how we choose to do things is more crucial than ever .

I can’t help but think about how much we could improve quality of our living if we honestly tried to be consistent in our beliefs and approaches by applying points 3 and 4 a bit more.

Don’t delegate thinking to others!

The unexamined life is not worth living.
- Socrates

Consider the example of someone who has just started investing but lacks knowledge in the field and doesn’t have a clear strategy. What often happens is that they tend to look for people who seem to be experts in the domain. For example, this person might try to copy Warren Buffett by imitating his portfolio. How do you think this person will react if something unexpected happens with their portfolio? Do you think they will act like Warren Buffett when things go wrong, or do you think they will be more likely to panic and act randomly? It’s often the last one.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that appealing to authority is always a bad approach. What I’m trying to emphasize here is that whether or not you truly believe in the system matters a lot when it comes to your consistency in following it!

You cannot merely trust the experts as long as you understand and agree with their way of doing things. Even experts most of the time disagree. So, if you are blindly trying to apply what they told you without understanding the rationale behind it, you will quickly find yourselves in a conflicted position.

So, even if you are appealing to authority, you still have to put an effort into choosing the right authority, the one whose approach makes sense the most.

As you think more about it, it becomes clear that it’s not just about “experts telling you the most optimal solution for your case.” Instead, people often seek certain types of experts without realizing it, and the supply of experts adjusts to meet this demand. I suspect this is also why passive therapies (where treatments are done to the patient rather than involving them in the process and making them more aware of the situation) are more common than those requiring patient effort. If many people are looking for an “easy solution,” you’ll end up with experts who offer these “easy solutions.” But what happens if that easy solution doesn’t actually solve the problem?

Anyway, what I’m trying to convey here is that you can’t simply delegate your problems to experts. Because, even selecting the right expert requires some thought, which affects the quality of the results you’ll get.

Consistency is (almost) the best thing you can achieve

We cannot live better than in seeking to become better.
- Socrates

When you think about it, we don’t seem to have much control over many things that influence and feed us. Where we were born, the society we live in, the content we accidentally encounter through some recommendation algorithm, the influental high school teacher that we had, and so on… All these things, in essence, can be considered as inputs that contribute to who we are. And the thing is, we don’t seem to have much control over what these inputs will be.

This is likely one of the reasons why many intelligent people disagree on fundamental issues. The inputs that feed us are indistinguishable from who we turn out to become.

But wait… Does not this mean that our resulting set of beliefs is kind of arbitrary? Yeah, most of our beliefs are indeed arbitrary, in the sense that if we were exposed to different environments we could have different beliefs. But is not this point why we should try to put our beliefs to the test, and try to make our beliefs at least consistent?

First of all, we can reduce the amount of contradictory beliefs we have. If you hold one of the possible coherent worldviews, there is a possibility that you might be right, most likely some of your beliefs will overlap the reality while others don’t. But, if you have contradictory beliefs at the same time, you are certainly more wrong than the alternative set of beliefs you could have without the contradictory beliefs.

The second point I want to emphasize is that, although consistency doesn’t always mean truth, it often brings you closer to it. Also, keep in mind that it is quite possible that seemingly very different philosophies can arrive at the same conclusions in some of the most important subjects. For example, it’s fascinating to see that most philosophies of life—such as Buddhism, Sufism, Christianity, Stoicism, Epicureanism, and others—focus more on internal matters within our control, rather than external ones. This is just one example I can think of, but you get the idea.

Lastly, is there anything you can do better to be true than to trying making your beliefs more coherent and inclusive? Don’t think so.

While I can try to give logical inferences and arguments why you should try to be consistent, I think this never suffices to convince a radical skeptic who even questions whether the world exists or not (what does this mean anyway?). So I will stop philosophizing about why you should try to be consistent here and just finish this section quoting Marcus Aurelius.

The happiness of your life depends upon the quality of your thoughts.
- Marcus Aurelius

Don’t be afraid of being opinionated

Over time, I’ve realized that when I base my approach to a field on a philosophy or system, making progress and building on my current position becomes much easier. I think this is because it’s easier to maintain a routine, especially when you understand, enjoy, and agree with it.

If a man knows not to which port he sails, no wind is favorable.
- Seneca

I believe most people who take action don’t place enough importance on this phenomenon, and as a result, their potential is limited to mediocrity at best.

The thing is, even though the opinions you get from your thinking process might differ from those that are just as smart as you, you can still benefit from having them.

I think following a diet plan is a good example of this. If your goal is simply to lose weight, whether it’s a carnivore, Mediterranean, paleo, or intermittent fasting diet, all of them are likely better than not having a plan and randomly eating whatever is available. While one diet might be better than others in certain ways, I believe most people would benefit from any of these diets. The key factor is whether you can healthily stick to the diet while maintaining a calorie deficit.

I believe this also applies to building exercise programs. Whether you’re doing calisthenics, bodybuilding, powerlifting, swimming, running, or anything else, you’re likely better off than those who don’t have a plan and aren’t taking actions that are planned.

In most cases, it is just better to have a system that you find it reasonable and build on top of it than having none.

In my view, many software developers lack a fundamental understanding of the concepts they’re building on, leading them to face problems that could have been avoided in the first place. I think those who contribute to accidental complexity often lack a sense of craftsmanship and are more focused on just getting the solution, regardless of how messy it is. This might be ok if they don’t truly care about the quality and maintainability of the products they deliver, but if they happen to care about these things, I guess that even a person opinionated towards Object-Oriented Programming -which I don’t like it much compared to Procedural or Functional Programming- might be superior compared to copy-paste NPC developer out there.

So, despite I don’t like much I still respect developers who are committed to OOP. At least they strive for consistency through a systematic approach to software development.

Long story short, if you wan’t to improve, just don’t be so afraid to have certain ideas and tastes even if it means sticking out.