Avoiding the Certainty Trap is about transforming how we think, especially when it comes to the most contentious issues we face—those relating to things like race, gender, intent, inequality, harm, offense, and freedom. On these topics, the trap tends to do the most damage. Getting beyond seeing people who disagree as bigots, snowflakes, or worse requires a willingness to challenge and clarify our thinking in a way that, for many of us, doesn’t come naturally or easily. Let’s dive in with some common questions.
What is this?
The Certainty Trap refers mainly to the consequences of certainty. These include not asking questions (why would we ask when we already have the answers?), behaving as though there are no questions to ask (so anyone who asks must therefore be ignorant, stupid, or hateful), and failing to make our thinking clear, precise, or explicit. After all, when we’re certain, this feels like we’re stating the obvious. But this omission actually leads to widespread confusion and resentment.
Why should I care?
Certainty is one of the major contributors to culture wars, political polarization, our inability to communicate across ideological divides, a decline in social trust, and a loss of trust in institutions. It does this, in part, by driving a sense of righteous indignation and moral superiority. (A bold claim, to be sure. But one that ultimately withstands scrutiny.) But, even if none of these things matter to you, you should care simply if you think having a more precise understanding of the world is better than having a less precise one.
Why should I avoid certainty?
Righteous indignation feels soooo good. I don’t want to let it go. It turns out that, not only is what we know about the world and one another uncertain, but the costs of righteousness are far higher than we often realize. Not to mention, the things we care about the most tend to be morally and ethically complex—and righteous indignation makes this harder to see.
Is avoiding the Certainty Trap a moral project?
While it could be viewed this way—in other words, as an argument to build a strong, more cohesive society—it’s not quite that simple. To me, avoiding the Certainty Trap is fundamentally an intellectual and philosophical commitment to viewing the world as it is, albeit one that has heavy moral implications.
If you’re saying nothing is certain, then are you just advocating for moral relativism?
This is a point of frequent confusion. Avoiding the Certainty Trap is devoid of any claim about moral relativism or moral absolutes. We can absolutely make claims about what’s right, what’s wrong, what’s good, and what’s bad—provided we meet two requirements. The first is that we’re clear about what principle or value underlies the claim. For instance, if I’m going to plant my stake in the ground that women should be allowed to drive, avoiding the Certainty Trap doesn’t mean I have to be wishy washy about my commitment. This first requirement means I’m willing to state my principle clearly—in this case, maybe it’s something like, I think all people should have equal rights under the law. The second requirement is that I am open to having that principle challenged or criticized. Notice, however, that I do not have to let it go.
Are you saying that nothing is certain?
I love this question and there’s a lot to say. But here, I’ll be brief. Ultimately, when it comes to the physical world, nothing is certain. There is a micro space of doubt in everything we do and know. This stands in contrast to the abstract world—which includes, for instance, the world of mathematics. In fact, this distinction is one way to interpret Einstein’s famous quote that “As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.”
Is avoiding the Certainty Trap just a call for moderation? A claim that the answer always lies in the middle?
I make no claim that the best or right answer always lies in the middle of two extremes. After all, what’s “best” or “right” is going to depend on what our goals are (or, as the economists say, what we’re trying to optimize for). When it comes to the Certainty Trap, the reason extremes tend to be problematic isn’t because they’re extreme, but because they’re closed to any doubt or questioning. In other words, the statement “White privilege is meaningless when it comes to understanding inequality” suffers from the same intellectual smugness and ambiguity as “White privilege explains everything.”
What’s the difference between avoiding certainty and intellectual humility or curiosity?
There is indeed some overlap between the call to avoid certainty and to be humble or curious. With one crucial difference. When we talk about the need for humility and curiosity, we’re relying on people’s ability to recognize when they’re lacking those things. And, as it turns out, many of us are rather bad at this. What’s more, it’s the assumptions we make without even realizing it that often do the most damage. This is why, when it comes to avoiding the Certainty Trap, your signal that you need to interrogate or clarify your thinking is the sense that the answer is simple, the causes are obvious, the right choice is clear, or that anyone who doesn’t agree is stupid, ignorant, or hateful. In other words, righteous indignation is your clue.
Does avoiding certainty mean we have to believe conspiracy theories?
Avoiding the Certainty Trap doesn’t mean that we have to see any explanation as being as likely as any other. In other words, our knowledge of the world isn’t suddenly reduce to a coin flip. Think of a number line, that is bound by zero on one end and one on the other. Zero and one are positions of certainty—either in the affirmative or in the negative. Chop them off. What you’ll find is that there’s a qualitative difference between going from 1 to 0.99 and 0.99 to 0.98. A micro space of doubt changes everything. And where we land on that number line is a largely function of evidence—which means that what does and doesn’t count as evidence also has to be clear and specific.
Is avoiding the Certainty Trap really just about getting people to agree and solving problems?
Avoiding the Certainty Trap is ultimately about understanding the limitations of our knowledge and being clear in our thinking. Agreement isn’t the goal. Similarly, when it comes to solving problems, arriving at a solution isn’t the goal. The goal is for people to be able to disagree without the demonization and harsh character judgment. And it just so happens that such a context often leads to the kinds of conversations that make finding solutions more likely.
Are you saying there aren’t real bigots or snowflakes in the world?
Nope—although we’d want to be clear about what we mean by those terms. I’m saying that avoiding the Certainty Trap means we’re willing to question our thinking when it comes to who’s who, what’s why, and how we know. What’s more, we’re willing to consider the costs of being wrong.
Please note that much of the writing on this Substack is either derived from or is related to the manuscript, The Certainty Trap (unpublished). For inquiries about the manuscript, please reach out to me directly.
I really love your work!
Thank you for taking the time to write about this. There's so much confusion around "certainty" which is often generated by resistance to wanting to change one's mind. The pull is strong to want to remain in the "right" seat when life, especially politics, are more nuanced than the media likes us to think.