Radical Thinking: A Better Way to Disagree (and Decide)

Hi there,

What’s the Story?

I’ve been buried in books and drafts this week, shaping chapters of my next project on influence and propaganda, and I had the perfect intellectual sparring partner: Peter Lamont, whom I interviewed recently on the Changing Minds podcast.

Peter’s new book, Radical Thinking, isn’t “think harder”; it’s “get back to the roots” of how beliefs form, why we stick to them, and how to navigate a world drowning in certainty. You can find more details on Peter and his brilliant book, Radical Thinking, here.

In today’s newsletter, I’m distilling the most practical ideas from our conversation: the difference between process and outcome, how “extraordinary” beliefs take hold, a 3-question lens to cut through noise, and why humility might be the most underrated cognitive skill of all.

Let’s dive into how to argue less, understand more, and make better decisions, especially when emotions run hot.

__________________

Radical Thinking: A Better Way to Disagree (and Decide)

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

Most of us treat “critical thinking” like a badge. We assume we do it well because we’re educated, data-driven, or “skeptical but open-minded.” The trouble is, the phrase has become so elastic that everyone can claim it, even people using it to argue against evolution on scriptural grounds. If a term means everything, it risks meaning nothing.

Peter Lamont proposes a reset: radical thinking. “Radical” comes from radix – root. Instead of obsessing over arriving at the “right” conclusion, radical thinking focuses on the process by which we form beliefs: what we notice, how we interpret it, and which options we even consider. It’s a move from outcome-worship back to method.

Truth, Without the Hand-Waving

In everyday debates, “truth” gets invoked like a trump card. Lamont suggests a calmer frame: reality exists, but our knowledge of it is always partial, bounded by what we notice and the interpretations we choose. That’s not a descent into “anything goes”; it’s an admission that our claims ride on limited data and contested meanings. In science, that humility is baked in: hypotheses must be testable and revisable. Changing your mind with better evidence isn’t weakness; it’s the point.

This matters because mistaking our current map for the territory fuels polarization. We slide from “this fits the best evidence we have” to “this is objectively true and only fools disagree.” Radical thinking introduces epistemic humility: an awareness that we’re always seeing a slice of reality, interpreted through our histories, incentives, and identities.

Process Over Outcome (and why COVID debates went sideways)

Consider why science looked “inconsistent” during the early pandemic: initial claims shifted as data improved. From a radical-thinking lens, this wasn’t failure but function; the process updated the outcomes. When non-scientists evaluate science purely by stable outcomes, normal revision looks like incompetence or conspiracy. When we evaluate by process, revision looks like rigor.

Why Extraordinary Beliefs Feel Reasonable (to reasonable people)

Lamont’s research on “extraordinary” claims (paranormal, conspiratorial, supernatural) shows a consistent pattern: before someone embraces an extraordinary explanation, they find the ordinary explanations inadequate. If I sincerely believe I’ve ruled out fatigue, illusions, and fraud, “ghost” starts to look more plausible. Rejecting the ordinary is a logical precondition for accepting the extraordinary. Once you’ve crossed that bridge, other extraordinary claims feel less far-fetched.

This doesn’t mean people are gullible. It means they’re motivated reasoners working with different priors and contexts. The better question isn’t “Why are they so biased?” but “What ordinary explanation did they find unsatisfying, and why?” Only then can you address the right gap rather than flood them with facts they’ve already discounted.

Propaganda Still Works (because we do)

Old persuasion tricks never died; they just refreshed their labels. Name-calling reframes opponents (“heretic,” “communist”); glittering generalities sell vague promises (“freedom,” “take back control,” “Yes We Can”). Vague slogans are harder to falsify and easier to project your hopes onto, hence their staying power. Knowing these devices won’t immunize you, but they help you notice when attention, not accuracy, is the real goal.

A Three-Question Lens You Can Actually Use

Lamont’s deceptively simple framework applies to news headlines, boardroom pitches, and heated dinner-table debates:

1. Meaning: What exactly is being claimed? (Most “arguments” are people talking about slightly different things.)

2. Basis: What’s the evidence for that specific claim? (You can’t assess evidence if the claim is fuzzy.)

3. Function: Why is this being said now, to this audience, in this way? (Truths can be selected for attention, identity, or profit.)

Run almost any viral claim through those three and you’ll feel your shoulders drop. You don’t need to “win”; you need to clarify meaning, evaluate basis, and surface function. Suddenly, the heat goes down and the light goes up.

Humility, History, and Helping Others

One of my favorite examples from Peter: the 1780s Encyclopedia Britannica presented the entire history of the world in 44 pages, and placed creation around 4000 BC, which was taken as a scholarly fact. Meanwhile, a short walk away, James Hutton was laying the foundations of geology and an ancient Earth. Same city, same decade, radically different worldviews, because options are constrained by the ideas available at the time. It’s a vivid reminder that our “obvious truths” are often artifacts of context.

Bringing it Home

Radical thinking is a curious discipline: staying with definitions longer than feels comfortable; asking for the specific evidence behind the actual claim; and remembering that messages serve purposes beyond truth. Do this consistently and three things happen:

Your decisions improve (fewer snap judgments).
Your conversations improve (less posturing, more understanding).
Your resilience improves (you catch cognitive distortions before they snowball).

In a noisy world, the “radical” move is not a hotter take; it’s a better process.

____________________