Three Elements of Mature Thinking

The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function. — F. Scott Fitzgerald

Modern sociopolitical discourse is stymied by the prevalence of immature thinking. Far too many people believe that earnest zealotry is a substitute for reasoned argument. There are significant elements of mature thinking that must be considered and practiced for there to be discourse that actually creates light as opposed to merely creating heat.

Mature thinkers can accept facts from inconvenient sources

A fact does not cease to be factual simply because one dislikes the source of the fact. Ad hominem dismissals of facts are for people who do not care about truth and do not have the skills to meaningfully address arguments. If Donald Trump correctly argues that the sun rises in the east, pointing out that he is a menace who encouraged the attack on the Capitol in attempt to retain the presidency, despite losing the general election, is not a refutation of that truth. If President Joe Biden argues that the chemical formula for water is H2O, that fact cannot be dismissed by pointing out that inflation is happening on his watch and that Biden is currently registering historically low approval ratings.

Some people try to justify the dismissal of facts from inconvenient or unsavory sources by pointing out that if someone has a history of lying then it makes sense to dismiss all of their claims. This is merely a cop-out. First, it is often the case that what is characterized as a “history of lying” is actually just a history of saying things with which the dismissive person disagrees. Second, even if someone has an actual history of lying, serious thinkers know that they have to assess claims independently, as opposed to using cheap shortcuts. The National Enquirer, for example, consistently posts questionable stories about celebrities and politicians; however, this did not mean that the story it broke in 2007 about John Edwards’ affair, which subsequently became a massive political scandal, was untrue. Simply dismissing sources without evaluating the merit of claims made is a hallmark of immature thinking.

Mature thinking requires the ability to persuade, which necessitates correctly characterizing opposing arguments

As a professor, one of my favorite writing assignments requires students to disagree with an area of the course material. Students get to choose the subject area with which they want to disagree. In order to earn a good grade on this assignment, however, students are required to fairly and correctly characterize the argument before disagreeing with it. This encourages critical thinking.

In order to persuade, one has to show understanding of an opposing view and be able to convincingly argue against it—not a caricature of the opposing view. While confidently knocking down carefully constructed straw men may seem impressive, in reality, such dishonest argumentation is only ever impressive to people who do not know much about the subject being discussed.

While the modern world is such that people can get away with only consulting partisan sources of information that confirm their biases, people who want to be well-informed often consult with multiple sources. The kind of person who can be convinced by tendentious misrepresentations of arguments is the kind of person who wants to be deceived. In this day and age, it is difficult to promote a deceptive narrative while confidently believing that people will never be able to find the truth. In a world with Google, the truth is always available at people's fingertips. Mature thinkers have the decided ability to persuade with argument, so they have no need to attempt to snooker with agitprop.

Mature thinkers are principled, but they avoid the zealotry of denying exceptions

Being principled is important and necessary. There is nothing more frustrating than dealing with someone whose opinions change expediently, as opposed to changing their opinions as a result of careful cogitation. However, it is necessary to point out that there are some people who have perfected the art of blurring the lines between being principled and engaging in zealotry. The main way this is accomplished is by pretending that there can be no exceptions to general principles that one holds.

There are some situations that are black and white. However, in a complex world filled with humans with various idiosyncrasies, gray areas will exist. Trying to rigidly apply abstract principles to situations without understanding how gray areas require some flexibility gives rise to extremism. Extremism is the inexorable result of immature thinking that denies the existence of gray areas.

People hiding behind principles to avoid having to deal with the existence of gray areas can be seen throughout modern politics. For instance, one can, in principle, deeply believe that life is sacred and ought not to be summarily or capriciously extirpated in the womb. However, such a person can still think it is immoral for the state to obtrusively insist that women ought to carry ectopic pregnancies until their reproductive systems burst and they die. Belief in the sanctity of life can be a general principle while understanding the immorality of the state forcing women impregnated against their will to carry such pregnancies to term. The existence of exceptions does not invalidate principles, neither does recognizing these exceptions make a person unprincipled.

Another example can be found in discussions of climate change. One can believe in anthropogenic global warming and, in principle, believe in the importance of clean energy for the environment without engaging in doomsday alarmism proclaiming the end of the world, such as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez preposterously claiming the world would end in 12 years without action on climate change. At the present time, burning fossil fuels is necessary to live in the modern world. Understanding that fact does not mean one does not care about the environment. It makes one a thinking adult who is capable of accepting facts.

Likewise, one can, in principle, support generally free speech without engaging in the morally cowardly pretense that free speech absolutism is something that is fundamentally salubrious for a society. While it is generally and obviously true that more speech is better than less speech, going as far as arguing for the rights of Nazis to speak freely and publicly makes little sense. That it is constitutionally permissible does not make it morally correct. The proliferation of Nazism results in death. Free speech absolutism is moral cowardice masquerading as moral courage. While there are downsides to prosecuting certain kinds of hateful speech and disputed evidence on the efficacy of hate speech laws in preventing violence, one can at least understand why a country like Germany made it criminal to engage in pro-Nazi rhetoric publicly. Germans correctly understand that genocidal campaigns are started with microphones and word processors. Turning a blind eye to the fact that hateful speech often does metastasize into hate violence in order to be "principled" in defense of freedom of speech is both inane and immoral.

The failure to recognize areas of gray is evidence of intellectual weakness—not strength. The inability to understand that principles are not refuted by the acknowledgement of exceptions is the mark of an immature mind. People who think maturely can hold steadfastly to their principles and recognize situations where those principles are not easily applied.