“Question conventional wisdom.” “Move beyond outdated values.” “Stand with the vulnerable.”
Consider someone who picks up statements like these and repeats them with a confident “The way I see it…” or “What it really comes down to is…”—as though they had reached the conclusion through their own careful thinking.
The distinction they want to establish is simple: “I know more about the world than you do.” They want to stand out from the crowd and feel ahead of it. They use impressive-sounding ideas to demonstrate their significance and worth.
They dress themselves in ideas they like, just as they dress themselves in clothes they like.
When the appeal of being the person who says something matters more than understanding it, their response to questions and criticism begins to change.
Making Borrowed Ideas Sound Like Your Own Thinking
When choosing clothes, we ask, “How will I look in this?” We can enjoy an outfit without knowing much about the designer’s experiments or the techniques used to make it.
Intellectual-sounding statements can be chosen on much the same basis: “Saying this makes me sound like someone who gets it.”
The speaker may be vague about who originally expressed the idea, what problem they were addressing, or how they reached their conclusion. Nevertheless, they announce, “What society needs now is…” and present it as an insight of their own.
They take a line they have heard and deliver it as though they had thought it through themselves.
As they repeat it confidently, they can begin to feel that they understand it thoroughly. “I know this phrase” becomes “I understand this issue,” which then becomes “I understand more than the people around me.”
Skipping the Thinking That Led to the Conclusion
Saying “This is the heart of the problem” invites a question: Why do you think so? Answering requires an understanding of the reasoning that supports the conclusion.
When we see only a finished work, it is easy to overlook what its creator studied and tried along the way. The same omission occurs when we picture Van Gogh and Picasso simply as geniuses who painted freely and arrived at distinctive styles.
Van Gogh copied prints and studied drawing manuals, including those by Charles Bargue, to learn figure drawing and perspective. Much of his learning was self-directed, and it involved sustained study of techniques developed by others. (The Metropolitan Museum of Art — “Vincent van Gogh (1853–1890)”)
Later, in Paris, he encountered Impressionist and Neo-Impressionist paintings. He changed his use of color and brushwork, experimenting in his own paintings with the approaches he had encountered. (The Metropolitan Museum of Art — “Vincent van Gogh (1853–1890)”)
The Museu Picasso in Barcelona describes Science and Charity (1897) as the culmination of the young Picasso’s formal art education. (Museu Picasso — “Let’s Explore the Collection: Science and Charity Revealed”)
The museum also explains how works from his youth show him absorbing new approaches to painting emerging in Barcelona and Paris. (Museu Picasso — “The Museu Picasso of Barcelona”)
Learning techniques gives you more ways to experiment. Understanding earlier work helps you identify what you are trying to change. What you learn becomes something you can use to create.
Treating an idea as your own similarly requires understanding the problem it addresses, the reasoning behind it, and the conditions under which it holds. With that understanding, you can apply it elsewhere, answer questions about it, or revise it yourself.
To go from repeating an idea to explaining it yourself, you have to study it and think it through.
Someone who uses ideas to dress themselves up can skip that process while still playing the part of a person who understands.
Knowing Too Little Can Make You Feel Ahead of the Crowd
Even an old idea can feel fresh when you first encounter it. If you know little about the objections it has faced or the problems that arose when people tried to put it into practice, it can remain powerful and appealing in your mind.
Treat that freshness as evidence that you are ahead of everyone else, and your lack of knowledge becomes a source of confidence.
In the preface to Disquisitiones Arithmeticae, the mathematician Gauss recalled that he initially lacked access to recent discoveries in the field and pursued his investigations independently. Later, reading earlier mathematicians’ work, he discovered that much of his thinking had concerned subjects they had already explored extensively. This increased his interest, and he continued his research, building on their work. (University of St Andrews, MacTutor — “Gauss: Disquisitiones Arithmeticae,” Author’s Preface, English translation)
Discovering earlier work became a reason to take his research further.
But for someone using a borrowed idea to present themselves as a person who “gets it,” investigating its history can be inconvenient. What they have been confidently presenting as cutting-edge may turn out to have been discussed long ago, with its weaknesses already examined in detail.
You may think you have moved beyond earlier thinkers when you have yet to encounter the problems they struggled with.
Without looking into that history, you can remain confidently unaware of the possibility.
For someone who has proudly repeated the same idea since youth, reconsidering it can also unsettle a long-held belief about themselves: “I am someone who understands how the world works.”
Someone may keep wearing the clothes they thought were cool when they were young, still convinced they are at the cutting edge. The same thing can happen with the intellectual-sounding lines they repeat.
Rather than examining what has since been learned and what new objections have emerged, they conclude, “People today don’t understand how important this is.” Their opinion of themselves can remain unchanged.
