Today, I’m introducing a book called Clear Thinking. In today’s world, being an outstanding person isn’t easy—we need critical knowledge, strong execution, and a bit of luck. In my view, all of this requires one more ability to truly make a difference: the ability to think.
Knowledge is endless, but thinking skills can help us connect the dots between different pieces of knowledge. Willpower has its limits, but thinking skills can help us focus on the essentials. Luck is fleeting, but thinking skills can help us recognize opportunities and leverage them. As the saying goes, a person who thinks well and a person who doesn’t essentially live two different lives. This book shares how to enhance the ability to think clearly and thereby live a high-quality life.
The author of this book is Shane Parrish, an American. In his own words, he’s an “insight seeker.” He created a knowledge website focused on self-improvement topics, boasting over 700,000 subscribers. He has had multiple discussions with well-known investors like Charlie Munger, Warren Buffett, and cognitive scientists like Daniel Dennett and Daniel Kahneman.
Now, you might be expecting that, after reading so many books and meeting so many people, the author has surely come up with numerous thinking tools, right? Maybe he’s going to present us with models of thinking from various masters? Well, the angle this book takes might surprise you. It doesn’t present any thinking models; instead, it shifts the discussion to a different perspective. According to the author, the reason ordinary people can’t think clearly isn’t due to a lack of thinking tools or models but rather something more fundamental. What is that? Let’s dive into the first part: why can’t ordinary people think clearly?
Imagine this scene: One day, the author passed by the general manager’s office and heard him shouting angrily into the phone. Those familiar with this manager know that he has a short temper and can be easily triggered, so people tend to avoid provoking him. But this time was different. The person on the other end of the call was urgently reporting an issue that could have serious consequences for the company. Because the manager lost control of his emotions, the caller decided to escalate the issue to a higher level. Not long after, the manager was dismissed.
Think about it—did the manager lose his job because he lacked thinking skills or methods? On the contrary, he was likely a highly capable thinker; otherwise, he wouldn’t have reached that position. The issue was that at the moment he answered the call, he didn’t realize he should be thinking. The author says this is the main reason people make foolish mistakes in everyday life—not because they lack the ability to think, but because they simply don’t engage in thinking.
When others disagree with us, we instinctively perceive them as confrontational, so we fight back. When things don’t go as expected, we instinctively lose patience and give up. And at many other moments in life, we follow routines, letting time pass until we suddenly realize something went wrong and we’ve missed out on many opportunities. This is the fundamental reason why ordinary people can’t think clearly and why life tends to get worse over time—in most cases, people simply don’t activate their thinking ability.
We once believed that as long as we made good decisions at a few key moments in life, clear thinking would lead to success—for example, getting into the best university, choosing the right partner to marry, or picking the ideal job. But with more life experience, looking back, you’ll realize that even if you get into the best university, you need to continually improve your skills to remain competitive in the job market; even if you marry the perfect person, a marriage requires long-term effort to maintain; even if you choose the right job, without diligently accumulating experience on each project, you won’t get opportunities for promotion.
Parrish says that life is not only determined by major moments but also by the accumulation of countless ordinary moments. These seemingly insignificant moments build our lives. And in these everyday moments, we often don’t realize that we are making choices.
He uses a vivid metaphor for this automatic reaction, calling it “the gravity of mediocrity.” This is an invisible force that constantly pulls us toward mediocrity. If we don’t actively resist it, we’ll be dragged into mediocrity.
So, the focus of Clear Thinking is not on specific thinking tools but on how to fight against the gravity of mediocrity, resist instinctive reactions, and carve out space for deliberate thought. The author believes that thinking does include applying mental models, but it first requires awareness—you need to recognize that, at this moment, you need to think.
In this book, the author summarizes the most common and dangerous parts of automatic reactions into four modes, or four default settings. Next, let’s get to know them one by one. As you go through this, you can reflect on which default setting you are most often controlled by.
