For What It's Worth

The Critical Component To An Authentic Life

(10 minute read)

Key Takeaways:

• Authentic inquiry requires slowing down our snap judgments. Our instinctive reactions are useful for survival but often unreliable for evaluating complex ideas and arguments.
• Clear thinking depends on distinguishing fact, opinion, bias, and reason. Learning to categorize information properly strengthens intellectual discipline and reduces confusion.
• Bias is natural, but reason requires deliberate evaluation. We all interpret information through predispositions, yet sound reasoning demands that we examine evidence proportionally and logically.
• Suspending judgment strengthens understanding. Temporarily setting aside conclusions allows us to listen more carefully, evaluate claims more fairly, and engage others more thoughtfully.

In Decoding Lies 2 we looked at the limits of our instincts and the importance of cultivating higher-level reasoning—our “internal bullshit detector.” While our fight‑or‑flight responses once helped us survive physical threats, they can mislead us in a world that requires careful thinking about facts, bias, and complex social realities. Living a life with physical and mental well-being depends on deliberately strengthening our capacity to question assumptions, distinguish fact from opinion, and reflect critically before reacting.

“Inside all of us is the desire to know.” –Aristotle

The Birth of Logical Inquiry

At the heart of Western thought lies a pivotal shift: the move from myth and tradition to disciplined reasoning. With Aristotle, inquiry became structured, questions became methodical, and truth was pursued not merely through authority but through logic. To understand how we evaluate arguments today—how we separate fact from opinion—we must begin at this crucial turning point in intellectual history.

Aristotle stands at the crossroads between myth and reason, marking the moment when human thought first became systematically self-aware. In seeking to understand why things are true rather than simply that they are, he laid the foundations of logical inquiry—turning scattered insights into a structured method for testing arguments, exposing contradictions, and building reliable knowledge about the world.

After Plato’s death, Aristotle founded his own school, the Lyceum, where he taught philosophy in three stages: logic, the natural world, and practical philosophy. For all intents and purposes, practical philosophy meant ethics and politics. These subjects were taught in that order.

For Aristotle, logic was fundamentally about understanding the world and how things within it relate to one another. To teach logic, he developed a formula called a “syllogism”—a form of deductive reasoning used to draw the conclusion that something is true.

A basic syllogism worked like this:

It typically began with two premises that, when taken together, led to a firm conclusion. In the classic example, it almost resembles a mathematical equation: All men are mortal (true; we all eventually die). Socrates is a man (true). If the premises are true and the reasoning is valid, then the conclusion necessarily follows: Socrates is mortal. This makes sense because he was neither a god nor any other kind of being.

This is one of the earliest systematic attempts in the Western tradition to formalize logic. Humanity began making a deliberate effort to establish truths about the world we inhabit—and to preserve those truths. If the initial premises are true, then the final conclusion, the logical outcome, is also undeniably true.

Our survival instinct drives us to distinguish fact from fiction. Our goal is to separate truth from bullshit. We crave conclusions that rest on solid, undeniable truths—for ourselves and for our society. Why? Because this allows us to build objective truths based on evidence rather than assumptions, biases, or opinions.

These shared, well-founded truths promote trust among members of a community.

But as discussed in an earlier article, this is often difficult. It is easier to make judgments based on assumptions, opinions, and biases—and sometimes we get lazy.

Evaluating arguments based on facts is more challenging. We are hardwired to make snap judgments, and those judgments are immediately available. They can be right or wrong in equal measure (think of the “tiger” or the “snake stick”).

If we rely only on snap judgments, feelings, or intuitions, we are not using our logical reasoning skills.

I often used a critical thinking exercise with university students to explore the differences between assumptions, biases, and opinions, and to examine the “how” and “why” behind their beliefs. We would choose a topical social issue—such as gun control, politics, religion, or philosophy—and begin the exercise from there.

At the end, I would reinforce its purpose:

• We often take for granted our opinions, not knowing if we have ever really thought about why we have them in the first place
• Sometimes, those very opinions are not our own opinions
• It is often difficult to fully know and confidently show why we think the way we do
• That those opinions could not possibly define who we truly are

It is important that we remain committed to distinguishing fact from fiction. We should genuinely want to know the truth and approach it with honesty and care. At the same time, our conclusions ought to rest on evidence, held with quiet confidence but also with humility—recognizing that we do not always get it right and that circumstances can change.

