Do you view reading strictly as a way of getting information? Do you find it pleasurable? Do you find time to unwind with a book? Do you read for work and strictly non-fiction? Do you use tools that translate audio to text for a better experience? I don’t know your answer, and frankly, I don’t need to for the purposes of this discussion. Because there’s a more important question at hand. How does your brain work when you’re reading something? This is going to be a hot take on how to be a better reader, which mostly, in my opinion, translates to perceiving a distinct difference between confidence and expertise.
Dunning-Kruger Effect! Kidding, Not Relevant Here
‘Then why would you mention it?’ you might be wondering right about now. Encyclopedia Britannica has a lot to say about this effect.
The Dunning-Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which individuals with low skill or knowledge in a domain overestimate their competence, while highly skilled individuals may underestimate theirs. Identified by psychologists David Dunning and Justin Kruger in 1999, it highlights the gap between actual ability and self-perceived ability, rooted in limitations of self-awareness and metacognition.
We have all experienced it in real life, right? An overconfident colleague that graduated YESTERDAY, someone who starts their ‘fitness journey’ (cringy definition in of itself) and instantly becomes the expert on how to do things ‘right,’ and then the veteran copy-machine fixer who you kind of dismiss, usually, but remember EVERY time you have a problem.
This effect translates into writing only partially, in my opinion.
Because while this effect is alive and well in real life, people don’t usually think about the author while reading a text. Huge mistake. Several reasons to back that assumption:
We tend to trust the written word more than we do speech.
We rarely deep research the author to make an informed decision about their writing and rarely check their credentials or sources. (Bar scientific research)
If you write confidently enough, it is easy to sound (pardon me, read) like you know what your talking about.
Long story short, it is easy to fake expertise when you write with confidence. Easier than talking. Oral discussion suggests other people question you straight away and you get a chance to defend your point of view.
When you read a text, it takes more determination to question the assumptions, get other expert opinions and confirm or refute the ideas before making the decision to trust what you read.BUT! It is a skill and can be trained like any other. So, how CAN we become more critical when confronted with a text of any sort?
#1 Sit With What You Read
This is a tough one, especially if you have any underlying anxiety, ADD, ADHD, or anything preventing you from marinating with information for a while, but this works wonders if you get the hang of it. That easy.Read a text? Finished? Sit with it for 5 minutes. Especially if the information has some significance for you and you didn’t just read for pleasure. How does it make you feel? If you were inclined to believe it, why do you think that is? Do you have any bias in your mind about the issue at hand? Did you find the information useful somehow?Just sit and think. After you do that, you’re going to have questions. For sure. Once you formulate those questions, it’s time to get answers and move to the second part of the exercise.
#2 Dissect The Facts From Assumptions
Assumptions and preconceived ideas do have the tendency to sound like facts when they are declared with confidence and coated properly. I bet you’ve noticed this phenomenon.
“You can do so much more if you just apply yourself! Who knows what you can achieve, sweetie, since we use only 10% of our brains anyway, you hold so much potential.”
Ok, let’s read this again, but critically this time.
“You can do so much more if you just apply yourself!”Opinion, not a fact, right? It doesn’t even look like a fact if we’re honest. A nice, encouraging opinion, don’t see anything wrong with it, since it doesn’t hold factual discrepancies.
“Who knows what you can achieve.”Again, encouraging, again, opinion.
“We use only 10% of our brains.”Ok, now this one sounds like a fact. If it looks like a fact and sounds like a fact…No, wait, what? Let’s look at this again.“We use only 10% of our brains.”- Sounds like a fact because it is cozily sitting between two encouraging opinion.- Looks like a fact because it has a distinct number in it.- Requires further investigation, as ANY distinct number casually thrown into a conversation or a text.
See where I’m going with this? This example is evident, just for the sake of performance but we come across too many inaccuracies like this to continue being a passive reader and not getting our facts straight! Let’s move on to the third exercise to seal the deal with this example.
#3 Check & Recheck The Facts
Ok, let’s try and argue that the ‘we use only 10% of our brains’ is a preconception, and frankly, hokum, and not a scientific fact.
The famous claim that humans use only 10% of their brains did not originate from a scientific discovery. It came to be during a gradual distortion of earlier psychological ideas. In the late 19th century, William James suggested that people rarely reach their full mental potential, a statement later simplified into a literal claim about brain usage. The myth gained traction through self-help literature and popular media during the 20th century. Modern neuroscience eventually dismantled the idea through brain imaging techniques such as functional magnetic resonance imaging, which demonstrated that virtually all regions of the brain perform active and necessary functions.
One reason the “10%” myth may have sounded plausible for so long is that the brain does not operate with every neuron firing at maximum intensity simultaneously. Neural activity is highly selective and organized into constantly shifting networks that activate only when needed. This phenomenon, sometimes described as sparse coding, allows the brain to conserve energy and avoid chaotic overexcitation. In fact, a scenario where all neurons fired at once would likely resemble a severe neurological event, such as an epilepsy seizure, rather than enhanced intelligence. Modern neuroscience shows that while only certain neural circuits are highly active at a given moment, virtually all regions of the brain participate in essential functions over time.
This principle works in all walks of life, naturally. You watch the news and hear a banker describe a new loan system, confidently stating that the interest rates sit at a “favorable 3.5% to 3.75% range for small businesses.” (I’m not an expert, treat the numbers as made-up for effect).
What often goes unmentioned is the context needed to evaluate that claim properly.
If those rates increased significantly compared to the previous quarter, the situation may actually represent tightening credit conditions rather than improved access to financing.
Absolute numbers alone provide limited insight without historical comparison, market benchmarks, inflation context, or risk conditions.
The statement still sounds authoritative because confidence is easy to recognize, while missing context is much harder for audiences to detect in real time.
You can see how that spirals into a rabbit hole. But the readiness to dive into a rabbit hole can make the difference between assuming and knowing, between conscious decisions and unconscious following.
Do yourself a favor, and stress check important info that comes your way, especially in written form, so you can really take your time and form an OPINION based on FACTS, not other people’s opinions.
