Remember what you were like five, ten, fifteen years ago? Given the chance to go back in time, I imagine you’d gladly want to have a conversation with your former self, warning him about whatever mistakes he was making at the time. Most likely, you wouldn’t need much more than a few sentences to trigger a shift in their thinking – unless, of course, you’re so stuborn you wouldn’t even accept advice from yourself. As nobody has invented a time machine (yet), another great solution is to observe other people’s stories, in the form of rich and detailed biographies.
Which brings me to the biography of George Washington, which I’m delving into at the moment. Back in his early twenties, he obviously found himself a subject of the British Empire, the East Coast of North America being nothing more than a cluster of thirteen British colonies. And as difficult it is for us to imagine, the French were fighting for their slice of the pie too, wanting to conquer Ohio Country, a region larger than the Ohio state we recognize today.
Washington had previously engaged the French with a small contingent from the colonial army, which ultimately spiraled into catastrophe, partly due to an ill-chosen battleground. Consequently, the British had to send in their own troops, in an attempt to reclaim the territory. By this point, Washington had observed the French and how they fought on the battlefield, prefering to ambush from elevated forested positions, rather than the conventional linear approach. He cautioned British General Braddock, but his advice fell on deaf ears. The outcome? A resounding defeat for the British, who suffered hundreds of casualties despite numerical superiority, with the French suffering only a fraction of the losses.
This event lays the foundation for understanding how Washington dared to take on the British Empire later in life. His disillusionment with the omnipotent and invincible British Empire was not a whim; the seeds of it were sown back when he was in his early twenties. When Washington scrutinized classical European warfare, he recognized the flaws in their approach, which turned out to be very useful indeed. This underscores the value of critical thinking, which can take you leaps beyond your competitors, as opposed to the conventional method, which typically only strives to outperform them marginally.
So, consider this: your former self likely had a number of assumptions you’ve long since discarded. But what if your future self would come knocking on your doorstep? Would you consider it likely he’d have one or two things to say, pieces of indispensable advice? Well, while it would be convenient to meet your future self for guidance, that’s a luxury we can’t count on. So what’s the remedy? It’s simply this: we have to scrutinize our own blind spots and track down any faulty beliefs. Better to find out now, than later, right?
This requires asking the right questions, a process for which “The Socratic Method” by Ward Farnsworth serves as a valuable resource. Contrary to common misperceptions, the Socratic method is not a bag of tricks to manipulate others into agreement. It’s not just something you do until you’ve got the answer you want, nor is it a pedagogical ruse, where the instructor secretly holds the answers while pretending he’s just asking questions. As Farnsworth presents it, the Socratic method is a mode of thought, not a debating or teaching gimmick. Primarily, it’s a dialogue with oneself. Obviously, if you were to constantly ask your friends questions, you’d soon find yourself with no friends left.
In practice, it revolves around articulating your beliefs with clarity and subjecting them to scrutiny, using analogies and examples to evaluate their consistency. But, even if you don’t go that far, even the occasional self-dialogue can heighten your sensitivity to absolutes in others’ opinions.
Interestingly, this approach resonates with how these newsletters are created. Beyond just writing down my thoughts, I try to think of potential critiques, rewriting my message as needed. On a similar note, it’s worth noting that some of the most intriguing minds in the world, those who continually share compelling ideas, are often writers. As always: food for thought.
Kind regards
Vincent J. Dancet