I used to pride myself on being a “good thinker.”
I read the news, I had strong opinions, and I could debate with the best of them. But a few years ago, I hit a wall. I realized that spending time on social media didn’t make me feel smarter; it made me feel anxious, defensive, and strangely exhausted.
I wasn’t actually thinking. I was just reacting.
I was treating ideas like incoming dodgeballs—either dodging them or catching them to throw back harder. I realized I wasn’t exploring concepts; I was just defending my fortress.
Then I picked up “How to Think: A Survival Guide for a World at Odds” by Alan Jacobs.
It didn’t feel like a lecture from a stern professor. It felt like a friend pulling up a chair, handing me a warm cup of coffee, and saying, “Hey, it’s okay to slow down. Here is how we can actually use our brains again.”
If you feel like the world is shouting at you and you’ve forgotten how to whisper, this book is your roadmap back to sanity.
Why Should You Even Bother Reading It?
You might be thinking, “I know how to think. I do it all day!”
But Jacobs argues that what we usually call “thinking” is actually just “refuting.” This book isn’t a textbook on logic or a guide to winning debates. It is for the exhausted parent, the frustrated voter, the overwhelmed student, and anyone tired of the polarization tearing our culture apart.
It is relevant today because we live in an environment designed to stop us from thinking. Algorithms feed us what we already like. Our social groups punish us for disagreeing.
If you want to reclaim your mental autonomy and actually understand the world (and the people in it) rather than just reacting to them, this book is essential reading.
The Art of Slowing Down to Speed Up
We tend to view thinking as a solitary act of brilliance, like Rodin’s “The Thinker” sitting alone on a rock. However, Jacobs proposes a radically different approach: thinking is inherently social, emotional, and slow. Before we can think well, we have to understand the forces trying to stop us from thinking at all.
1. The “Inner Ring” and the Fear of Being Out
We like to believe that we adopt our beliefs because we have rationalized them and examined the evidence. Jacobs suggests something much more primal is at play.
He introduces the concept of the “Inner Ring” (originally coined by C.S. Lewis). Imagine a middle school cafeteria. There is a “cool kids’ table.” You desperately want to sit there. You want to be inside the circle, not outside.
As adults, we don’t outgrow this. We just change tables.
Whether it’s your political party, your church group, or your professional circle, we all have an “Inner Ring” we want to remain part of. The problem? Thinking is risky.
If you start to question the accepted views of your Inner Ring, you risk being exiled to the “Outer Ring.” So, subconsciously, we stop thinking to ensure we stay safe. We value belonging over truth.
Real-world example: Imagine a die-hard sports fan. If a referee makes a questionable call against their team, they scream “Bad call!” immediately. They don’t analyze the replay objectively. Why? Because if they admitted, “Actually, that was a fair penalty against us,” they would feel like a traitor to their “tribe” of fellow fans.
📖 “All of us at various times in our lives believe that we are thinking for ourselves when we are really just thinking what our Inner Ring wants us to think.”
Simple Terms: We often agree with our friends just so we don’t get kicked out of the group.
The Takeaway: True thinking requires the courage to potentially disappoint the people whose approval you crave most.
2. The Repugnant Cultural Other (RCO)
This is perhaps the most powerful concept in the book. Jacobs identifies a major barrier to thought: the “Repugnant Cultural Other” (RCO).
Think of your brain like a thermostat. You set it to a comfortable temperature. The RCO is the person or group that represents everything you are not.
If you are deeply conservative, your RCO might be a progressive activist. If you are a tech-optimist, your RCO might be a Luddite.
Here is the trap: We define our views simply by looking at what our RCO believes and doing the opposite. If they like it, I must hate it. If they say the sky is blue, I’m going to squint until it looks purple.
This shuts down thinking completely. You aren’t evaluating an idea on its own merit; you are evaluating it based on who said it.
Real-world example: Consider a specific policy, like a new tax credit. If a politician you love proposes it, you might call it “brilliant economic relief.” If the politician you despise (your RCO) proposes the exact same policy four years later, you might call it “fiscal irresponsibility.” You haven’t thought about the tax credit; you’ve just reacted to the person proposing it.
Simple Terms: We stop thinking the moment we focus on who is speaking rather than what they are saying.
The Takeaway: You cannot think clearly until you stop letting your enemies dictate your opinions via reverse psychology.
3. Bulverism: The Trap of “Why” Before “That”
Jacobs borrows another term from C.S. Lewis here called “Bulverism.” It’s a funny word for a very annoying habit we all have.
Imagine you are building a Lego set. Someone walks up and says, “You put that brick in the wrong spot.”
A normal response is to check the instructions (the evidence) to see if you are wrong.
Bulverism is when you ignore the instructions and say, “You’re only saying that because you’re jealous of my Lego set,” or “You only think that because you’re a chaotic person.”
