Author’s note: In addition to publishing new posts weekly, I periodically republish “evergreen content”—articles that focus not on current events but on why we think the way we do, as well as on how we can think more and better than is presently the case.
Well... I believe that even if 2 thinkers were given the same information. There is still a massive chance that they might form different opinions. This is a result of their core beliefs and their journeys to become thinkers.
Having varying opinions is part of being a human.
In conclusion, 2 thinkers who were presented with the same information may have different opinions. And they're both right. Just in their own ways.
There is something quietly humbling in the recognition that even disciplined thought does not guarantee convergence, only a more honest encounter with uncertainty. The divergence of Thinkers is not a flaw in reason but a testament to its depth, evidence that truth is approached asymptotically, not possessed outright. In this light, disagreement becomes less a clash of egos and more a shared pilgrimage toward clearer seeing.
You illuminate this delicate paradox with a precision that feels both grounded and quietly profound.
Well... That's assuming that there IS a definite RIGHT conclusion. But in topics like the above mentioned. There is most likely never a 100% right. U just have to get to a plausible conclusion that works for your circumstances
Oh yes. I understand it now. There are RIGHT conclusions to objective things like history, maths, science or even business.
But in subjective things like art, music, philosophy, etc. It all depends on your perspective and the nature of your thinking.
But i believe that even in subjective things, we can come to a shared conclusion most of the times, kinda like a balance which satisfies all the other perspectives... What do u think ?
(Btw, I can't read the second post that u linked. "There was an error opening this link")
Hmm... True. You can criticize someone's value system but it'll be really difficult cus those values are now a part of their lives.
And yes, I believe that a popular opinion isn't a right one but we have to look at the amount of perspectives too.
Image there are 3 perspectives, A,B and C
90% of people believe Perspective A
5% belive perspective B
And 5% believe Perspective C
Now, we can come to a shared conclusion that satisfies all 3 perspectives but we can't change the people who believe Perspective A. "A" will still be the most popular one, but we have come up with a conclusion that is neutral to all 3.
Now this neutral conclusion can be perspective "B" or "C" but that's not the point. The point is, getting to a neutral conclusion doesn't magically make everyone believe it.
You’re right that certainty is often out of reach, and context shapes how we interpret things. Still, even without a perfect answer, we can gently aim for conclusions that are not just workable, but more deeply aligned with evidence and clarity.
It’s important to have different views to get to a bigger truth.
It also encourages people to think for themselves. In a point of view there are many points to consider which increases the tolerance we have for other people.
When I was a little Kid, I used to think if I got my arms strong enough, I could lift myself off the ground. Thank God I encountered Sir Newton. Those reps were getting boring, and alI I ever got was the attention of girls. It was so annoying.
Well... I believe that even if 2 thinkers were given the same information. There is still a massive chance that they might form different opinions. This is a result of their core beliefs and their journeys to become thinkers.
Having varying opinions is part of being a human.
In conclusion, 2 thinkers who were presented with the same information may have different opinions. And they're both right. Just in their own ways.
yep! Which is why I think the labels “thinker” and “feeler” are theoretical, an abstraction. humans feel and think OR think and feel OR whatever!
Hi, Idowu. For more info on the difference between Thinkers and Feelers, see https://morebetterthinking.substack.com/p/are-you-a-thinker-or-a-feeler
beautifully articulated! thanks!
There is something quietly humbling in the recognition that even disciplined thought does not guarantee convergence, only a more honest encounter with uncertainty. The divergence of Thinkers is not a flaw in reason but a testament to its depth, evidence that truth is approached asymptotically, not possessed outright. In this light, disagreement becomes less a clash of egos and more a shared pilgrimage toward clearer seeing.
You illuminate this delicate paradox with a precision that feels both grounded and quietly profound.
Hi, Dead Reckoner. Regrettably, we are ego-driven creatures living in a very complex world.
Well... That's assuming that there IS a definite RIGHT conclusion. But in topics like the above mentioned. There is most likely never a 100% right. U just have to get to a plausible conclusion that works for your circumstances
Hi, Norman. There ARE right conclusions (see https://morebetterthinking.substack.com/p/reality-bites) but we can’t be certain that OUR CONLUSIONS are right (see https://morebetterthinking.substack.com/p/are-you-certain).
Oh yes. I understand it now. There are RIGHT conclusions to objective things like history, maths, science or even business.
But in subjective things like art, music, philosophy, etc. It all depends on your perspective and the nature of your thinking.
But i believe that even in subjective things, we can come to a shared conclusion most of the times, kinda like a balance which satisfies all the other perspectives... What do u think ?
(Btw, I can't read the second post that u linked. "There was an error opening this link")
Hi, Norman. The second link works fine for me. Try just double-clicking on it. And if you copy and paste it, don't include the parenthesis!
If you tell me you like something, I can’t argue.
If you tell me that A is more valuable or better than B, I can ask you to explain your value system and can criticize it.
Finally, from the fact that a majority of people share values doesn’t mean that those values are “right”; it just means that they are popular.
Hmm... True. You can criticize someone's value system but it'll be really difficult cus those values are now a part of their lives.
And yes, I believe that a popular opinion isn't a right one but we have to look at the amount of perspectives too.
Image there are 3 perspectives, A,B and C
90% of people believe Perspective A
5% belive perspective B
And 5% believe Perspective C
Now, we can come to a shared conclusion that satisfies all 3 perspectives but we can't change the people who believe Perspective A. "A" will still be the most popular one, but we have come up with a conclusion that is neutral to all 3.
Now this neutral conclusion can be perspective "B" or "C" but that's not the point. The point is, getting to a neutral conclusion doesn't magically make everyone believe it.
It just gives us a conclusion.
You’re right that certainty is often out of reach, and context shapes how we interpret things. Still, even without a perfect answer, we can gently aim for conclusions that are not just workable, but more deeply aligned with evidence and clarity.
Yea, kinda like a balance ⚖️
It’s important to have different views to get to a bigger truth.
It also encourages people to think for themselves. In a point of view there are many points to consider which increases the tolerance we have for other people.
When I was a little Kid, I used to think if I got my arms strong enough, I could lift myself off the ground. Thank God I encountered Sir Newton. Those reps were getting boring, and alI I ever got was the attention of girls. It was so annoying.
Yes! They can argue, coz of perspectives!