Deepstash brings you key ideas from the most inspiring articles like this one:
Read more efficiently
Save what inspires you
Save all ideas
Each of us looks at things differently, and it's largely based on our thinking patterns, education levels, inherent bias, self-identity, and real, first-hand experiences.
Human beings tend to have two kinds of conflicting mindsets:
Our Higher Mind and the Primitive Mind always have a tug-of-war like conflict. The degree of the conflict can be placed in a spectrum, which is called a Psych Spectrum.
If the Higher ...
If we are low on the Psych Spectrum, our Primitive Mind is in charge, which means:
Truth-based mindset judges others by the way they think (HOW), while confirmation based mindset judges others by WHAT they think.
Truth based mindsets also have original viewpoints based on a...
The Unbiased scientific thinker strives to arrive at the truth using knowledge and conviction in equal measure. His vision is clear but he believes that obtaining real knowledge is hard and the wor...
Upwards of the Psych Spectrum, we see objective thinking and lack of ego, ready to accept the truth after we find it, rationally and by following an unbiased process.
As we go down the Spectr...
It is a process. As each of us is essentially getting better in our thinking, maturing to grow up psychologically, we are climbing to the higher rungs of the Psych Spectrum.
While we are in t...
SIMILAR ARTICLES & IDEAS:
Today’s career landscape isn’t a lineup of tunnels, it’s a massive, impossibly complex, rapidly changing science laboratory.
Time. A typical career will take up somewhere between 20% and 60% of your meaningful adult time.
Quality of Life. Your career has a major effect on all your non-career hours.
Impact. Whatever shape your career path ends up taking, the world will be altered by it.
Identity. We tell people about our careers by telling them what we are.
6 more ideas
...doesn’t happen because you’ve studied some abstract logical form and come to valid deductions.
It happens because you know enough about how the world works to rule out certain...
Many well-known problems of human reasoning disappear once you get a group of people together and let them talk about it.
It's a good way to see your ideas refuted or let stronger ideas win the day. Although there’s a risk of group think and conformity pressures, if you take a large and diverse enough group, you’re more likely to be exposed to the best reasoning, which will tend to win out over the majority opinion.
This isn’t just false modesty or fishing for reassurance; some people do believe that they cause every bad thing all or most of the time.
Blaming yourself when something goes wrong might, relates to a general tendency to make internal attributions for failure in which you see yourself as inept, foolish, or irresponsible. That tendency might motivate you to attribute your successes to external factors, such as fate, chance or luck, as well.
Theoretically, anyone who intentionally practices an immoral act is culpable regardless of the consequences. But in most cases, people sign up for what is called “moral luck”.
Moral luck is the belief that you should hold someone to blame only if the action causes harm to others, not for their intent, and according to it, those whose actions bring harm are more culpable.
2 more ideas