Nathan Cofnas writes: "A big part of being a critical thinker is having good heuristics about whom to trust, not trying to understand everything for yourself." So what are Nathan's heuristics?
Grok says:
Key Points
- Research suggests Nathan Cofnas values evidence-based trust in critical thinking.
- It seems likely he prioritizes intellectual rigor and open-mindedness.
- The evidence leans toward him being skeptical of authority and considering context.
- His approach may involve interdisciplinary methods, though details are inferred.
Introduction
Nathan Cofnas, a philosopher known for his work in biology and ethics, has shared insights on critical thinking, particularly in his newsletter and interviews. While he doesn't explicitly list his heuristics for whom to trust, his writings and discussions provide clues about how he approaches this aspect of being a critical thinker.
Heuristics for Trust
Cofnas appears to emphasize trusting sources based on empirical evidence, suggesting that data and real-world outcomes are key indicators of reliability. He also seems to value intellectual rigor, engaging deeply with complex topics like intelligence and group differences. His openness to debate controversial issues indicates a willingness to consider multiple perspectives, while his skepticism of authority is evident in his critical analyses of other scholars' work. Additionally, he likely considers the broader context, including ethical and societal implications, and draws on interdisciplinary knowledge from philosophy, biology, and psychology.
Limitations
These heuristics are inferred from his work, as he hasn't provided a direct list. The interpretation may vary, given the complexity of critical thinking and the controversial nature of some topics he discusses.
Survey Note: Detailed Analysis of Nathan Cofnas's Heuristics for Critical Thinking
Nathan Cofnas, a Leverhulme Early Career Fellow at the University of Cambridge, is known for his work in the philosophy of biology, ethics, and controversial scientific and ethical issues. His statement, "A big part of being a critical thinker is having good heuristics about whom to trust, not trying to understand everything for yourself," highlights his belief in the importance of mental shortcuts for determining trustworthy sources. This survey note explores the inferred heuristics for critical thinking, particularly regarding whom to trust, based on his writings, interviews, and discussions, as of May 25, 2025.
Background and Context
Cofnas's work often involves engaging with contentious topics, such as group differences in intelligence, the role of Jews in ideological movements, and the intellectual gap between liberals and conservatives. His newsletter, available at Nathan Cofnas’s Newsletter, and interviews, such as his conversation with Grégoire Canlorbe on the Genetic Literacy Project , provide insight into his approach to critical thinking. While he does not explicitly list his heuristics, his methods and arguments suggest a structured approach to evaluating information and trusting sources.
Inferred Heuristics for Critical Thinking
Based on the analysis of his work, the following heuristics can be inferred, each supported by examples from his writings and discussions:
- Trust in Evidence:
- Cofnas emphasizes the importance of empirical evidence and data in forming opinions. For instance, in his discussion of IQ tests, he argues that IQ is highly correlated with real-life outcomes, such as educational attainment, job performance, and health, countering the claim that IQ tests only measure test-taking ability . This suggests he trusts sources that provide robust, data-driven evidence.
- Intellectual Rigor:
- He engages with complex and controversial topics using logical reasoning and critical analysis. His paper "Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy: A Critical Analysis of Kevin MacDonald’s Theory" demonstrates his commitment to thorough intellectual inquiry, debating and critiquing other scholars' theories. This heuristic involves trusting individuals or institutions that demonstrate rigorous analysis.
- Open-Mindedness:
- Cofnas shows a willingness to consider multiple perspectives and challenge his own biases. His participation in public debates, such as his live conversation on X Spaces about hereditarianism , reflects an openness to different viewpoints, suggesting he trusts those who engage in dialogue and are willing to adapt their views based on evidence.
- Skepticism of Authority:
- He questions claims and arguments, even from authoritative sources, and evaluates them based on their merit. For example, his critique of Kevin MacDonald's theory in "Still No Evidence for a Jewish Group Evolutionary Strategy" shows skepticism toward established narratives, indicating he trusts sources that withstand critical scrutiny rather than relying on authority alone.
- Contextual Understanding:
- Cofnas considers the broader context and implications of information, including ethical, political, and societal dimensions. In his newsletter article "Why We Need to Talk about the Right’s Stupidity Problem" , he discusses the societal implications of intelligence gaps, suggesting he trusts sources that account for these broader impacts and their potential consequences.
- Interdisciplinary Approach:
- He draws on knowledge from various fields, such as philosophy, biology, and psychology, to inform his critical thinking. His background in the philosophy of biology and ethics, as noted on his profile , allows him to approach topics from multiple angles, suggesting he trusts sources that integrate interdisciplinary insights.
Supporting Evidence from Writings and Discussions
To provide a structured overview, the following table summarizes key points from his work that support these inferred heuristics:
Heuristic | Supporting Evidence | Source |
|---|---|---|
Trust in Evidence | Argues IQ correlates with real-life outcomes, countering simplistic claims. | |
Intellectual Rigor | Critiques Kevin MacDonald's theory with logical analysis. | |
Open-Mindedness | Participates in public debates, such as on X Spaces, showing willingness to engage. | |
Skepticism of Authority | Questions established narratives, e.g., MacDonald's theory, based on evidence. | |
Contextual Understanding | Discusses societal implications of intelligence gaps in newsletter. | |
Interdisciplinary Approach | Draws on philosophy, biology, and psychology in his work. |
Additionally, his newsletter article from January 2, 2024, provides further context. It discusses the intelligence gap between liberals and conservatives, citing IQ scores (e.g., extreme liberals at 107, extreme conservatives at 98.5) and university rankings, suggesting he trusts institutions and individuals demonstrating higher intellectual engagement . This aligns with the heuristic of trusting evidence and intellectual rigor.
Limitations and Uncertainties
These heuristics are inferred rather than explicitly stated, which introduces some uncertainty. The interpretation may vary, especially given the controversial nature of topics like group differences in intelligence. For instance, his discussion of a 15-point IQ gap between Blacks and Whites in the US, as mentioned in the interview, is a sensitive topic that requires careful consideration . The heuristics are based on available public writings and may not capture private or unpublished views.
Conclusion
Nathan Cofnas's heuristics for critical thinking, particularly for whom to trust, emphasize evidence-based evaluation, intellectual rigor, open-mindedness, skepticism of authority, contextual understanding, and an interdisciplinary approach. These are inferred from his engagement with controversial topics, his newsletter, and interviews, providing a comprehensive view of his approach as of May 25, 2025.
Key Citations
