Home

Welcome!

This website is a work in progress — an evolving effort to promote pragmatic and objective critical thinking as a way to make sense of an increasingly complicated and often bewildering world.

Since its launch on the 2025 concurrence of Martin Luther King Jr. Day and the U.S. Presidential inauguration, the site has published five major installments, or "issues," similar in spirit to a magazine. Each issue explores a theme at the intersection of thought, society, and human behavior.

This fifth issue marks an important turning point. More than any previous edition, it distills the core mission of this site — and as such, it offers an ideal starting point for new readers.

Its central focus is objectivity — a word that has, in many circles, fallen out of favor. That shift in sentiment initially led me to emphasize other facets of critical thinking. But I’ve found myself returning, again and again, to objectivity as a foundational principle. It’s time to reclaim the word. To move beyond flat dictionary definitions. To examine what objectivity really means in practice — and why it matters now more than ever.

Readers may also click any of the links below to view previous issues below, or visit the archive page for a summary of previous issues.

Issue 1
Intro Issue 2
Polarization Issue 3
Fear & Anger Issue 4
Thinking in Stories Issue 5
Objectivity

The Importance of Objectivity

With over 8 billion people on the planet, conflict is inevitable. Different experiences, perspectives, and opinions make disagreement a normal part of life. To function effectively, any society must have a way to resolve disputes and encourage cooperation across these differences.

One method of resolving conflict is warfare — brute force, where the strongest prevail, regardless of who is right. A more constructive and sustainable alternative is civil cooperation. In this model, people willingly relinquish some personal power in the interest of fairness and the greater good. Sociologists refer to this as prosocial behavior — actions that benefit others, even at personal cost. But prosocial behavior only thrives when people believe the systems in place are fair.

This is where objectivity becomes essential.

Objectivity helps ensure that solutions are perceived as fair by applying the same rules to everyone. As discussed in Issue 3, the human brain is hard-wired to care about fairness.. Perceived unfairness triggers anger — a powerful emotion that shifts our thinking from reason to reaction, from cooperation to conflict. While anger can sometimes unite people around a shared cause, few are willing to fight for something they believe is unjust.

Societies rely on their citizens to act prosocially — to serve, sacrifice, and contribute beyond themselves. We see this in soldiers, firefighters, teachers, public defenders, and parents. But people are far less willing to make sacrifices for systems they see as biased or unfair.

Western democracies, including the United States, are built on ideals of fairness: rule of law, constitutional rights, equal treatment under the law. We won’t always agree with a court’s ruling, but we are more likely to accept the outcome if we believe the system is objective.

Objectivity means more than simply suppressing emotion. It requires awareness — recognizing how our feelings can shape perception, and making a conscious effort to understand issues from multiple perspectives. It means valuing truth over personal opinion. It means that playing the game fairly is more important than winning.

Objectivity doesn’t erase humanity — it helps guide it. It’s not just a path to truth, but a foundation for fairness. And without fairness, the willingness to cooperate — the glue of civil society — begins to unravel. Objectivity not only helps us find truth, but helps us determine fairness. 

Valuing Objectivity in an Increasingly Polarized World

Unfortunately, objectivity seems to have fallen out of favor. As we become more polarized, objectivity is mentioned less and less in public discourse. News sources, social media, and even everyday conversations increasingly prioritize advocacy over analysis. What passes for "fairness" is often simply a shouting match between opposing extremes — with little effort to understand the issue from multiple sides. Which leads to even more polarization.

Objectivity takes effort. It isn't easy. Winning is much easier if one can bend the rules when the referee isn't looking. And our society tends to highlight those who win, not those who play the game fairly. But we especially like winners who also play fairly.

"No One Can Be Totally Objective" — So What?

Mention objectivity today, and you're likely to hear: “No one can be totally objective.” As if that somehow ends the conversation.

