Paradox of Knowledge

The instinctive response we have within us exists for a reason. It is not meant to be irrational or impulsive, which are typically manifestations of our ego. Instead, it is the part of ourselves that knows what is meant to align with us and what isn't. Some might think there must be an explanation for everything, but what we truly need is a sense of alignment within—one that relates to our values, truths, and beliefs (which can be flexible depending on the situation). The more we connect with ourselves, the more likely we are to be in harmony with what truly works for us. Things seem to fall into place, and those that don’t (even if we once believed they did) tend to fade away.

When considering instinctive responses, such as subconscious reactions that are responsive rather than reactive, two ideas come to mind. One is from Malcolm Gladwell’s book "Blink," which discusses unexplainable responses that often turn out to be right, once we analyze them. The other pertains to the nature within us—those deeply inexplicable parts that can sometimes be mistaken for fear. The second aspect is more common when you’ve experienced situations that caused you to build walls or sabotage out of fear of being hurt again. For example, when trust is broken, we might believe we are following our instinct in not trusting someone, but it could also stem from the fear of it happening again. In these cases, we focus our attention on what we fear, which can increase the likelihood of it happening. On a broader level, I have realized that this fear of trusting ourselves is also about trusting how we relate to the external world. We are often easily influenced by our surroundings, especially if we’re constantly connected to external stimuli, even on social media, which limits our instinctive response

Recently, I conducted a small experiment to see how my day would unfold if I started with my phone first thing in the morning versus delaying its use and beginning with grounding and connection. I found that I was more energetic and centred throughout the day when I avoided engaging with my phone immediately. I noticed I felt less drawn to it as the day went on. Further exploring this, I came across a podcast from the DOC where Andrew Huberman mentioned: You get to choose how you start your day; either you are a consumer or a creator. Hearing that shifted my perspective and clarified how we tend to go about our days. Our habitual engagement with constant input makes it hard to find calm and clarity when we are silent—a skill many of us need to develop. Choosing not to engage or consume allows us to gain insight into our intuition and respond more aligned with ourselves, rather than overwhelming our minds with endless information.

In another story from Blink, the Van Riper case illustrates how the overload of information diminishes our trust in our behaviour and increases doubt about our responses.

That’s probably the paradox of more information or awareness—the more we know, the more we tend to doubt ourselves or seek rationality and justification for our thoughts and actions, especially when influenced by prescribed behaviours.

Such a paradox can be presented in numerous ways, affecting the engagement with external stimuli. It is not to say that knowing is inherently bad, but it can be assumed that the way we choose to absorb such information will influence our perception of the world around us.

So, I ask you, do you see yourself as a consumer or a creator? Does the way you consume information confuse or limit you, or does it help you process your thoughts better?

Z.