The first default setting is the emotional default, which means we tend to react to emotions rather than facts or goals. We argue because we are angry, not because the argument benefits us. The emotional default is influenced by personal conditions, such as lack of sleep, high stress, hunger, or being in unfamiliar environments. In these situations, the emotional default is more likely to take over, so we need to be vigilant.
The second default setting is the self-default, where we tend to see ourselves as good and right and instinctively reject anything that threatens our self-worth or social standing. For instance, the author mentions that some people in the workplace are reluctant to delegate authority, even when doing so would benefit the organization. They believe their decisions are always best, or they want others to see them as indispensable. This is an example of being controlled by the self-default. There are also those who strongly refute differing opinions, delaying important work. Parrish says these people “desire to feel right more than they desire to be right.”
The third default setting is the social default, which is essentially the tendency to conform, following group norms rather than challenging them. Breaking from group norms can be risky. The author gives an example: if a group of workers is digging with their hands, working hard, and you suggest taking a week off to invent a shovel, what do you think your teammates would say? They’d probably think you’re lazy or even crazy. So, the author suggests that breaking free from the social default requires a certain level of shamelessness.
The fourth default setting is the inertia default. We tend to do things the same way out of habit, seeking comfort and resisting change. For example, if we are used to a certain product, even if a better option appears on the market, we won’t try it. We may realize that our lifestyle isn’t ideal, but since we’re used to it, we don’t bother to change. As a result, our lives become more closed off, and personal growth slows.
These are the four forces that pull us deeply into mediocrity: emotional default, self-default, social default, and inertia default. By clearly recognizing these forces, our understanding of instinctive reactions in our minds becomes less fuzzy, and we avoid being clueless. The next step is learning how to fight against them.
Now, let’s move into the second part: How to counter automatic reactions?
There’s a saying, “Between stimulus and response, there is our freedom and ability to choose how to respond.” When we find ourselves mindlessly scrolling through short videos or engaging in a heated argument, throwing out hurtful words, how we wish we had the ability to shout “Stop!” and pull ourselves out of negative cycles. In this section, we’ll explore where this “stop” ability comes from.
You might think of training your willpower to control yourself. But the author says, “Almost everyone will eventually lose the battle against willpower; it’s only a matter of time.”
You might have heard of a famous experiment where researchers placed tempting cakes in front of two groups. The first group got to eat the cakes, while the second group was asked to eat carrots instead. Later, both groups were given a difficult problem to solve. The first group persisted for 24 minutes before giving up, while the second group lasted only 8 minutes. The study concluded that willpower is finite—using it drains its reserves. Willpower is like a muscle; it has some elasticity, but excessive use makes it fatigued. We can’t rely on willpower to resist the automatic reactions that constantly appear in life.
So, what can we do? The author believes that instead of focusing on controlling specific actions, it’s better to address the problem at the system level. As the saying goes, “Design a system when you are at your best so that it can work for you when you are at your worst.” Therefore, the author proposes two ways of self-adjustment at the system level to fight automatic reactions.
The first method is to rewrite our default responses. Aren’t we often controlled by our default reactions? Then let’s replace those original default reactions with better ones, like reprogramming our brain. Our brain originally has a set of algorithms shaped by our genes, life experiences, cultural customs, and more. Now, we need to modify those algorithms so that when the program runs automatically, it produces different results.
For instance, if we are prone to defensively counter others when they disagree with us, we can set a new default for ourselves: before responding, take a deep breath and silently count to three. This method helps interrupt our instinctive self-defense. The American Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) once introduced a method called “HALT,” which stands for Hungry, Angry, Lonely, and Tired. The organization advised its members: when you feel the urge to drink, first consider whether you are in any of these HALT states. If so, address the issue itself rather than turning to alcohol. This is another example of replacing default reactions with better ones.
The author also reminds us that resetting our default reactions is challenging—a long and ongoing process of self-struggle. But we need to be patient because once these new defaults are established, life will become easier.