But that argument makes little sense. Would we tell someone trying to eat healthier, “Well, no one lives forever”? Or say to a child practicing basketball, “No one makes every shot”? While no one can be "perfectly objective", it doesn't mean that that we can't learn to be more objective, or that all opinions are equally objective. Humans are more than capable of being objective, just not perfectly objective. Like any skill, objectivity can be developed through tools, methods, and practice. But only if we value it enough to make it a priority.

Definitions That Fall Short

The Cambridge Dictionary defines objectivity as "being based on facts and not influenced by personal beliefs or feelings." But we are human — we’re all influenced by our beliefs and emotions. That’s not a flaw; it’s a feature. The goal isn’t to eliminate emotion, but to be aware of it — to factor it into our thinking without letting it dominate.

We might feel tempted to act selfishly — say, stealing candy from a baby — but we don’t. Why? Because we can view the situation from the baby’s perspective. We can imagine how it would feel to witness such unfairness. That act of stepping back, of considering multiple perspectives, is objectivity. It’s not the absence of emotion — it’s the management of it. We can be influenced by personal beliefs or feelings and still be objective! We simply need to step back and consider those feelings along with all other evidence. We can gain additional insights by reflecting on our emotions. Why did we feel that way? Does that help us better understand why others react the way they do?

Similarly, Merriam-Webster defines objectivity as: “Lack of favoritism toward one side or another.” That, too, oversimplifies things. Fairness often requires understanding the context and needs of all sides. If we have one loaf of bread to distribute among two people, should we always cut it in half? What if one person has a ready supply of food and has just eaten, and the other hasn't eaten in days? What if one person is gluten intolerant?

Objectivity can allow for favoritism, if there an objective reason for that favoritism! Human societies and our family structures are actually based on favoritism. We favor our own children over others. If there is only one slice of bread, we will give it to our hungry child over another hungry child. Any objective observer would understand that. The parent of the other child would understand, would do the same if the situation was reversed. We share when there is enough to go around. We protect our family first when there isn't.

The Practice of Objectivity

Objectivity takes time and effort. Like all human endeavors, it competes with many other priorities. We can’t be fully objective in every situation — and that’s okay. But we can value objectivity, recognizing its importance to human cooperation, fairness, and morality. And with that recognition comes a responsibility: to pursue objectivity when it matters most — and to promote it as a shared social value.

One of the most powerful first steps toward objectivity is deceptively simple: entertain the possibility that we might be wrong. That small act of humility opens the door to other evidence, other perspectives. In contrast, when we assume we are right, our mental energy goes not toward discovery, but toward defending our stance — seeking out exceptions or unlikely counter-theories to dismiss anything that challenges our view. This mindset leads to double standards and false equivalence. We scrutinize opposing arguments with harsh skepticism while letting our own ideas pass with little challenge.

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool." - Richard Feynman   

Self-confidence is a natural and important aspect of human nature and is built into our subconscious. We are wired to be confident in our abilities. A bit of overconfidence even helps us survive. And we are wired to place trust in those who exude confidence. But we can go too far. Excessive pride and self-confidence is "hubris", considered the deadliest of all sins in Greek mythology. However, another important aspect of human evolution is our ability to keep self-confidence in balance, to maintain a healthy skepticism — not just of others, but ourselves as well. The importance of humility. As Richard Feynman says, accepting the fact that no matter how confident we are, we are capable of being fooled. If we genuinely care about the truth, we have to start with the premise that we might be wrong.

And objectively, we also have to accept that hubris often wins in the short-run. Goliath won most of his battles — until he met David. Goliath had good reason to be self-confident, all of the evidence he had experienced pointed to his invincibility. And for others, wasn't it easier, more efficient, and maybe safer, to believe him?

Models for Objectivity

A good rule of thumb for objectivity is to establish criteria for evaluation before examining the evidence. It isn't always possibly and takes effort, but this simple step can dramatically reduce bias. It forces us to define what would count as a fair assessment in advance, before emotion or self-interest creep in.

