Is everything I know really wrong? A skeptical review of Everything we know is wrong

When I was a kid, me and my brothers pretended we had a rock band and performed fake shows together with our cousins. In fact, my oldest cousin Magnus was the driving force behind the whole idea, and during our pretend concerts he was the lead singer. If we had been a boy band, he'd have been the charismatic one. I can see the rest of us typecast into other roles: my big brother Jesper would have been the cool one, while my younger brother Johan would have been the angry one. Magnus' brothers Gustav and Oskar would have been the crazy one and the cute one, respectively. As a matter of fact, the only one I cannot see typecast is myself. Or rather, it would be into roles not commonly associated with boy bands - at least not commercially successful ones. The boring one. The mediocre one. As I said, not really commercially successful. I just tagged along in order not to be left out.

So, why am I bringing up this slightly embarrassing fact from my own past? Well, as it turns out, Magnus is still a driving force: recently he's had his first book published (it's called Everything we know is wrong! The trendspotter's handbook, by Magnus Lindkvist) . And just like in our past, I will now attempt to tag along. Why? Well, basically because he's got a book published and I haven't. Not that I haven't tried. To be sure, I didn't try very hard, but still. Anyway, Magnus is the first person I really know that's written a book and had it published. I think it's cool. And of course I'm a little bit jealous. Not that I have the stamina, talent or wherewithal to actually write a book, but still.



By the way, as you surely have noted I'm writing this review in English. Why? Well, for some reason it feels right.

So, this is my attempt to honour my cousin as best I can. My attempt will probably be misinterpreted (how's that for thinking my opinions actually matter?). That's OK, I'm used to that. Let me just be clear on one thing: this review is not about his book. If you want to know about it, read it yourself. Like any other review (despite what people may try to tell you), this is a review of my reading of his book. I just happen to be honest about it. It follows from this statement that what follows should be completely uninteresting to everyone except myself. If you go on reading, you have at least been warned.

What's in a name?
I first heard the book's title a few months ago and was thrilled. Everything we know is wrong. Admit it: you're intrigued, perhaps a little provoked, by this title. Well, at least I was. Of course, I have learned not to expect too much from anything or anyone, so I was not completely carried away. But still.

So, why do I like the title? Well, for starters it causes a paradox in my consciousness. When I read the sentence "Everything we know is wrong", I learn that everything we know is wrong. So I can say that I know that everything we know is wrong. But if everything we know is wrong, and I know this fact, then it must be wrong. Thus, I don't know it, I only think I do. But in fact, everything we know isn't wrong. Or is it?

I've always loved these kinds of language paradoxes. To me, they are symbols of the uncertainty of knowledge. That's right, I'm a skeptic. I doubt my own knowledge of the world around me. I sincerely doubt my own capabilities. Come to think of it, I'm not even that sure I'm actually a skeptic. I just think I am.

So, thanks to the title, my curiosity was piqued. Considering Magnus' great rhetorical skill, the book would surely be a good read, even if I don't agree with him, I also reasoned. I know from previous experience that Magnus and I don't have very similar worldviews.

What about the book?
First off, let me say that the book is as eloquent as its author. Magnus is a great speaker, and with this book he has successfully transferred his skill to the written medium. The text is easy and engaging, the ideas as a rule clearly illustrated with striking examples. Sometimes the examples are of a personal nature, and are then recounted with disarming honesty.

However, eloquence by itself does not a good book make. What is also needed is substance. And the risk/thrill of writing down one's thoughts is that these thoughts are available for scrutiny. This is the mission I have taken upon myself: to scrutinize the ideas in Everything we know is wrong. Do they hold up to my skeptical gaze? The answer, of course, is no. Nothing ever does. But the process of scrutinizing hopefully produces some thoughts and reflections. So if you're not bored to tears already, do read on. Anyway, it's too late to go back after you've completed reading this paragraph. Prove me wrong.

The main themes of the book
As I understand it, the major purpose of the book is to present thoughts on how to anticipate and understand trends. Another way to put it is that it is about change, and how one can be better at adapting to change. Around this general concept, several ideas are presented. The ones I noticed are the following:


A skeptical approach to knowledge is needed. "Assume that everything is wrong, and a rampant curiosity will lead you to new and better answer [sic]" (p. 160).

Individualization is a force that is changing the world. Specifically, it's making the world better. Case in point, the evolution of capitalism into "MyCapital".