The second method requires a higher level of personal cultivation: you need to put yourself in a high-potential thinking position. The author says that anyone in a favorable position seems like a genius, regardless of their actual intelligence, because the position can provide strength. If we can place ourselves in a high-potential thinking position, we can draw power from it, making correct thoughts come naturally.
Here, the author identifies three key types of thinking potential, which demand a high degree of maturity. We can consider these as three self-cultivation practices for becoming strong in modern society. Let’s examine them one by one.
The first thinking potential is self-awareness—being clear about who you are, understanding not only your strengths but also your weaknesses; not only your abilities but also your limitations. A person who knows their limits and cognitive boundaries is less likely to make impulsive decisions. The author once attended a dinner with a very successful friend. At the dinner, a savvy investor tried to pitch his company to the author’s friend. The friend replied straightforwardly, “I know nothing about that field; I only do business in areas I understand.” This is a clear example of knowing one’s boundaries.
Self-awareness also means knowing when you are prone to being influenced by default reactions, so you can adjust them accordingly. For example, as we mentioned earlier, if you tend to react defensively to others’ opinions, you can set a new default like taking a deep breath before speaking. But first, you need to recognize that you tend to react defensively.
The second thinking potential is confidence—believing in your abilities and your value to others. With self-confidence, you focus more on whether the task is done right rather than whether you are right. It makes you more willing to face reality, change your thoughts, and put results above ego. Confident people are less likely to be influenced by default reactions like self-defense or emotional outbursts.
The third thinking potential is accountability—always taking responsibility for your actions, even for outcomes that are not your fault but are yours to handle.
The author shares a personal example: he once worked on a software development project, during a particularly busy period. On a Sunday night, the code he was supposed to submit was still incomplete by Sunday morning, so he rushed to the office to work overtime. Unexpectedly, his boss reprimanded him, saying that the code should have been completed earlier. Feeling aggrieved, the author wrote a long email to his boss, explaining how hard he had worked. The boss replied, “I don’t care because completing the task is your responsibility.” Later, the author realized that all the challenges he listed were not truly insurmountable. No matter what difficulties arise during a task, in the end, people care about one thing: results. Thus, accountable people don’t make excuses; they tell themselves, “Nobody cares, it’s your fault.”
Sometimes, it’s not your mistake—it might be caused by a colleague or subordinate, leaving you feeling it’s unfair. But the author says, if you’re unhappy with how things are going, change them. If you can’t, then stop bargaining and accept reality, taking responsibility. As mentioned earlier, the world cares about results, and only by shifting focus from self-justification to problem-solving can you achieve better results.
Accountability also means shedding the victim mentality. Everyone has a narrative they tell themselves, where they are always kind, just, and right. After all, acknowledging our mistakes is uncomfortable. But accountable people tell themselves, “I’m not a victim; my actions determined the outcome. If I want to change it, I should not complain about others but change myself.”
So, accountability boils down to saying three things to yourself: “Nobody cares, it’s your fault,” “It’s not your fault, but it’s still your responsibility,” and “I’m not a victim.” Think about it—a person who maintains accountability, stays result-focused, and accepts reality—isn’t this person more rational and less likely to be controlled by instinctive reactions?
To summarize, countering automatic reactions requires placing yourself in a high-potential position. The three types of high-potential thinking are self-awareness, confidence, and accountability. This is what I find unique about this book. Its perspective on clear thinking doesn’t focus solely on specific techniques but emphasizes cultivating a strong personality.
Now, how do you cultivate a strong personality? The author avoids dwelling on specific techniques and instead provides a fundamental principle: be a person with high self-expectations. The author says that confident, self-disciplined, and pragmatic individuals may have different self-management methods, but they all share one common trait—high standards for themselves.