This is the foundation of the scientific method as well as our legal system. Both are structured to prioritize objectivity. The framers of the U.S. Constitution understood how emotion could distort reason. That’s why laws must be known in advance. Judges and juries must follow established procedures, must follow the law. Laws cannot be applied retroactively. These principles exist not because they always produce outcomes we like — but because they protect against arbitrary power and emotional overreach.

Sometimes, legal decisions seem deeply unfair. But objectivity requires us to look beyond our immediate emotional reactions. We must consider why those laws exist, how they aim to serve fairness across cases, and whether we would apply the same reasoning if the roles were reversed.

Our instincts are to react, to "solve the problem" quickly. So, we may tailor the rules to handle the exception — without serious consideration for the unintended consequences that my follow. When we do so, we fool ourselves into believing we are being objective.

Being objective doesn’t mean giving up on human emotion or belief or instinct — it means understanding their influence. It means:

• Stepping back
• Considering other perspectives
• Asking and answering: “Would I feel the same if roles were reversed?”
• Applying criteria consistently and consciously

The Scientific Method

Courts of law are powerful tools for resolving disputes and uncovering truth. But like all systems, even objective ones, they operate within real-world constraints — limited time, resources, and the need for finality.

The courtroom model is built for binary outcomes: guilty or not guilty. Each side presents only the evidence that supports its position and tries to undermine the other’s. Judges and juries can’t introduce their own evidence or ask new questions. And once a decision is reached, revisiting it requires extraordinary circumstances. The process is efficient and gets things mostly right, most of the time — but it does so by trading a bit of accuracy for timeliness and closure.

Load video

YouTube

YouTube might collect personal data. Privacy Policy

ContinueDismiss

Neil deGrasse Tyson
Science and the Barista
Watch on YouTube

"Science isn't the result of one experiment. It doesn't become true until others verify it. Preferably someone who has a differing point of view who has incentive to show it wrong.  When that occurs, you have the beginnings of evidence of truth." - Neil deGrasse Tyson (paraphrase)    

The scientific method is another model for finding truth and even for resolving disputes. It is less efficient than the courtroom model, and perhaps less satisfying because accurate answers are seldom absolute. Conclusions are supported by the best available evidence but always open to revision. The most accurate scientific conclusions are rarely simple or final — they are nuanced, evolving, and subject to challenge.

The Challenge

The scientific method is a slow process, especially in today's modern world of social media and AI where answers are expected quickly. Often, by the time science has a chance to weigh in with a more accurate answer, many have already moved on to other priorities. A concise and speedy off-the-cuff answer said with confidence can carry more weight than a more objective answer which takes time to research.

As discussed in Issue 4, our subconscious thinks in stories, not in data sets and tables. The current world of social media operates in stories. Youtube and Tiktok videos are more popular than text. Opinions usually make better stories than facts do. A good story has a hero and a villain, a clear start and end. Objective scientific analysis of complex real-world problems seldom has such clear distinctions. And for complex real-world problems where uncertainty and probability are involved, advocates can always find an exception that makes for a compelling story to cast doubt on science-based conclusions. The more polarized we become, the more susceptible we are to believing such stories.

Moving Forward

Objectivity is slow. We can’t apply the scientific method to every decision. We can’t listen to every perspective or research every claim. We can’t apply it to every daily decision. But we can adopt its spirit: curiosity, fairness, and humility in the face of the modern world.

We can still aim for greater objectivity by adopting methods that are both practical and principled. Just as the courtroom system seeks efficiency without abandoning fairness, we can develop habits that make our thinking more objective — even under pressure. We can promote stories that highlight the value of objectivity. Objectivity as the hero.

A key goal of this website is to explore and promote objectivity and critical thinking through three main themes:

• A deeper understanding of how human thinking evolved — and how our biology shapes our reasoning
• Practical techniques for thinking more objectively
• An objective analysis of current issues in society

These threads will be explored in future issues — stay tuned.

For More Information

ChatGPT provided assistance in improving readability, formatting, and content on this page.