Reliable Thinkers
Characteristics
Hrishikesh Joshi:
"Another aid to acquiring true beliefs is to find public intellectuals who are reliable and who have already taken the time to research the topics you are interested in. For this purpose, the author’s general intelligence matters (stupid people tend to be unreliable); however, once you get above a certain level (which the great majority of public intellectuals in fact exceed), objectivity and fair-mindedness are much more important than raw intelligence. This is because a biased person with a high IQ can use their intelligence to rationalize what they want to believe, rather than using it as a tool to get to the truth. With that in mind, here are some signs of reliability:
1. Reliable thinkers tend to give non-circular arguments for their views, rather than simply assuming a controversial ideological viewpoint. That is, they will cite evidence that a neutral party could reasonably be expected to agree with and could see to be evidence for their view without having already accepted their ideology.
2. Reliable thinkers qualify claims. They will say that something is probably the case, or almost always true, rather than definitely always true. Authors who make too many absolute statements are likely to be oversimplifying and may not be thoughtful enough to notice exceptions. (But there are exceptions even to this; some things, such as mathematical truths, are really definitely always true.)
3. Reliable authors tend to acknowledge reasons pointing in different directions, particularly about controversial matters. If smart people disagree about some policy, then there usually are both costs and benefits to the policy. If an author does not acknowledge this, the author is probably not fair-minded. (Again, there are exceptions; some ideas really are just dumb. Use your judgment in each case.)
4. Relatedly, reliable authors tend to discuss objections to their arguments. Authors who never address objections either have never thought about objections (in which case their thought process is unreliable) or have thought of objections but decided not to mention them (in which case they may not be entirely forthcoming).
5. Reliable thinkers do not always agree with one of the standard political orientations. It is highly unlikely that either the Democrats or the Republicans are wrong about everything; probably each side is sometimes right and sometimes wrong. If someone believes one side is virtually always right and the other side virtually always wrong, that person is probably forming beliefs based on a tribal identity rather than objective examination of the issues.
6. Reliable thinkers are not overly emotional. Now, you might wonder: “Why shouldn’t I be emotional? Political issues are important! The future of the nation is at stake!” Well, perhaps so. Nevertheless, a person’s emotions can interfere with objective judgment. If someone is unable to control his emotions for purposes of public discourse, he probably also cannot control them for purposes of making objective judgments.
7. Reliable thinkers provide serious discussion of the evidence. They might cite academic studies, government reports, court documents, and so on. They do not simply opine based on armchair guesses about the empirical facts.
8. Reliable thinkers make sense. When you read their work, it will lead you through logical lines of thought. It will not simply assert things, or appeal to emotionally charged language, or give you vague impressions.
9. Reliable thinkers are clear. My general sense is that, if an author is very hard to follow, that is probably because either (i) the author himself is confused or (ii) the author is trying to persuade you by non-rational means, which is a red flag (being rationally persuaded generally requires a clear understanding)."
(https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/2024/10/sometimes-you-should-speak-up-with-an-unpopular-view/)