Do you hold yourself to high standards? Let’s look at this example. Former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger once asked a staff member to draft a memo. He asked, “Is this the best you can do?” The staff member thought about it and said, “I’ll revise it.” The next day, Kissinger asked again, “Is this the best memo you can write?” The staff member thought about it and rewrote it again. On the third morning, Kissinger asked once more, and the staff member replied, “I really can’t make it any better.” Kissinger then said, “Alright, now I’ll read it.” That staff member later climbed the ranks and achieved great success. You see, everything has the potential to be done better, as long as you raise your standards.
This brings us to a question: how do I know if my standards are high enough? There is a simple and direct method: find a role model, analyze their standards, and follow them. We often say that role models help us imitate their actions and thinking patterns, but in the author’s view, the greatest value of role models is showing you how high standards shape their self-expectations. Their standards can help you surpass those you inherited from parents or friends.
The best role models are people around you, especially if you can work closely with them. But you can also choose public figures, study their interviews online, and learn from them. You could even select historical figures and read books about them. Ultimately, who you choose depends on whose standards you admire.
The author mentions one of his role models: the renowned investor Charlie Munger. During a conversation, Munger told him, “Unless I know the opposing argument better than the other person, I don’t allow myself to comment on anything.” This statement struck the author deeply, leading to self-reflection. Many people want to express their opinions on others’ views, but few, like Munger, will do enough research to make an informed comment. Munger’s words raised the author’s standards for sharing opinions.
Now, we have identified some methods to enhance thinking potential, which essentially means raising your standards. So far, we’ve covered some abstract concepts. Next, we’ll delve into a concrete process of thinking. Here, the author reconstructs the steps for high-quality rational thinking, along with the core points and key actions for each step. He notes that during real-world practice, don’t dismiss these steps as cumbersome. Rational thinking requires procedural integrity, a system, and following a process—skipping steps is essentially resorting to instinctive reactions.
The author focuses on decision-making scenarios because they have the greatest impact on our lives. Thus, the steps for rational thinking in the book are also steps for scientific decision-making. Let’s explore them step by step.
Step 1: Define the Problem.
Consider two key points: first, what goal do you want to achieve? Second, what obstacles stand in the way of reaching that goal? When guided by instinct, people often dive into solving a problem as soon as they think of one, without truly understanding what the core issue is or where the main obstacle lies. As a result, their thoughts drift or they propose impractical solutions.
What does it mean to properly define a problem? According to the author, it means getting to the root of the issue, rather than just treating its symptoms. The author provides an example. In the United States, over 3 million dogs enter shelters each year, and shelter staff often focus on the question: how can more people be encouraged to adopt dogs? However, this question doesn’t address the fundamental problem. One shelter discovered through research that 30% of the dogs in their care had been surrendered by their owners, mainly because they could no longer afford to care for their pets. With this understanding, a more sustainable solution emerged. When someone came in to surrender a pet, staff would ask if they would prefer to keep the pet. If so, the shelter would offer assistance, such as free rabies vaccinations or pet food. This initiative led 75% of families who initially intended to give up their pets to withdraw their surrender request. This approach illustrates how to trace the problem to its source and redefine it.
It’s important to note that finding the root of a problem often requires lengthy discussions and step-by-step investigation. People can easily lose patience during this process. To address this, the author suggests a practical approach: separate the meeting for defining the problem from the meeting for proposing solutions. Use one or more meetings to focus solely on defining the issue. Otherwise, discussions often rush through problem definition in a few minutes before diving into solution brainstorming. This “physical firewall” ensures time is dedicated to properly defining the problem.
Step 2: Explore Possible Solutions.
The key to this step is to open up your thinking and explore new options thoroughly. To ensure a broad perspective, the author suggests a few practical methods. First, for any given problem, force yourself to come up with at least three potential solutions. A single solution leaves no room for choice, while two options tend to lead to binary thinking. Having three solutions ensures some level of diversity in thinking. Second, take each solution you’ve listed and ask yourself, “What will I do if this one doesn’t work?” This forces you to keep digging for new options.
Step 3: Evaluate the Options.
The challenge of this step is that it’s often hard to determine which option is best due to the pros and cons of each. In such cases, the task is to identify the most critical evaluation criterion—note, only one—and use it to rank the options.
