I always struggle with any recommendation that says that we need a government policy to direct our decisions about our own priorities, time, and effort. As much as I believe in the vision of this piece, I can't support it as a thing that belongs in the hands of the government to direct.
Like you, I believe an educated, reflective, thoughtful citizenry is a necessity for a successful society. Providing opportunities for people to participate in these type of forums sounds fabulous and of value. I encourage individuals to create these communities, but to hand it to government as a responsibility, I think would be a mistake. We already recognize that education in the hands of the government is a waste of resources. Most teachers are incapable of applying critical thinking themselves, so I'm not sure that is where to start teaching it.
I read an interesting article about the history of "NGO's". During the depression years, communities started to create funds that they used to support those in their immediate communities who were struggling the most. It was voluntary and it generated a lot of money that could be invested and grow. Roosevelt was curious about this and decided this was a model that should be applied at the federal level. It gave him another "sales pitch" to institute the safety-net, and tax regime that never went away. Today, these are the very institutions that are causing us grief. If something is truly good for the public, and the public wants it, we don't need the government getting involved. I believe humans are compassionate and will take care of each other without coercion from above.
As I reflect further, I wonder if this position, that we both hold, that critical thinking is something important, may be just an elitist position. We hold formal degrees, years of working experience and wisdom. For us there is value and importance in deep thinking and deep reflection, but for working-class people struggling to just get through their day, it certainly isn't a priority. To be honest, it wasn't a priority for me either in my career days as a single parent. Technology is a tool that gives time back, AI is a tool that can remove much of the time we spend having to select, consume and internalize data from a world that is drowning in data. Today, society focuses on doing not thinking, and AI is positioned to encourage people to apply it for the benefit of more "doing".
Long before we start making government mandates for people to "think better" (which could very easily turn into an insidious propaganda machine), we need to change the ethos of our culture from doing to thinking. But perhaps that in itself would be un-American. It does occur to me that AI taking over all the "doing" will provide us with an opportunity to refocus our efforts toward thinking, as long as we are not starving or homeless. But until then, I suspect doing and thinking will continue to remain in silos. The best we can hope is to encourage as many people as possible to consider multiple angles on the topics they care about, and always be curious.
And in the meantime, absolutely, build communities of thinkers everywhere you can - like what I'm seeing here on Substack.
There you go - proof. We don't need the government, we just need the time to interact with other thinkers.
Thank you Susan. You have raised some of the most difficult and important questions that hover around this topic, and I appreciate you laying them out so clearly.
Your skepticism of top-down government solutions is well-founded, and your historical example of voluntary community funds being supplanted by federal programs is a powerful cautionary tale. It shows a core tension I grapple with: how do we support a public good without creating a bureaucracy that can, as you say, cause its own grief down the line?
You also raise a point that is absolutely critical: is this focus on "critical thinking" an elitist position? You are right. For someone struggling to get through the day, or for a single parent (as you were), deep reflection can feel like an unaffordable luxury. It’s a crucial reality check. My hope isn't to impose this as a priority on people, but to ask if we can create a society where more people have the basic security and "slack time" to engage in it if they so choose.
This is where we might view the role of government differently. I agree completely that a government mandate to "think better" would be a disaster and could easily become the propaganda machine you rightly fear. When I think of "policy" or "cognitive infrastructure," I'm not thinking of mandates or coercion. I'm thinking of something closer to a national park or a public library system.
The government doesn't force you to read a specific book or have a picnic. It creates and maintains a beautiful, accessible space where you can choose to do so. It provides the enabling conditions for voluntary action. Right now, our digital public square is more like a chaotic, privately-owned mall filled with slot machines designed to addict us. The policy question for me is: could we use our collective resources to build more "digital parks and libraries" in that space, instead of just letting the malls expand? Corporations could build these as a public good.
Your framing of "doing vs. thinking" is also very sharp, and I agree that AI is a powerful tool for "doing." The specific danger I see isn't that AI helps us do things, but that it's becoming a tool that does our thinking for us in ways that aren't transparent. Our cultural focus on "doing" makes that an easy trade-off to accept without reflection, which is a perilous path. I have countless examples of executives not reading the AI output and presenting it!
Ultimately, you are proving your own point by living the solution. You are here, in this community, engaging in exactly the kind of interaction that builds a smarter culture. My position isn't that the government should create these conversations, but that it should help foster the conditions where more of these voluntary, essential communities can emerge and thrive for everyone, not just for those of us with the time and resources to find them.
The Substack communities, the book clubs, these are the labs. The question is how we can use their success to inform the design of a healthier public square for all. And I strongly believe that this should be encouraged to grow within organizations, employees should not be penalized for having a reading group during office time, it must be actively encouraged.
Thank you again for the pushback and the deep reflection. It’s essential for sharpening my position.
Some excellent points, Colin—I'd like to reflect on a few of them.
Your question—whether we can build a society where more people have the security and “slack time” to think deeply—is the right one. Culture drives behavior, and in cultures like ours that prize freedom of choice, incentives matter. What would encourage someone to trade doom-scrolling for meaningful thought?
