How to Think: A Survival Guide for a World at Odds

“How to Think” by Alan Jacobs is a breath of fresh air! For those of you who want a quick payoff: I believe this is a very important and timely book. I intend to purchase many more copies and give them to all of the people with whom I have regular conversations (sometimes arguments) about the state of our modern society. This is not to say I think any of them are not able to think, but I do think many of us struggle mightily to come to terms with the apparent divisiveness in modern public and private discourse. This book, if taken to heart, can help guide us to a less militarized approach to dealing with those with whom we think we disagree. And I think that is a “good” we should all strive for. For those of you willing to explore a little further: Some earlier reviewers claim that this book contains nothing new. If you look at any single concept Jacobs discusses, they may be right. But that is to miss the point of the book. If all of these concepts are “nothing new” then why is it that so many people don’t seem to be aware of them? Or don’t seem interested in putting them to good use? If “clear thinking” concepts are old hat, why is clear thinking seemingly so rare these days? Because let’s face it folks, I don’t care who you are — well, I care who you are... let me rephrase — I don’t think it matters where you sit on any particular cultural, ethical, political, religious, or any other ideological spectrum, I think you have to agree that there is a lot of very poor thinking going on in the modern world. One point of this book is to help us see that we can be and often are just as guilty of poor thinking as anyone we may happen to disagree with on any given subject. Which leads to the next point. Another reviewer claimed it is “overly intellectual.” The same reviewer claimed that it is “not focused and practical enough to suit more casual readers,” which he is, apparently. Uh, just what did you expect from a book about thinking? (Said in the same mock tone in which Captain Sparrow says, “Pirate!”) Actually, it is intellectual but the judgment as to whether it is overly intellectual or focused and practical depends on what you expect from the book. If you expect a quick tutorial in the dos and don’ts of thinking, if you expect to put the book down when your done and declare, “Wow, I can think now!” then you are probably a millennial who needs to put his or her smartphone down long enough to take a few deep unwired breaths. (Just kidding! I know some incredibly thoughtful millennials. Some of my best friends... uh, children... uh, colleagues are millenials. Come to think of it, I was turned on to this book by a millenial! Imagine!) Another point of the book — and I give it five stars because I think it serves this point admirably, cogently, in an entertaining manner, without condescension, and with a great deal of humor and forbearance, both for others and for himself — is to address the issue not only of how to think well when so many things, including and most importantly human nature, get in the way but also how improving our approach to thinking may well reduce the chaos of modern life and quite possibly help us all to just get along, at least a little bit better than we do now; hence it is subtitled “A Survival Guide for a World at Odds.” So, if you’re still reading (and thanks for hanging in there!), here’s a little something to whet your appetite. Jacobs cites many great thinkers throughout the book — C.S. Lewis, Daniel Kahneman, Thomas Hobbes, John Stuart Mill, to name a few. I’ve highlighted so many passages but this one really struck a chord with me: “A hundred years ago G. K. Chesterton wrote, ‘If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probably 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.’” Get this book. Read it. And take heed of the author’s admonition: “The person who wants to think will have to practice patience and master fear.”

Enjoyed this book very much, but it was a little dry at times, hence the 4 stars. Very pertinent to the times now!

Jacobs models the humble-but-rigorous approach to thinking that he commends to his readers, nimbly navigating through the bluster of so much that passes for thinking in our world today. His prose is lively and engaging to boot. Some notes I took: * We resist thinking because we are distracted, and thinking requires time and attention * We resist thinking because it is easier to think in ways that conform to the groups we want to be a part of * “Thinking for yourself“ is impossible; all thinking is done in community * The worst communities discourage thinking in favor of conformity; the best communities encourage unique voices and genuine questions from people of goodwill * Distinguishing between the corrosive desire to be part of an Inner Ring, versus the healthy desire for genuine solidarity, requires self-knowledge, which is hard * We must be wary of the ways that distance – whether physical or technological – can make it easier to stereotype and dismiss those we disagree with * Non-rational, emotional instincts are necessary and unavoidable; every decision cannot be made using extended rational analysis. Thus there can be accurate and helpful prejudices, as well as inaccurate and divisive ones. The most helpful prejudices are cultivated in healthy communities, which is another reason why we need them * Keywords and governing metaphors tend to do too much of our thinking for us * Lumping people into categories is inevitable (especially given how much information we have to process these days) – but also dangerous. We should always be looking for opportunities to split categories, and especially to see people as individuals rather than categories. * Being "open minded" is not an absolute virtue, nor is being “closed-minded“ an absolute vice. We all believe that there are certain subjects we should be closed-minded about. The question is whether we have a “sunk cost“ commitment to our views (or the views of our community) that makes us unwilling to consider alternatives. * Learning to code switch is essential for thinking well, interacting respectfully with others, and healing our frayed social fabric * "You have to be a certain kind of person to make this book work for you: the kind of person who, at least some of the time, cares more about working toward the truth than about one’s current social position." This requires hope.

Insightful book that examines disagreement, and what shapes our thinking. He offers some practical tips for listening and learning to resist our urge to push back and reject other opinions. It is an easy, quick read and addresses a topic that should be more commonly discussed. Social media can really ruin our ability to communicate and get along if we don’t take the time to understand it’s influence. In that regard, this book is a good read. He only partially addresses the problem here, and even though it would be beyond the scope of his intent, he should have at least pointed out that there is a moral element to much of our disagreements. Without addressing our cultural values and how they conflict in an increasingly pluralistic culture, the application of his suggestions is going to be very limited in its effect. Politeness and patience in discourse do not solve the core issues, but they can provide a framework for tackling them. This book is a decent start, but needs to go a bit deeper.

