You Love Being Ignorant
There’s a term in cognitive science called satisficing. Satisficing is crucial to our decision-making because it allows us to act without knowing everything. Once we think our knowledge of something is “good enough,” we’re done.
In other words, we’re hardwired to not know it all and reach conclusions quickly. Thinking deeply is costly.

Depth of Thought
We can think of depth of thought as a hierarchy that looks something like this:
- Level 1: Learn something (at face value)
- Level 2: Figure something out beyond, or counter to, what was learned.
- Level 3: Refine. Refine. Refine.
Level 3 thinking is expensive. Level 3 thinking is iterative, and requires constant “updates” to our opinions and ideas as we learn new data and integrate interdisciplinary information. It requires asking difficult questions and challenging our own beliefs. Because of this, Level 3 thinking is less common.
Level 1 thinking is cheap. Level 1 thinking is rudimentary; learn enough to reach a conclusion, and stop. Really, that’s all Level 1 is. Because of this, most people are Level 1 thinkers in all peripheral areas of their lives.
Many of us are also Level 1 thinkers in core areas of our lives. We still invest energy in these topics, but the investment is in defending a belief once it has been established. (My basketball book discusses how we are deeply hardwired for this.)

Defending a Position is Not Deep Thinking
Most people tend to think that they’ve thought the perfect amount about something complex that they care about (politics, sports, parenting, money, etc.). The more confident someone is that they’ve figured it out, the less likely they will be to ever keep thinking more deeply about it and challenge their own beliefs.
Instead, at that point we start defending our positions. Many people spend hours every week defending their positions at the dinner table or on the Internet, but they aren’t thinking in greater depth about them.* Time spent defending is not time spent thinking more deeply.
To spot when people are doing this, just look at the language they use. Is it charged? Polemical? Do they mock others or insult them? Do they rarely address counterpoints or ignore questions? That’s what defense-mode looks like. It often comes with fallacies or appeals to ignorance.
Advocating Ignorance
Now, prepare yourself. I’m going to make an argument that most scientists rarely make.
It’s usually beneficial to be ignorant.
Acquiring information is costly. Then, processing that information is costly — this is why your mind filters out most of what you encounter. It’s not a good survival strategy to try and know lots and lots about lots and lots.
But…
Some issues require deep thinking. This depends on goal and context. Trying to solve certain problems without it is the definition of “doing it wrong.” If the outcome of the topic matters to you — whether that’s NASA building a rocket ship or making sure you’re getting the most out of your relationships — then deep thinking is critical.
What I see in so many elements of society right now is a rejection of deep-thinking. The ramifications of this are severe: It’s not that we’ll stop building rocket ships and iPhones. (We might.) It’s that when we build them, they won’t be safe. It’s not that we won’t come up with public policy. It’s that it won’t actually help.
Let me paraphrase Neil DeGrasse Tyson here: It’s perfectly fine to stop thinking about certain things more deeply. What’s problematic is insisting that others stop too, or rejecting what others discover when they keep going…just because you stopped.
That’s how problems are unsolved.
*A note on cognitive defense spending: If it took 1 hour to reach a conclusion, once we’ve been defending that conclusion for 10 hours, we’ll have almost no desire to alter it. If, instead, it took 10 hours to reach a conclusion, 1 hour into defending it we’ll be much more open to updates.
