"We are not as much in control of our ideas as we would like."

BarcelonaCan we learn to think better? This is the challenge posed by philosopher Javier López Alós and physicist Vicent Botella y Soler in their new book. Why do we think what we think? (Arpa, 2025), a more complete version of its predecessor in Catalan, Why do we think what we think? (Printed Letter, 2024). According to these two writers, just as someone who practices yoga learns to pay more attention to their breathing or someone who goes running can improve their technique, one can also learn to think and make decisions "more consciously and less automatically."

Although we don't realize it, we often operate on autopilot. We use shortcuts and simplifications, which can backfire: the brain arrives at automatic conclusions, which can lead to biases and cause us to err in our perceptions, reasoning, and actions. That's why López and Botella suggest "thinking about thinking," that is, exercising critical thinking to avoid acting based on the first thing that comes to mind, because it is not necessarily true or the most appropriate course of action.

To achieve this, we must first prevent the weaknesses and limitations of our thinking from going unnoticed. There is an idea that dominates modern rational thought, López reminds us, according to which "we are always and in every moment rational subjects," that is, fully conscious and autonomous, but "we are subject to a multitude of influences" of a cultural, emotional, or cognitive nature. "We are not as much in control of our ideas as we would often like to think," the philosopher emphasizes, something that "should be much more on people's minds," Botella adds, because they readily exploit publicity or politics for their own benefit.

Knowing about biases "doesn't prevent you from being a victim," nor do these biases affect everyone equally, the book's authors explain, but they have included numerous references to discover how they can condition us. For example, the framework in which information is presented can be decisive. A recent example is the signing of the peace plan for Gaza, with Donald Trump appearing under the slogan "Peace 2025," in line with his desire to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. In fact, words have been paramount in Gaza: "We don't take the same stance on a war where we talk about sides as we do on a genocide," López emphasizes.

A more everyday example is the interest in increasing sales of prepared food in supermarkets, bolstered by statements like this year's by the president of Mercadona, Juan Roig, who predicted that kitchens will disappear by 2050. It seems that buying ready-made food can save time, but at the same time, "it saves people's autonomy and freedom, to such an extent that it ends up renouncing the exercise of our own thinking," López reflects.

We tend to prefer thoughts that are easy to generate (cognitive comfort), we find it difficult to question some negative prejudices about minorities because of the familiarity we feel (mere exposure effect), and we defend certain ideas despite the existence of evidence that disproves them (guided reasoning). We also tend to consider negative things more than positive ones (negativity bias), and losing is more painful than winning (loss aversion).

Some people stay in unsatisfying relationships because they've been together "for three years" (the lost cost fallacy, how the past weighs on decisions), while others on dating apps are never satisfied because of the difficulty of choosing between young people who are told that, who are told, who are told, there are also, or there are, or there are, or there are, who are said to, who are told, who are told, who are told, sometimes, besides not being true, it can paralyze them (the paradox of choice in the last two cases). Furthermore, according to Botella, we want to reach conclusions even when we have no idea, to which she says: "We should be more comfortable with our ignorance and suspend judgment more often, especially when our lives don't depend on it."

Thinking, even if it tires

According to Botella, the book was born out of the frustration they felt with phenomena such as opinions circulating on social media that are interpreted with "naive explanations like 'people are stupid.'" It also stemmed from their opposition to denialism and the glorification of ignorance. "We know that in many cases, the incentive for aggressive content, hate speech, or fake news isn't even necessarily political, but fundamentally economic, because we react more attentively to what we perceive as danger," López points out, who also links the rise of the far right to people feeling a sense of permanence.

The brain's reliance on automatic responses could be related to conserving resources for survival. "Evolution doesn't seek perfect solutions, but rather solutions good enough to keep us alive, even if this may lead to errors from time to time," López and Botella emphasize in the book. Despite the fact that "not every stimulus can be evaluated reflectively and calmly" and that thinking "is difficult and tiring," they believe that "small improvements in our reasoning can translate into enormous benefits": prudence—not to be confused with neutrality—patience, and a healthy distance from what we are certain we think are virtues. They also propose ensuring sufficient rest time within daily tasks to combat modern fatigue, bearing in mind that technological innovations increase wear and tear and automatic thinking, leading us to do more. "When we are mentally tired, we make more mistakes, poor decisions, and perform worse," they warn in the book, in which they also advocate rethinking how we get our information—"in this interconnected, fast-paced, and noisy world, the fight against lies is in everyone's interest"—and "limiting or prohibiting our time on social media."