How power, conformity, and social media erode critical thinking | Jonny Thomson

Main Ideas

• Power can undermine critical thinking. Jonny Thomson presents Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s idea that intelligence involves evaluating evidence, thinking independently, and accepting or rejecting ideas on their merits. Yet people who enter positions of power—especially elected politicians—may be expected to follow party instructions rather than their own judgment. Thomson compares this to an inversion of the Peter principle: critical ability may help someone reach power, but the institution can then pressure them to stop using it independently.

• Conformity can matter more than truth. Drawing on Nietzsche, Thomson argues that truth is often valued for its practical or social usefulness, while belonging to a group can be more immediately rewarding. In organizations, people may be rewarded for appearing loyal or competent rather than for pursuing what is true.

• Indifference to truth is especially dangerous. Thomson uses Harry Frankfurt’s distinction between a liar and a bullshitter: a liar cares enough about truth to disguise or distort it, whereas a bullshitter is unconcerned with whether a claim is true and says whatever serves their purpose. Thomson argues that being expected to have opinions on everything can encourage this kind of talk—even when people lack the knowledge to speak confidently.

• Language can weaken thought. Citing George Orwell’s essay Politics and the English Language, Thomson says that vague phrases and clichés can make thinking vague too. Expressions such as “necessary sacrifices,” “negative growth,” and “efficiency gains” can obscure harsher realities. Euphemistic language also gives leaders and organizations room to avoid stating plainly what has happened.

• Social media often rewards assertion over thoughtful debate. Thomson contrasts extended, reflective discussion—associated with Plato’s idea of dialectic—with brief, identity-driven declarations online. Likes, reposts, and approval from an online “tribe” can reward people for repeating views without examining them. Influencers, echo chambers, and recommendation algorithms can encourage users to outsource their beliefs and conform to a group.

• The same scrutiny should be applied to oneself. It is easy to identify other people’s groupthink while overlooking one’s own. Thomson invokes Descartes’ method of radical doubt: people should periodically examine the beliefs they inherited from family, friends, or their social environment rather than assume those beliefs are sound.

Practices Thomson Recommends

• Question beliefs you have never examined. Treat inherited or socially reinforced beliefs as candidates for review, not as automatically true. Descartes’ apple-barrel analogy suggests starting from a position of doubt rather than assuming that an apparently sound collection contains no “rotten” beliefs.
• Ask what a belief costs you socially. Consider: Would I still hold this belief if it damaged my reputation, status, or job? The answer can help reveal whether the belief is held because it seems true or because it is socially advantageous. Social usefulness alone does not prove a belief is wrong, but it is a reason to inspect it carefully.
• Seek out people who disagree with you. Avoid making either your online or offline life an echo chamber. Thomson suggests deliberately engaging with people who hold different views—for example, someone anti-war if you are pro-war, or a believer if you are an atheist.
• Discuss ideas through philosophy. Examining an argument through a philosopher’s work can make disagreement less personal. The discussion can focus on the idea and its reasoning, creating a less confrontational way to examine one’s own beliefs.
• Get comfortable saying “I don’t know.” The ancient skeptics associated suspending judgment with greater peace of mind. Acknowledging that you lack enough information is, in Thomson’s view, wiser and more honest than bluffing an opinion.
• Distinguish uncertainty from willful ignorance. Not knowing is not necessarily a failure. The more serious problem is choosing not to know and avoiding information that might correct you. Thomson argues that people should be less accepting of deliberate indifference to learning.
• Model the intellectual habits you want to see. Saying “I don’t know” honestly can make it easier for others to do the same, while careful questioning can resist the pressure to conform.

Speakers and Sources Featured

• Speaker: Jonny Thomson
• Sources and thinkers discussed: Dietrich Bonhoeffer; Lawrence J. Peter (the Peter principle); Friedrich Nietzsche (Beyond Good and Evil); Harry Frankfurt (his essay on bullshit); George Orwell (“Politics and the English Language”); Plato; Socrates; Aristotle; the Sophists, including Protagoras; René Descartes (Meditations); and the ancient skeptics.