 Sometimes when I go dancing, I do this really embarrassing thing where I'll put on a huge burst of energy just as the song is ending. I've really got to stop jumping to conclusions. Last episode I talked a little bit about logic, why it's such a powerful tool for evaluating structures of thought, and why I'm so mad that I didn't have an explicit class in it in elementary school. But despite how useful it can be for determining the validity of even very complicated ideas, it's not magic. There are some real challenges in this application. For logic to be more than just rules for pushing symbols around, for it to work on actual thought, we have to map those symbols to… stuff. That process can be very subjective, and if it's done sloppily, can make even bad ideas sound… decent. Look, if we don't have free will, then there's no way to judge people for their actions because everyone's just doing what they have to. I don't want to live in a world without justice or mercy, so I believe in free will, and you should too. If A, then B, not B, therefore not A. Kinda? There's a way to wrestle this argument into sort of a modus tollens kind of shape, but it doesn't really seem bulletproof the way that logical arguments generally do. That's because the connections between these concepts and the underlying structure that supposedly renders them valid is shaky at best, but that's hard to see if you're not really looking for it. For that, we need rigor. Rigor is the painstaking process of applying doubt to every step of an argument in turn, testing and verifying that each link between ideas is reasonably justified. There are several different manifestations of rigor that you've probably experienced, but never really thought of explicitly or given a name to. Checking your work line by line on your tax returns, choosing precisely the right word for a speech, debugging code, finding the exact point that someone's argument goes wrong, all of these things harness that same slow, methodical, and rigid form of mental processing. And a ton of people just hate it. If you've ever gotten mad at someone for nitpicking plot holes in a movie or complained about showing your work in math class the way that I did, you know exactly what I'm talking about. I don't need every part of a movie to make sense to enjoy it. Get over yourself. I can do all these steps in my head and oh look, I got the right answer. Tv is boring anal busy work. I mean, it's definitely frustrating, not the least reason of which is that our culture sort of urges us not to do it. Providing answers quickly and only answers has a ton of cachet attached to it. It's seen as a mark of intelligence and who doesn't like feeling smart. I mean, we generally don't praise people for thinking long and hard about something, especially not if they come up with the same answer as someone else's intuitive stab in the dark. Apparently, only dummies take their time to work things out in detail, even if building an insinkable proof sometimes requires a genius level intellect several years of intense mental exertion to achieve. It's also tiring. Rigorous analysis is a function of system 2 cognition, the slow, rules-based, unintuitive kind. If you'll recall punk episode 69, it's physically uncomfortable to dwell in that state for any extended period of time. So if someone tries to use rigor on something that you don't think needs it, as per Pavlov, you're going to want to hit them in the face. But while looking closely and carefully at the relationships between ideas might not be as fun or as sexy as other more intuitive approaches, it's the only way to know for sure which ones have actual substance or truth to them and which ones might sound reassuring, but will ultimately fall apart when you need them. Now getting a couple of questions wrong on your math homework because you didn't show your work has very rarely killed anyone. But there are several ideas that shape our world that only persists because people fail to use rigorous analysis. There are whole industries dedicated to the exploitation of people who have never really internalized how to use stepwise thinking to evaluate claims. Industries which perpetuate themselves and make millions of dollars by hiding misdirection or misinformation in the details, where eager suckers dependably fail to check for them. Of course, as with almost anybody, I've always felt like I knew exactly how much rigor was appropriate for any given situation. Though I discovered critical thinking as a discipline unto itself, which didn't really happen until after college, all of my ideas and opinions always felt adequately justified to me, and if other people disagreed, well, they obviously weren't thinking hard enough, or they were just being nitpicky. What I failed to realize at that point was that none of those ideas were really mine. Most of my thoughts about important issues weren't things that I legitimately worked out for myself, instead I was depending on my parents or on media or culture to supply me with the right answers. That's not always a bad thing. The world is complicated, and few of us have time to derive electromagnetism from first principles to figure out why we shouldn't stick a fork in a wall socket. But without practicing the application of rigor and thought, I wasn't really expressing anything me. Sure, I said I was a liberal, I said I liked pizza, I said I believed in free will, I said a lot of things. But what was I really saying? My parents were liberals, pizza was a special treat when I was a kid, and I watched a lot of movies with positive messages about free will. See, rigor isn't just a tool for smashing terrible arguments, it's also a mechanism for introspection, a guiding principle for picking apart your own thoughts, verifying or refuting them, and then trimming away the ones that you don't have decent proof for until the only thing that's left is what's really yours. It's also an essential part of genuine self-expression. Many people will say things without enough rigor to create a fully formed idea, they'll just express the beginning and end of a sentiment, and then depend on others to fill in the gaps. With what? It doesn't matter so long as they agree. This often leads to a hilarious dance of deliberate ambiguity to avoid rigor and meaningful content at all costs. Ugh, Wendy, am I right? What, you don't like her? No, it's not like that. She's just so bleh sometimes, you know? You don't like it when she's angry with you? Frustrated? Depressed? Never mind. Ugh, Josh, am I right? Yeah, brah, I feel you. This is why, sometimes when you're disagreeing with someone, it can be helpful to rigorously establish what they're actually trying to say. If it's meaningful, it can make it easier to identify the exact point at which your opinions diverge, and maybe reach an agreement by either gathering more data, or figuring out how your subjective experiences differ. If it's not meaningful, well then, maybe you can send them this video. I spent the majority of my life without a firm grasp of the concept of rigor, but when I finally discovered and began practicing it, my politics, my religion, my career, my health, my identity, and my whole motivation for living all changed in important ways. Had I known that showing my work in math class was supposedly about developing that sort of thinking, I might not have complained so much. If you're curious about how to develop these sorts of skills for yourself, there are several links in the description, but here are a few quick tips about how to exercise rigorous thinking. Try to question assumptions and definitions, especially the ones that aren't spoken aloud. You might argue about whether or not free will exists for hours, but without a concrete definition of what free will actually is, you might as well just be shouting, I have an opinion. Look for loopholes in everything. Think like a lawyer trying to get your client off on a technicality. Is there any possible way that a given step in an argument might not follow from the ones before it? Try to nitpick apart your own beliefs like someone who disagrees with them might. If you can't find a way to reasonably justify those beliefs to someone else, it's possible that you didn't come up with them yourself. And before you post anything on social media, always, always check your sources. If you've got a question or you want to nitpick something that I've said, please leave a comment below and let me know what you think. Thank you very much for watching. Don't forget to blah, blah, subscribe, blah, share, and don't stop thunking.