Anticynical #10: Cynicism to Skepticism
Cynicism to Skepticism, Obstacles in the Way.
Hey there 👋,
Welcome to the tenth edition of Anticynical! Last week, I wrote about receptivity along with a visual metaphor.
A quick announcement: for the next two weeks, you won’t receive a new idea email essay from me. After every 10 regular new idea essays, I will write a longer “synthesis” essay, contextualizing the previous ideas. Depending on my schedule, this email will take 2-4 weeks for me to write. During those 2-4 weeks, you’ll receive nutshell recaps of previous ideas.
This time it’s going to take three weeks. So you’ll receive Anticynical Synthesis #1 on June 1, 2023. I really look forward to writing that piece.
This week’s idea is cynicism to skepticism.
Idea: Cynicism to Skepticism
In a nutshell: we should replace cynicism with skepticism where possible, as it is a healthier alternative.
Cynicism originated in ancient Greece. Antisthenes, a student of Socrates, was the first philosopher who laid down the foundations of Cynicism in late 400 BC. It was popularized by a fellow who lived in a ceramic jar and begged for food, called Diogenes, who took the practice to its logical extreme.1
The basic principle was to live a simple life with the bare necessities and in accordance with nature. It argued for an ascetic ideal, rejecting and even publicly deriding conventional desires like wealth, social status, fame, and material possessions.
This “rejecting and publicly deriding conventional desires” was often accompanied by distrust of the government and institutions, which wanted an orderly citizenry and made it difficult to live a Cynical life.
Over many centuries, modern cynicism (with lowercase c) has come to refer to only the “distrust” aspect of ancient Cynicism. So if you’re a modern cynic, you distrust others’ good intentions, believe that people are motivated purely by self-interest, and have a negative outlook on life.
When a cynic sees Bill Gates or other rich folks donating to charity or doing philanthropy, they assume they’re doing it only for the tax write-off or public image boost. Or, when a colleague complements them, they might automatically suspect ulterior motives are at play.
I have deeply ingrained cynical tendencies that I want to overcome.2 So, I totally understand the allure of cynicism.
Modern cynicism is a defense mechanism that often stems from insecurity. It is an effort-avoiding, intellectually lazy position that allows you to feel better about yourself. It can also appear to sound intelligent. Let me illustrate.
Suppose a friend suggests the following hypothesis: Bill Gates does philanthropy to make the world a better place.
There are many ways to engage with this hypothesis. If I lean into my cynical tendencies, here’s how I would attack it.
Bill wants to retain his fame from his MSFT days. He also wants to be seen as a good and conscientious person in the public eye. He has more money and time than he knows what to do with, so he might as well do some philanthropy.
As I was writing the above paragraph, I was noticing my thoughts and observed the following interesting things:
I negated his supposed moral eminence by claiming he was doing philanthropy only for his self-interest. That made me feel less inferior to him and thus feel better about myself.
By being able to point out his underlying motivations and presenting something that explained his behavior, I felt more intelligent.
I did not have to work to gather evidence supporting or refuting my cynical claims. I could afford to be intellectually lazy.
The cynical mode is most triggered when someone or something is trying to bring some kind of change into the world. When the world is changing as rapidly as it is now, no wonder I see cynics all around me.
The cynical “attack strategy” is also effective. You can shut down a surprising number of discussions and arguments by employing the cynical strategy. And here’s the most pernicious aspect when you have ingrained cynical tendencies: the person you “attack” most often is yourself.
Now, cynicism isn’t all bad; some aspects of cynicism are useful and can offer insight. First, self-interest is a powerful force. The effectiveness of incentive structures in business and management proves that. Perverse incentives can make otherwise good people rationalize bad behavior in service of their self-interest, and vice-versa. Cynicism can also serve as a check against naïveté and blind optimism.
However, there is a much healthier alternative to cynicism. Something that can salvage its “good parts”—acknowledging the power of self-interest and being more grounded—while not being nearly as toxic: skepticism.
When I find myself defaulting to a cynical outlook, I try to change the default setting to skepticism instead. In modern parlance, skepticism and cynicism are conflated and sometimes even used interchangeably. This is a mistake.
Philosophically, skepticism claims that knowledge about something is not possible. If I am skeptical of people’s good intentions, I claim that I cannot know for certain whether people do things out of good intentions, self-interest, or something else entirely. But modern cynicism claims that people are motivated purely by self-interest. Modern cynicism is not skeptical of people’s good intentions; it is dismissive of them.
As a skeptic, your default position on propositions you don’t have sufficient information about is suspending judgment. Then as you gather evidence, you become more confident in the proposition’s plausibility or implausibility.
As a cynic, however, you immediately dismiss certain propositions as implausible due to a belief in underlying selfish motives.
In response to the above Bill Gates hypothesis (Bill Gates does philanthropy to make the world a better place), as a skeptic, I can go along the following line of thought:
It's possible that Bill Gates genuinely wants to make the world a better place through his philanthropy. However, we cannot discount the possibility that he also benefits from a positive public image, personal satisfaction, or other secondary motives. It's important to examine the evidence and effectiveness of his actions before drawing any conclusions.
Skepticism encourages critical thinking, curiosity, and open-mindedness. It prompts you to question and gather evidence before making a judgment, allowing you to embrace nuance and complexity. Cynicism, on the other hand, discourages exploration and prematurely dismisses the possibility of good intentions or positive outcomes.
So if you struggle with cynical tendencies like me, trying to cultivate a skeptical mindset might be a worthy objective.
Question: Are most difficulties and obstacles you face "out there" or in your head?
Sometimes getting out of your own way is wonderful advice. Sometimes real people, conventions, or things are in the way. Or both.
I'd love to hear from you…
Do you also think cynicism is toxic?
What kind of challenges or obstacles are in your way?
Or anything else at all. Just hit reply.
Source: Cynicism (philosophy) wikipedia
A big reason for why I wrote this piece.
I value your balanced view of Gates' philanthropy, it speaks to how I think, and there's indeed room for myself to grow from my cynical ways.
With that said, is there a constructive lens of cynicism? We've seen decades of hero-worship about corporate figures, and there is a risk that we let charity eclipse accountability. Perhaps cynicism serves to highlight needed scrutiny of business leaders' as wealth gaps grow.
(Though I may just be rationalizing my own cynicism at this point.)
Jumped right into #10 after seeing you in Office Hours today. I appreciate your clear definitions and contrasting, as well as the way you lay out this potentially confusing topic. I will go back to your first posts to get up to speed and look forward to your upcoming longer piece.