|
Hello Readers, Ok, let’s get into this week’s Trio-of Thoughts. Today’s topic: “HOW TO CHOOSE THE BEST JUDGES”. THOUGHT 1 AN APHORISM ABOUT THIS WEEK’S LESSON "Even if individual researchers are prone to falling in love with their own theories, the broader process of peer review and institutionalized skepticism are designed to ensure that, eventually, the best ideas prevail."
— Chris Mooney, The Science of Why We Don’t Believe Science
This week, I chose to use Chris Mooney, a science communicator, journalist, and author.
Chris isn’t an academic or formally trained in peer-reviewed science writing, but he is a highly respected science journalist with a strong background in explaining scientific thinking to the public. I think his quote is valid and sound, and in line with how we are pushed to review our ideas inside academia to get the strongest logic to reveal itself. We should be careful about gatekeeping who is allowed to discuss ideas, but we are also allowed to judge them. There are pros and cons to his book. So, if you choose to read him, be open-minded but also skeptical. This is a hard balance as we are more likely to be skeptical to protect our own ideas and NOT learn anything new. Remember this! THOUGHT 2 HOW TO CHOOSE THE BEST JUDGES Judgement Ancient Egyptian Judgement I just returned from Egypt, and I learnt a lot about the idea of judgement inside one of the oldest well-preserved civilizations. The idea is now referred to as: The Weighing of the Heart Around 2500 BCE (much older than the written Hebrew Bible). The Egyptians already had the idea of divine judgement after death. After death, the Egyptians believed your soul would go to the Hall of Ma'at (Ma'at = goddess of truth, balance, cosmic order). There, your heart — the seat of your emotions, thoughts, and morality — would be weighed on a scale against a feather (the Feather of Ma'at, symbolising truth and justice). When weighed on the scales, if your heart was light, meaning you lived truthfully, kindly, and with justice → You passed the test and moved on to eternal life (fields of peace, like heaven). If your heart was heavy, weighed down by lies, cruelty, selfishness → Your soul was devoured immediately by a monster (part crocodile, lion, hippo called Ammit), and you ceased to exist.
Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) The biblical texts also contain some of the earliest written moral ideas about individual judgement, discernment, and divine justice. It introduced the idea that humans are personally responsible for their actions and will be judged by a higher power (God) based on morality. Judgment isn’t banned — it's actually required for good living.
But it must be righteous: humble, fair, slow, cautious, based on truth, not personal pride. Example: "The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one."
(1 Corinthians 2:15) Spiritual maturity means being able to judge wisely, with humility and without malice.
Biblically, it is important to focus on your own failings first. Judge yourself carefully before you judge others. (Lenses of judgement are also foundational in critical thinking and for philosophical thinking.) This was radical at the time: it moved moral authority outside human kings and put it in a universal, unseen being.
Self-Accountability It is important to remember and include in any conversation about modern thought that our oldest ideas still shape how modern humans think and need to think. Our societies are built on historical ways of thinking and being, and they are VERY relevant. The academic discipline of theology teaches us this. NOTE: If you have judged the discipline of theology but have spent little time reading on it, stop your judgment and find a good author or two on the topic before you trust your own judgment so surely. Judgement in the biblical sense meant careful discernment. Discernment Definition— the ability to sense reality, separate right from wrong, truth from lies, wisdom from foolishness. In periods when societies were more religious, individuals were far more likely to use the common understanding of “God’s judgement” as an effective method to ensure personal accountability. Now that we have moved into more secular and atheistic societies — driven by greater knowledge of science and less need for belief in the "unseen" or "unknown" or “God”— we have also seen a major departure from processes which sustain self-judgement and personal responsibility. Moving away from traditional methods and practices that once sustained morality and behaviour is a normal and organic part of social change. Critical thinking, however, requires us to consider the repercussions of moving away from shared moral frameworks (again, research some theologians as they are the OG critical thinkers on the topic). If we are going to move away from strong traditional practices that served an important communal coherence, we must be sure we are replacing them with something equally strong. Who is the best judge in your life? Is it you? We are living in a time of growing individualism, which tricks people into believing we need no one else to judge us.