How do you identify this key criterion? The author suggests letting the criteria compete with each other. You can prepare a whiteboard, write down your first criterion, and then compare it with the second, forcing yourself to choose one. If the second criterion is more important, erase the first and write down the second. Repeat this process until you find the single most important criterion.
Step 4: Implement the Plan.
At this stage, the principle to follow is to stick strictly to the chosen plan and not deviate at the first sign of difficulties. If the plan needs to be overturned, you must revisit the four rational thinking steps. Once a decision is made, commit to it wholeheartedly.
We’ve just discussed a standard process for rational thinking. Now let’s talk about what your baseline is—how to ensure you don’t make mistakes during this process?
Let’s clarify what we mean by “making a mistake.” Here, it doesn’t refer to trial and error. If we try something bold in a new area to explore opportunities and it fails, that’s a courageous act that helps us gain valuable experience. This is called trial and error, not making a mistake.
Another situation is when we follow the four rational thinking steps and still fail. This, too, is not considered a mistake because the outcome can be influenced by factors beyond personal control. Making a mistake, in this context, means being led by instinct and failing to think clearly. If given another chance, we would definitely choose differently. That’s what is meant by making a mistake.
How can we reduce the likelihood of making mistakes?
The first method is prevention: recognize when you are likely to break down rationally, and avoid making decisions in those situations. Behavioral economist Daniel Kahneman once told the author that he never agrees to requests over the phone because he knows he has a tendency to please others and might agree without thinking. Therefore, whenever someone makes a request over the phone, he responds, “I need to think about it.” This allows him to decline 80% of requests.
The second method is creating friction, making it difficult to act on impulse. For example, the author noticed that he couldn’t resist checking emails whenever he had time, even when his current task was far more important. So, he told his colleagues that if they caught him checking emails before 11 a.m., he would treat everyone to lunch. This created enough friction to help him kick the habit.
The third method is setting a checklist. Write down the core steps to complete a task, and before and after carrying out the task, review the list to ensure that you have considered every item. This method allows you to take a step back and focus on the fundamental question: What should I do? Have I done it?
The final method is to change perspective. Look at yourself from someone else’s point of view and think, “What would they do?” This perspective pulls us out of self-defense mode and back to reality. For example, when Intel’s former CEO Andy Grove faced the decision to exit the memory business, he asked, “What would a new CEO do?” The answer was clear: they would immediately exit the memory business. So, Grove decided to do it himself.
To summarize, how do we reduce the likelihood of making mistakes in decision-making? There are four methods: first, prevention—recognize when you are prone to losing rationality and avoid decision-making in those moments. Second, create friction to make impulsive behavior harder. Third, set a checklist to keep yourself grounded. And finally, change perspective to view the situation as an outsider might.
The most important reminder from this book is that our deeply rooted instincts can urge us to react without thinking. When we let instinct take over in everyday moments, we say things we can’t take back, do things we can’t undo, and our lives get worse as a result.
Most books about thinking focus on offering a variety of cognitive tools, but this one emphasizes a more important lesson: learning to press the pause button for yourself and realizing that right now, you need to think.
To counter instinctive reactions, we can reset our default behaviors, replacing bad reactions with good ones. We can also strengthen our mental resilience, building confidence, self-awareness, and accountability to cultivate a strong personality. We need to develop thinking habits using the four steps of scientific decision-making and put safeguards in place to avoid mistakes.
The author concludes that our rationality grows stronger through persistent effort. As we become accustomed to clear thinking, we find that the number of problems needing solutions decreases because many should never have existed in the first place. We also find that our stress and anxiety diminish, while our happiness increases.
After reading this book, my takeaway is that clear thinking doesn’t depend on how many methods you’ve learned or how high your IQ is; it’s about who you want to become. If you aspire to be a strong, confident, self-reflective person who holds themselves to high standards, the ability to think clearly will naturally accompany you.