I'm nor sure why I decided to read Alan Jacobs' How to Think, but I'm sure glad I did. We live in contentious times when we all need to give the divisive issues we face some serious thought, and Jacobs begins by suggesting that we are reluctant to do so. That's especially true when it comes to ideas and people we disagree with which he and ot hers have called the "repugnant cultural other." On one level, Jacobs covers familiar turf--at least for me. Critiques of pure rationality, In-group/out-group dynamics. And more. But there are two reasons why this book stands out as someone who works in both peacebuilding and comparative politics. First is his sense that we actually think the best and the most productively when we work with people and ideas we disagree with the most. Thus, on p. 148 he advises readers "to seek out the best--the smartest--most sensible, most fair-minded--representatives of the positions you disagree with. Bering around those people forces me to confront ceartain truths about myself that I would rather avoid; and that alone is reason to seek every means possible to constrain the energies of animus." I already knew that these are the kinds of people I learn the most from. It was cool to have my preconceptions validated in this book! Second, Jacobs clearly practices what he preaches. He teaches in the honors college at Baylor which means he is surrounded by controversy a lot these days. With just a bit of reading between the lines, it's clear that he is more liberal on social issues than most of his colleagues. Yet, it is even clearer that he listens to them with respect and truly thinks about what they say. In particular, he asks us to separate the people who are making a point we disagree with from the issue itself so that we have a better chance of thinking deeply about what that person has to say. To cite one kind of seemingly trivial example he alludes to. I like the Yankees and therefore dislike the Red Sox. But I can like Red Sox fans and even agree with them on something else like Michigan football or even Donald Trump. In short, if we all followed Jacobs' advice and truly thought about how some of the people we disagree have some good ideas and may even ben downright likable, just maybe we might make some progress and even get alone with each other better.

I can’t tell if his main point is that (1) civility and respect and manners are a good thing and we should apply those concepts when speaking with others with whom we disagree, Or (2) we really should be in the business of always questioning and being open to repudiating every belief or conclusion or conviction that we have? Im definitely in favor of (1) and not so much in favor of (2). At some point, on matters that are important to us, we reach some conclusions- e.g. - the Gospel is true and offers the only hope for mankind. I’m really not interested in spending time thinking about whether I am wrong and should reject this. There’s a very large set of other, lesser topics where I should be open to hearing arguments from the “other side” and considering different ways to achieve a goal (e.g. - what’s the best kind of public policy for economic “safety nets” for poor people in our country). Overall, in our current environment, I’d be grateful for just civility and respect and manners in public discourse.

Such a thoughtful book, for lack of a more creative term! It gave mea lot to think about ;) Recommend it!

Alan Jacobs is one of my favorite internet people - his various blogs and mini blogs and the sole reason I used to go to twitter have long provided interesting ideas, visuals, and social commentary that was worth reading. A number of years ago I LOVED his book The Pleasures of Reading in an Age of Distraction. This book is written in that vein. It's a personal exploration of the whys and hows of - instead of reading - thinking. I had little investment in the last Presidential campaign and election, but found myself on election night watching the returns and not able to turn away. The absolute shock of the cable commentators to understand what was happening and how people could vote in the way they did was worth watching. It was demonstrative of much of what Jacobs talks about here in How to Think: the Repugnant Cultural Other, the failure to listen, to empathize, to see past the filters, myths, and metaphors that hold thinking together. Jacobs' instructive defining would go a long way to help us all not only listen to each other, but hear and understand - to not speak past one another but to know. The worst part of this review is that while I'm sure I didn't understand everything in the book, I didn't really disagree with anything ... which means I wasn't thinking about it as I should. I do think that seeking community is different from desiring membership in an Inner Ring, that being able to switch interaction as appropriate to the social setting is important, and that I care way too much about what others think. I do think that ideas held loosely yet firmly is wise, but that employing empathy toward the situation of others is wise. I do see how the myths and metaphors I surround myself with are helpful and harmful. I suppose I do disagree that both/and instead of either/or isn't necessarily the lazy way out. I don't really have good explanations for that, but I see so many false dichotomies espoused that could be resolved by seeing 'both' as viable options that his argument there fell on deaf ears. Overall, this is my favorite kind of Jacobs books. It's well written with many references and -be still my soul- footnotes, yet it's very personal with many stories and narratives to keep it going. It's conversational, yet formal at the same time like Pleasures of Reading ... Definitely recommended.

A simple yet brilliant book.

For years now I was trying to put my finger on an aspect of modern online dialog and what seems so counter productive about so much of it. I think this book helped me frame the problem in a very clear way. My goal is to be a better person by thinking and behaving better. I believe I'm much more equipped for this, and to realise when I'm falling to the trap. The concept used in this book of "repugnant cultural other" has really helped me frame the war of wasted words around us. Very good!

A great quick short read that will make you think. We all need to think more in this day and age.

Expensive book ,supposed to improve your thinking but doesn't . It is not what is cracked up to be . Instead buy "Thinking fast and slow "by Noble prize winner Kanheman . It is the real McCoy .

This item was requested and the recipient is very happy with it.