u/Analytic_Folker

I’ve been noticing a pattern, online and in real life, and I’m curious if others see the same thing.

A lot of smart people will say, “I think for myself,” but when a complex issue pops up, the first move is often, “What does my favorite influencer / Substack / podcast think about this?”

That’s not quite independent thinking. It’s just choosing which stranger to outsource judgment to.

In the intelligence world, you’re trained to do something different. You don’t get to treat “X said it” as an argument. You learn tradecraft:

• Check the source and their incentives
• Look for what’s missing, not just what’s present
• Think in probabilities instead of certainties
• Ask what evidence would actually change your mind
• Track whether your forecasts match reality over time

Outside that context, most of us never get pushed to do this. We just upgrade our media diet and assume that’s the same as upgrading our thinking.

I’m trying to build more of those habits into my own daily life (small forecasting exercises, writing down reasons for a belief before reading “the smart take,” and revisiting decisions later to see if my reasoning was any good). It’s uncomfortable, but it’s also made me realize how much of my previous thinking was basically fandom with extra footnotes.

I’d love to hear:

• How do you personally guard against outsourcing your thinking to influencers or experts you like?
• Do you have any concrete habits (journaling, prediction tracking, devil’s‑advocate exercises, etc.) that help?
• Have you ever realized, a bit too late, that your “opinion” on something was basically just a copy of someone you follow?

I’m especially interested in practical approaches, not just “be skeptical” as a slogan.

If it’s useful context, I work in/around intelligence and critical thinking training, so I’m also happy to share what’s worked (and not worked) when trying to apply tradecraft outside that world.

The latest episode of the Folker Lab Podcast dropped this morning about the illusion of expert judgment.

The episode is about a paper I co-authored with Jim Davitch, PhD and inspired by the work of Adam Stone, PhD.

You can listen and subscribe for free at https://open.spotify.com/episode/58GKiWAPFyTksISdFYDrql?si=ddd7ac49c83542c1

Let me know if you support the idea of cognitive checkrides!

Pick one belief, opinion, or decision you currently hold.

Then ask:

1. What is the strongest argument against my conclusion?
2. What evidence would support an alternative explanation?
3. What might someone who disagrees with me see that I am missing?

The point is not to become indecisive or skeptical about everything.

The point is to reduce overconfidence and test whether your conclusion can survive contact with opposing evidence.

A lot of reasoning errors happen because we only search for evidence that confirms what we already think. This exercise forces us to slow down and examine the other side.

A deep, critical thinker should be able to separate what they know from what they are assuming.

Here is a short exercise I use:

Pick one conclusion you currently believe. It can be about work, a project, a current event, or a personal decision.

Then write three lists:

1. Facts: What do I actually know?

2. Assumptions: What am I treating as true?

3. Tests: What evidence would change my mind?

The value of the exercise is that it slows down the jump from information to conclusion.

A lot of reasoning errors happen because assumptions are hidden inside what we call “facts.” Once those assumptions are visible, the conclusion becomes much easier to test.

I have been building an AI coaching app called MindMaster to help people practice this kind of structured reasoning.

But even without the app, the exercise above is worth trying.