Aristotle emphasized that making arguments to convey any truth requires more than simply quoting authorities. To know and communicate truth, one must understand why a particular claim is true through reasoning. It should not rest solely on what you “feel” or on what others have said about the subject.

This is an important distinction. Once again, we need to invest time in reasoning to understand why it is true or why it is not true.

The desire to know what is and is not real lives in all of us. It is so strong that we will often make rash decisions based on very little evidence (like the snake stick). The instinct that once kept our ancestors safe and alive can now lead us to become lazy in our reasoning—or merely curious at best, if we are unwilling to put in the effort.

In the next article, we will examine what it takes to do better. Our aim is to replace laziness with a more vigorous approach to reasoning.

You may be surprised by how simple it can be.

Turning Off the Snap-Judgment Meter

So far, we have seen that by using our inner bullshit detector we can get a sense of whether something is true. We have also learned that it is not always accurate. In fact, when it comes to snap judgments, it often steers us wrong. The bullshit detector is a leftover trait from our ancestors, who relied on it daily to stay safe and alive.

For us today, that is not usually the case.

Very few of us face the kind of life‑and‑death moments our ancestors did. Because of that, we have to be much more skillful in how we use our BS detector.

First, we have to notice when this process switches on. Once we do, we can train ourselves to slow it down and use it to our advantage. That way, instinct does not take over and lead to hasty or poor judgments.

We start by recognizing that our decision‑making process needs to be a careful and deliberate act. We do this by suspending our assumptions, opinions, and biases about a claim. In practice, that means willfully “turning off” (pausing and examining) the snap judgments we are so accustomed to making.

What we are describing is a deliberate state of reason, a state of mind that chooses to listen or read more before deciding. It is purposeful, and it resists forming a snap judgment before reaching a rational conclusion.

This takes effort and a bit of intentional self‑talk. Many of the greatest thinkers in history have done it. It is a practice you can adopt here and now.

Consider one example: we are invited to a neighborhood picnic with everyone on our block. At some point during the day, someone brings up the topic of homeless people living in our city.

As you might imagine, a spirited debate begins. Like everyone else, we have an opinion. We believe we understand the issue and have a rational solution. We are eager to jump in.

This “suspension of judgment” works in a specific way. Instead of rushing to offer our opinion, we turn off that urge. We sit back and take in the information. Someone may make a point we have never considered, adding to our understanding of the issue.

Another advantage of this willful suspension is how it keeps us active in the conversation. Rather than being lost in our own thoughts, waiting for our turn to speak, we are truly listening. We stay fully engaged in the discussion until it is time for us to speak and weigh in.

This experience becomes even more powerful when we combine reasoning with time. As we practice this, and as time passes, we know we have truly considered the topic. We have investigated, gathered information, and reached a conclusion. We also recognize that, with new information, we may very well change our minds.

All of this is grounded in sound personal reasoning. We do not simply echo what Uncle Jimmy says about the matter. Unexamined opinions are weak, and borrowed conclusions are fragile. Genuine understanding requires reasoning, not imitation. When we think for ourselves, we become the true authors of our thoughts, words, and conclusions—and that is deeply empowering.

Fact, Opinion, Bias, & Reason

We have decided to give this approach a try. We are intentionally setting aside the part of the mind that makes quick snap judgments. Now what comes next?

Now it is time to analyze the information. First, we need to determine whether the information is based on fact. We also need to examine whether it rests on opinion, bias, or sound reasoning. What distinguishes these from one another?

Some simple definitions will help.

• Fact: a statement supported by reliable, publicly available evidence and capable of independent verification, while remaining open to revision if new evidence emerges.
• Opinion: a judgment or conclusion based on personal belief, interpretation, or preference rather than verifiable evidence alone.
• Bias: a natural predisposition or framework that shapes how we interpret information and form conclusions, often operating before we consciously evaluate the evidence.
• Reason: a carefully constructed evaluation of evidence that follows clear logic, weighs competing claims proportionally, and allows emotion to inform concern without overriding sound judgment.

Identifying which of these categories a piece of information belongs in can feel awkward at first. However, we are deliberately slowing down our thinking in order to build better habits. With practice, this process becomes second nature.

By understanding the origins and nature of a statement, we become more discerning consumers of information. This, in turn, helps us judge how much merit an argument truly has.

Editor’s note: This essay was originally published as Decoding Lies: Using Your Bullshit Indicator, Parts 1–8, on Jan. 16, 2023 – Jan. 24, 2023. The parts have been combined and edited for clarity and continuity.