I used to say, "I am the best judge," so carelessly when I was young and inexperienced—until, a decade or two later, I realised I wasn’t the best judge at all. Until you are trusted to be your own best judge, you are NOT the best judge. Careful judgement takes time and therefore, often age, many mistakes, and plenty of experience with social patterns and outcomes to gain enough wisdom to judge our own behaviour clearly. We must use our external world as an effective judge of our internal world. If we want to succeed in a society or a social space, we set it up to be reflective of where we want to succeed. Judgement in Academia Take the example of a PhD or writing scientific articles, which is critical thinking training condensed into a few brutal years. During a PhD, we are judged—fiercely!
We are told our ideas are bad, poorly defined, poorly articulated, badly framed, or not well evidenced. It’s relentless. They tear our ideas to shreds—and if we want to succeed, we are forced to come back with stronger, more resilient arguments. In the end, it’s not a game of just theoretical/idea brilliance; it’s really also a giant psychological test. The ones who survive psychologically—those who don’t quit—are the ones whose thinking improves to at least a strong, reliable foundation, where they not only think better but also realise how much they still don't know. Cognitive Growth “Improving” means the best ideas emerge, and the person behind the idea learns HOW to cognitively grow. We become more coherent because were were pushed to verbally present our ideas We have more evidence to support our logic We have had to contend with our feelings and subsequently develop more emotional intelligence We emerge with humility in our thinking because judgment breeds important humility We emerge as graduate thinkers (only the beginning) We have an advantage over others not trained in this way
Peer review is ruthless Feeling foolish or ashamed is not the enemy—it becomes the fuel.
Without that dual discomfort and desire to be better, we would not grow. The goal (to graduate) and the personal ambition (to be respected) drive us. But in real life—without a PhD—you have to place your own judges if you want to come up with good ideas to benefit your life. So, who are they? They are the people you choose to judge you. If you love your family, they can be powerful judges—people who want you to succeed but are brave enough to tell you the truth. Your closest friends, or strong social groups you respect can also serve as judges. Every time they judge your words, ideas, or behaviour—whether they are right or wrong—you are being offered a powerful period of reflection. It is up to you to reflect, to think, and to either strengthen your ideas or adjust your behaviour.
Until you know more, you will judge all things from a purely subjective position, based only on what you know so far. Your judgement will improve as you add more knowledge to your automatic judgement repertoire. Good Judges to Place Around You: People who love/like you but are willing to tell you uncomfortable truths. Mentors or teachers you respect for their thinking, not just their titles. Friends or colleagues who challenge you with different perspectives rather than always agreeing. Groups, communities, or individuals whose standards you admire and aspire to meet. People who push you to be better.
People you want to limit as judges: Those who are emotionally reactive or attack rather than question thoughtfully. Those who are not working in your best interest. Those who prioritise popularity over truth. Those whose values you no longer respect or whose thinking you feel drags you backward. People who tear others down for sport rather than for growth.
Interactions with these people are still incredibly helpful for triggering powerful reflection. Limiting them as judges doesn’t mean removing them entirely — sometimes, we can’t and sometimes we should keep them around just not too close. In fact, they are still important for healthy reflection and sharpening our discernment. It simply means listening to them objectively, but choosing not to use them as your personal judges unless you discern it to be necessary. THOUGHT 3: ACTIVITY Place Your Judges This week, reflect and choose three people you trust to serve as your informal "judges" — people whose values, thinking, and honesty you respect. It could be an author you love, a person in your life you value the opinion of, or someone you know you would like to be just like one day. Write their names down. Think about why you trust them. Next time you face an important decision or emotional moment, ask yourself: “What would [name] think about how I am handling this?” (I do this all the time btw but I will not tell you who all my judges are just yet).
Book Recommendations For early civilization, religion, and judgement:
• The Birth of the Gods and the Origins of Agriculture by Jacques Cauvin
A classic anthropological study exploring how early religious ideas, moral systems, and human conceptions of judgement emerged alongside the formation of civilizations. Although not solely about Egypt, it provides important links to early cultural thinking. For the modern cognitive side of judgement and belief formation:
• The Science of Why We Don’t Believe Science by Chris Mooney
A very readable exploration of why human minds often resist facts that challenge their beliefs, and how peer processes (including judgement) are crucial for critical thinking and intellectual honesty. For theology and judgement applied to modern life:
• The Drama of Scripture: Finding Our Place in the Biblical Story by Craig G. Bartholomew and Michael W. Goheen
A highly respected scholarly yet accessible book tracing how ancient Biblical ideas—such as judgement, discernment, and moral responsibility—remain relevant to modern human life and ethics.
|
