My answer to the Peter Thiel question — part 1

Peter Thiel loves to ask this question of interviewees:

“Tell me something that’s true, that almost nobody agrees with you on.”

Here’s my answer:

We shouldn’t aim to believe what’s true. We should aim to believe what’s good for us to believe.

Most people either think that this is false — that we should always aim for the truth, even if it hurts — or that the two aims amount to the same thing (ie, the truth is always what’s best for us to believe).

But both views are incorrect. In this post, the first in a series, I’ll address these traditional views. In future posts I’ll defend the claim that we should aim to believe just what’s good for us to believe, and I’ll show why the distinction matters.

We shouldn’t always aim for the truth

Let’s start with the idea that we should always aim for the truth. This can be analyzed into two separate aims: the aim to believe all truths (pursue truths), and the aim to believe only truths (avoid falsehoods). Neither is acceptable as a universal maxim.

Regarding the ‘pursue truth’ aim: very many truths are too trivial to be worth pursuing. Take, for example, the number of grains of sand comprising Daytona Beach. You’ll be forgiven for not pursuing a true belief on this matter (and many more like it).

Regarding the ‘avoid falsehoods’ aim: it’s not hard to dream up scenarios in which any rational human would choose to aim for a false belief over a true one. For example, imagine you’re abducted by aliens who convincingly tell you that they will destroy Earth unless you come to believe that polar bears are green. They then offer you a pill and convincingly inform you that taking the pill will cause you to believe that polar bears are green. Would you not be rational to aim for a false belief by taking the pill?

The true and the good are not the same

The second objection — that aiming for the truth and aiming for what’s good to believe amount to the same thing — is also belied by the alien abduction scenario. But we might give a more earthly example to bolster the point. Imagine you’re being interrogated in a windowless room by a secret agent. On the table between you is a folder. The agent credibly informs you that the folder contains information which would correct a false belief that you currently hold, if you were to read it. You are free to read it, he tells you, but if you do, he’ll have to kill you. What should you do? If you’re aiming for the truth, you’ll read the folder. If you’re aiming for what’s good for you, you’ll walk away.

I believe these examples are sufficient to discredit the idea that we should always aim to believe the truth. In the next post I’ll address the objection that claims we don’t have a choice in the matter of what we believe.