Bulverism assumes the other person is wrong without proving it first, and then immediately proceeds to explain why they are wrong based on their psychology, motives, or identity.
It sounds like: “You only believe in climate change because you want government control,” or “You only oppose this law because you hate the poor.”
It’s a convenient way to avoid doing the hard work of actually addressing their argument. You sideline the facts to attack the person’s character.
Simple Terms: Don’t assume you know someone’s hidden motives; prove them wrong with facts first, or don’t claim they are wrong at all.
The Takeaway: Discussing why someone believes something is useless until you have established that what they believe is actually false.
4. Keywords as Conversation Stoppers
We love efficiency. We love shortcuts. In thinking, we use “keywords” as shortcuts to avoid the labor of explanation.
Imagine a railway switch. When a train hits the switch, it immediately gets diverted down a different track without stopping.
Keywords work the same way. Words like “Natural,” “Biblical,” “Justice,” “Freedom,” or “Science” are often used not to explore a topic, but to end the discussion.
If I say, “Well, this is just Common Sense,” I am effectively saying, “There is no need to think about this anymore, and if you disagree, you don’t have common sense.” I have pulled the railway switch. I’m not doing the work of explaining my position; I’m just flashing a badge that says “I’m right.”
Real-world example: In nutrition debates, the word “Natural” is a massive keyword. People will argue a product is better solely because it is “all-natural.” Arsenic is natural, but you shouldn’t eat it. By relying on the keyword, we skip the necessary step of asking, “Is this specific ingredient actually healthy?”
📖 “Whatever the goal, the keyword is not a tool of thought but a substitute for it.”
Simple Terms: Be suspicious of buzzwords that claim to settle an argument instantly.
The Takeaway: If you can’t explain your point without using your group’s favorite buzzwords, you might not understand your point as well as you think.
5. Give It Five Minutes (The Power of Forbearance)
Jacobs tells a story about Jason Fried, the CEO of Basecamp. Fried once listened to a speaker and immediately raised his hand to disagree. The speaker looked at him and said, “Give it five minutes.”
This is the concept of Forbearance.
Our world is obsessed with the “Hot Take.” Twitter, Slack, and cable news demand instant reactions. If you don’t have an opinion five seconds after an event occurs, you are seen as uninformed.
But Jacobs argues that the brain needs time to process. It’s like letting a steak rest after you cook it. If you cut into it immediately, all the juices run out and it’s ruined. If you react to an idea immediately, your “juices” (emotions/biases) spill out everywhere.
Forbearance isn’t about being weak; it’s about having the strength to hold an idea in your head—even one you hate—without immediately trying to kill it. It is the “strategic pause.”
Real-world example: You receive a work email that feels passive-aggressive. Your fingers itch to type a snarky reply immediately. Forbearance is the discipline to close the laptop, take a walk, and wait until your blood pressure drops before reading it again. Usually, upon the second reading, the email isn’t nearly as bad as you thought.
Simple Terms: Delay your reaction time to let your rational brain catch up with your emotional brain.
The Takeaway: The smartest person in the room is usually the one who waits the longest to form a rigid opinion.
My Final Thoughts
Reading How to Think felt like taking off a tight pair of shoes after a long hike. It was a relief.
I realized that I don’t have to have an opinion on everything. I don’t have to “win” every conversation. Jacobs taught me that changing my mind isn’t a sign of weakness; it’s a sign that my thinking apparatus is actually working.
This book didn’t just make me a better thinker; I genuinely believe it made me a kinder person. It reminded me that the people I disagree with are just that—people. Not avatars, not enemies, but humans trying to navigate a confusing world, just like me.
Join the Conversation!
I’d love to hear from you in the comments. Who is your “Repugnant Cultural Other”? What group or person instantly makes you want to shut down your brain and disagree? Let’s be honest (and nice) about it!
Frequently Asked Questions (The stuff you’re probably wondering)
1. Is this book really technical or academic?
Not at all. Alan Jacobs is a professor, but he writes like a normal human being. It is short, punchy, and full of relatable stories. You can easily read it in a weekend.
2. Is this a political book?
No. Jacobs uses examples from both the Left and the Right. He critiques how everyone thinks, regardless of their political affiliation. He is an equal-opportunity offender when it comes to calling out bad habits.
3. Do I need to be religious to enjoy it?
No. Jacobs is a Christian and mentions it, but the principles of the book—patience, charity, avoiding bias—are universal and secular. It is written for a general audience.
4. Will this book teach me how to win debates?
Actually, it might teach you to stop trying to “win” them. It focuses more on how to reach the truth and understand others, rather than how to crush an opponent.
5. Is this book for me if I’m not a big reader?
Yes! It is very accessible. If you spend any time on social media or watching the news and feel stressed by it, this book is specifically designed for you.