They believe they are still ahead of their time. In practice, the idea allows them to keep admiring the version of themselves they admired years ago.
Leaving Out the Hard Parts Makes It Easy to Sound Impressive
Skipping the examination of an idea has another attraction: you can deliver a neat conclusion with complete confidence when the complicating conditions never enter the discussion.
Remove an idea’s qualifications, the conditions under which it applies, and its responses to objections, and an impressive line remains. Even as the idea loses substance, the speaker may find it clearer and more compelling.
The same thing can happen with a practical proposal.
Imagine someone drawn to the phrase “Leave no one behind” making this proposal for a community support center:
“The way I see it, a service for people in need should accept requests for help without restrictions.”
To put that proposal into practice, you first need to find out who the current arrangements are failing and how. Then you can consider extending opening hours, hiring more staff, or connecting people with other support services. You also need to prepare for what happens after a request for help is accepted.
Moving from “I want to help” to “This is a way to help” requires that level of detail.
Skip those steps, and you can simply declare, “Let’s help everyone who needs us.” Without a discussion of the practical difficulties, the speaker’s compassion and decisiveness stand out.
They simplify the proposal by leaving problems out, then mistake that simplicity for having found a solution.
The statement sounds like a clear answer. The people running the service still have to work out who will do what.
When They Cannot Explain It, They Blame You for Not Understanding
Now suppose someone asks, “How will we find the staff and pay for this?”
Answering requires research, calculations, and perhaps changes to the proposal. Struggling to answer also exposes the gap between the knowledgeable person the speaker has been presenting and what they can actually explain.
What happens if, instead of offering an explanation, they reply:
“You just don’t get it.”
The question was about staffing and funding. The reply is about the questioner’s ability to understand.
Their failure to explain becomes your failure to understand.
By talking down to the questioner, they can continue feeling that they know more about the world without examining their own understanding.
They have mastered the confident delivery. Ask about the substance, and they belittle the person asking before they explain what they mean. That gap reveals the shallowness of the performance.
It also costs them an opportunity to learn. Their limited knowledge made it easy to sound confident. Protecting that confidence now keeps them from learning more.
When Those Who “Stand with the Vulnerable” Stop Listening
Now suppose the support center starts accepting more requests before it has the staff and services needed to respond. Someone using the service reports:
“You’ve accepted my request, but I’ve been waiting for help ever since. My situation hasn’t changed.”
That report can help identify where the process has stalled and how the service needs to improve.
But for someone invested in being “the person who made the compassionate proposal to leave no one behind,” the report is inconvenient. It identifies a problem their proposal has failed to solve.
What if they respond, “You need to understand the importance of helping more people,” and then publicize only the comments of service users who agree with them?
When arguing for the service, they invoke the fact that people are struggling. When the method is questioned, they dismiss those same people’s reports that they are still struggling.
“The voices of vulnerable people” becomes “the voices of people who tell me I’m right.”
The stories that get attention are the ones that allow the speaker to keep thinking, “I stand with the vulnerable.”
People seeking a different kind of help now have an extra task. Alongside explaining their difficulties, they must persuade their supposed supporter to reconsider. They have to make someone understand their actual situation while that person is busy protecting the belief that they already understand vulnerable people.
Other People End Up Paying for Your Self-Image
Staff at the support center may have to work overtime or cut back on other duties. People waiting for assistance must continue dealing with their problems while they wait.
The people involved are using their own time and effort to handle what the proposer left unexamined.
When a proposal changes a public institution or a social system, the effects can spread much further. Some people may have to pay new costs. Others must do the work of making the change. Still others may lose arrangements they previously relied on.
Someone who wants to “create a new era” with their ideas has a responsibility to explain what will improve, what evidence supports that expectation, and who will bear which costs.
If they say, “Major change comes with pain,” they need to explain who will experience that pain, for how long, and what improvement is expected to follow. They also need to consider how the proposal will change if those expectations prove wrong.
But once protecting their self-image takes priority, the relationship between ideas and people’s lives is reversed.
At the point where they should revise an idea to improve people’s lives, they ask people to accept hardship so they can keep feeling ahead of the crowd for promoting it. Even reports of ongoing difficulties are treated as a failure to understand what the speaker is saying.
The speaker keeps using borrowed ideas to play the part of someone who “gets it.” Meanwhile, other people keep working, paying, and enduring the consequences of problems the speaker never thought through.
The speaker chooses words to dress themselves up in, then expects other people to reshape their lives to fit those words. That reversal is the danger of treating ideas as fashion.
Want to know more about the author and the thinking behind this site?
→ About Rikutsu-Kone-Taro