The human mind isn't adapted to detect the many different levels and nuances of change in the world. Therefore, several changes in attitude are necessary if you want to be able to spot the trends, i.e. detect change.

I will address each of these points, beginning with how the epistemological stance I call my own is used in the book.

A 21st century Descartes; or, the problem with being skeptical

In the book, the skeptical attitude is emphasized as something positive. Above, I quoted one statement pointing in that direction. Another one is "a much greater world reveals itself to those of us ready to live in doubt and scepticism" (p. 9). Skepticism is contrasted with religious fundamentalism, and the skeptical approach is judged the better of the two. In another part, Magnus states that "my aim is to make people happier and to produce better decision-makers." (p. 158)

Reading these different quotes, I come to the conclusion that what is presented in the book is not really a case for skepticism. Why? Well, skepticism is basically defined by one sentence: "I don't know". The skeptic is uncertain and doubts everything. That's right, everything. This of course must include judgments such as "it's good to be a skeptic".

There's no explanation how thinking skeptically would make someone happier. I would like to argue that constant uncertainty tends to make you unhappy. That of course depends on how you define happiness. For the sake of argument, I will use the most common definition, namely that happiness is a form of pleasure, i.e. a feeling (a view which I do not adhere to personally). Now being uncertain about things does not, as a rule, increase your general pleasure or well-being. Rather, it causes intense anxiety.

The notion that skepticism would make people better decision-makers is equally problematic. If you're a skeptic, you really can't decide. You need to go through the facts thoroughly, only to find that you still can't decide. Because you don't know! Good decision-makers aren't skeptical, they go out on a limb and decide using what scant evidence they have. Sometimes the decision is good and sometimes it's bad, but at least they do something. A skeptic doesn't. To put it bluntly, a skeptic is probably the worst possible decision-maker. Even if a skeptic attempts to decide something, he must constantly question himself: "How can I know this is the right move? Isn't it probable that one of the millions of other choices was a better move? Isn't it probable that one of the billions of other people alive would be much better suited to do this than I?" A skeptic isn't a leader, and certainly not a decision-maker. A skeptic doubts and hesitates.

As for happiness, the studies made on happiness has showed that religious people are generally happier than non-religious (read Richard Layard's Happiness for more on this). Thus, empirically speaking, those religious fundamentalists are more likely to be happy than, for example, me.

Thus, adopting a skeptical stance seems counter-productive to Magnus' stated aim of making people happier and producing better decision-makers. If he wants happy people, he should promote religiosity, and better decision-making... well, I don't know. That depends on what kind of decisions you want to make, I suppose.

A closer look at the contents of the book also reveals that it is certainly not a skeptical attitude that is promoted. Rather, certain notions are held up as legitimate targets for questioning, while other notions are unquestioningly accepted as prima facie truths.

This approach reminds me of the 17th century philosopher René Descartes. Much like Magnus, Descartes wrote about skepticism, and also used it. In Descartes' case, he used it to question all his knowledge about the world (much like the provoking title, Everything we know is wrong). However, after making the skeptical claim that he couldn't really be sure of anything, Descartes retreated from his skeptical position. All of a sudden, he "realized" that there must be a God. Given that, everything else turned out to be provable.



Descartes was no skeptic. He merely claimed to be, to make his line of argument appeal more to those critical of dogmatic truths (such as the existence of God). Analogously, I believe that Magnus is not skeptical at all, he merely claims to be. Because if he really were skeptical, he would question his own underlying assumptions about individualization, capitalism, liberalism etc as vehemently as anything else. And of course, the title would be more like "Everything I know is probably wrong, but I'm not sure". But, like Descartes, the skeptical attitude seems to be reserved for some notions and are not applied universally.

A skeptical attitude is great against notions you don't like, but the problem is turning it towards the notion you build your own worldview on. That's the tricky part. Those few of us actually claiming to be skeptics eventually become so exhausted from doubt that we accept the worldview of any reasonably nice person in our vicinity, in the vain hope that while I don't have a clue, maybe this person has. That's not the secret to success in life (well, that depends on how you define "success").

I'm probably way out of line here. The book is not a philosophical treatise, it's a business guidebook (at least according to the categorization on the cover). And that's probably good, because if it was a philosophical treatise titled as i suggested above, no one in their right mind would read it. But since it makes general claims about the world and our perception of it, I read it as a philosophical book.


This entry must be tedious reading. To spare you, my fictitious reader, from more suffering right now, I will continue my review, discussing the other aspects of the book, in another blog entry. Something like a part 2.