I was having a conversation with my friend recently when we stumbled on a topic we thought is often glanced over. He mentioned that “nothing is 100% true.” I found that phrase fascinating. I quickly agreed with the idea, but also realized I haven’t given it much thought on my own. Why did I agree so quickly? We continued our discussion and saw this has impact on the advice we tend to seek.
Ignoring the paradox for a moment, I think many support the statement that “nothing is 100% true,” but rarely unpack the meaning behind it. A majority of Americans — especially in this mobile and internet enabled age — are consuming around 11 hours of content daily. I would guess that number is somewhat similar across other western societies. Whether through Facebook, Medium, news sites, books, papers, podcasts, videos, gifs or you name it — we’re all dealing with a massive influx of information, thoughts, and advice.
You can read books on how to build a business, watch videos on how to create music or learn a new yoga pose, and more. So what’s the point? Well, you may be quick to question outlandish ideas you disagree with — but how often do you question advice of your role models or those you typically trust — whoever they are?
Hypotheses
My theory is that people who seek and use advice may overlook contextually applying those suggestions to their live’s unique situations. Instead, many look for collective validation around certain information and then, based on the degree of validation, take that method as “true.”
What do I mean? When a Youtube video has significantly more views then another, a book is highly recommended from a friend, or a product has positive reviews online, we are more likely to trust its usefulness. While these forms of validation are typically helpful, it is worth remember that nothing is 100% true.
Maybe we need a slightly more scientific view on taking advice. In a broad sense, the field of science progresses by finding “less wrong” models and approximations for a specific situation, often through ruling out alternatives. How does this concept tie into parsing through advice? Understand that every lesson learned or piece of advice given is an ever changing hypotheses which needs continuous validation or invalidation. This is true for all types of learnings, but especially when you are copying others to build yourself (hint: we all are). Your favorite author, speaker, etc. — maybe Mark Cuban or Malcom Gladwell — is sharing frameworks which reflect:
- Their own experience of what has worked or the patterns they have seen
- Their “ideal” and structured best self that they wish to present to the world
Their own experience
Every piece of advice you listen to and consider implementing should be thought of in context of your own life. To get the most out of advice, you should independently think through the information. Break down the pieces and how they may apply to your specific situation. How could a piece of advice be useful or not? What is the background of the person and how does that affect the advice they give? You need to take the learnings in stride and see what pieces could or could not be applied to yourself.
Quintessentially — no one understands your wants, needs, desires, and dreams like you, so edit the way you apply new information to your life. Useful advice for one person may be detrimental or lack utility with another. Need another way to look at it? Just because someone tells you adding salt to most dishes enhances the flavor doesn’t mean you go dumping the whole container. You apply a little critical thought and selectively apply the advice for the specific context you are in with your food, so why do many lack this process with other information we apply to our lives?
Ideal self
Want another reason to take advice and new strategies in stride? People typically provide information structured around their ideal self or processes, whether or not they actually adhered that closely to it in reality. Another way to look at this, as described in the landmark book Thinking Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman, is that we have an experiencing self (“System 1”) which is fast and intuitive, and a reflecting self (“System 2”) that revolves around slow deliberate focus and reasoning. Your System 1 might be making certain decision in the moment, but when the events are mentally recalled in the future, System 2 builds cause and effective relationships (which could be wrong) based on that person’s current life situation (successful, struggling, etc.).
Let’s give an example of a successful individual (whatever your definition is) being interviewed for a podcast / video / whatever. When answering questions, they will reveal some of their strategies to get where they are but you have to be careful of following that exact path. They likely propose perfect thought processes and structures which lead to achievements, but often, implementation is messier than the theory. Sometimes we forget this.
Similar to people presenting their “ideal self”, post-justification of events can also occur (confirmation and overconfidence bias), as those who are “successful” build an edited mental story to present only the path that got them to where they are now — not the other parts of the stories. This gives the perception that success was always thought out. It’s worth mentioning the people you typically see on the pulpit will be those that have succeeded (typically for good reason), but remember, for every individual that has “made it,” there will usually be far more who fail.
What About Copying?
With this, I think it’s worth looking into this overarching idea of “copying,” or why do people listen to others at all? Copying is a great way to learn from others, especially given the vast amount of knowledge out there and our limited time. Deconstructing how others have done something in the past can provide valuable frameworks and accelerate learning. It also provides a path that can feel more certain since it has been done as opposed to building your own. On the flip side, copying can only get you so far — with that maximum being to the point they themselves are currently at…if you’re lucky. Advice can work up to a point — but that could be just a local maxima preventing you to find a better alternative. Blazing your own path has the potential to take you to new heights but also comes with risk .
To what degree you should copy is based on three things: time, your current level of knowledge and the question “Do you want to build something radically different?” To build something radically different takes experimentation, trial and error, and some dumb luck. Where do you want to be?
The Point
The overarching take away:
- A vast majority of advice is hollow and nontransferable* — especially if taken as an unquestioned “whole” without understanding your specific situation.
- Build your own mental models.
- Always seek to find what aligns with reality (i.e. think like a scientist).
*I’m not saying don’t listen, I am saying seek to “understand” the advice better, which comes from some independent thinking
View Moving Forward
What is a possible answer to aid with this? I have a two part strategy that helps me currently.
The first is creating hypotheses based on the advice given, which helps me to see the information as imperfect and flexible. Once I have the hypotheses, I will then validate or invalidate the potential usefulness of an idea based on “evidence” — reviewing how the idea affects certain situations and the overall outcome. By testing ideas and reviewing the results, you can see how those ideas interact with the context of your life. An additional thought here, actions can speak louder than words — so it is still worth looking at actions and results for validation — although it should not define if the whole hypothesis is correct or not.
Second is a mindset shift — it’s viewing advice and information in specific pieces instead of a solidified “take it or leave it” structure. Understand that some parts may be useful and others not so much. As circumstances change and time passes, some of those parts may increase in effectiveness while others fade away.
Obsessively learn, breakdown, test, and build back up ideas to find the truth. Nothing is 100% true, and you should spend time working on finding the best combination of methods for yourself. With openness and testing, you may even stumble onto a new method or piece of knowledge which gives you an edge over the world’s conventional wisdom.
Now it is time for you to decide — is this worth listening to?
Cheers,
Scott
*Appreciation to my friends Brian, Becca, and Rajat for their input on this topic