I don't believe governments are the place to build public digital spaces, but they can help shape the incentives. Corporations could likely implement these ideas faster and more creatively—if they see the incentive value. It occurs to me that the rise of AI-driven research may be a signal that deeper thinking is, at some level, still valued. The challenge is getting people to recognize that human reflection, even with AI deep research still matters just as much—perhaps more.
As someone who uses AI tools extensively, I see their limits. They organize, consolidate, and structure knowledge, but they can’t create meaning. That comes from us. As traditional jobs shift, this realization will likely spread—and work itself may evolve into more reflective, insight-driven roles. The belief is that the AI will give us time to do that reflective step. We might just need to give the transition time. Interestingly, I saw a stat showing social media engagement is down 13% this year, while OpenAI’s is soaring. Maybe the shift is already happening.
I laughed at your comment about executives presenting AI output they haven’t read. I’ve seen it too. It might work once, but anyone serious about their work quickly learns how unreliable unfiltered AI output can be. If someone lets the tool do their thinking without review, it’s hard to feel sorry when the tool replaces them.
As for your national parks and library metaphor—I think you’re partly right. National parks require federal stewardship so it makes sense to have them designated and managed for the good of all people. But libraries? Those are deeply local, often built by communities themselves. While traveling full-time in our RV, I saw it firsthand—book exchanges at the end of driveways, maintained by individuals. It's proof that there are already thoughtful spaces created by and for like-minded thoughtful people, in online and physical writing communities, book clubs, and even quiet corners of the internet. So maybe the question isn’t about access and more place —but how to inspire and incentivize more people to seek them out.
Ultimately, we're on the same page. The question is how do we do it? Perhaps some deep reflection on what makes a good incentive is the first step :)
That comes back to culture again. If the volume on mainstream and social media were turned down just a bit, people might find themselves looking for answers more intentionally. And the very act of looking is already the beginning of thoughtfulness.
Just my two cents, critical thinking is what drove innovation long before elite degrees. My grandfather was a machinist with no formal training. He held 30+ patents and was an amazing critical thinker. It has been people wanting to make life easier for themselves, not elite degrees, that has moved innovation forward. I'd say 'society forward' but that is questionable at this point.
Japan’s “Metabo Law” would only work in an open society where for instance food labeling laws are transparent; where a corporation’s duplicitous behaviors are not protected by the government’s they spend billions lobbying. I worked for a consulting firm many years in a London. The managing director believed McDonald’s was a brilliant business model. And yet they impoverished and abused their own low grade employees, harmed the health of their own customers and used a supply chain and distribution system to deliver the same bag of ‘food’ worldwide. A system which at some point in the future we will come to realize is mind-bogglingly stupid. We will never achieve anything until we change our discourse on the meaning of profit. Once we do that we can begin to serve everyone and everything i.e the planet and its resources are not here to be exploited, rather they are here to teach us something we are still trying to learn and those fixated on profit and power are still very much deaf and blind to and intentionally so.
You are absolutely right. The issues you raise, from the immense power of corporate lobbying that neuters regulations to a deeply entrenched and often destructive definition of 'profit', are formidable barriers to any kind of meaningful societal change. Your McDonald's example is a strong example of a system that often prioritizes quarterly earnings over the long-term well-being of people and the planet.
And this brings me directly back to the central thesis of my points. The question is, why do these 'mind-bogglingly stupid' systems persist? You mention that people are 'deaf and blind' to these realities, and my post tries to diagnose the root of that very blindness.
As I state this is, fundamentally, a cognitive crisis. The very intellectual atrophy I describe, and have described over and over again, the shrinking attention spans, the decline in critical analysis, the passive acceptance of information, is what makes a population vulnerable to the kind of corporate messaging and short-sighted logic you've outlined. A society that outsources its thinking is fertile ground for the kind of exploitation you describe. It becomes far easier to protect harmful business models when citizens lack the cognitive tools and intellectual stamina to rigorously question them and demand accountability.
So, while I agree that simply passing a law in the face of such lobbying would be immensely difficult, my argument is that a 'Metabo Law for the Mind' is a necessary precondition for any of the deeper changes you call for. We can't hope to 'change our discourse on the meaning of profit' if we don't first rebuild the public's capacity for deep, critical, and sustained discourse. The policies suggested are about creating citizens who are more resilient to manipulation and better equipped to architect the profound systemic changes you rightly argue are needed.
Incidentally, we have solid food labelling laws in the EU and have nowhere near the levels of obesity that exists in the UK and US. Plus the EU is on par / has the same GDP as the US, except for exchange rate, so yes laws are possible. This is not a US centric situation the world is much bigger.
In short, you're pointing to a profound sickness in our system. My post argues that we must first strengthen our collective 'cognitive immune system' to even begin to fight it.
I agree with much of what you say. To build on that, I also believe we need to teach humanity to feel. To understand the world and our environment from our feeling nature. Teaching cognitive thinking will only go so far. We can think our way into or out of anything with enough persuasion. Feelings are harder to ignore and are in my opinion a far more efficient 'immune system.' I would also add that feelings and emotions are entirely different senses. The former is more connected to intuition and those feelings can be channeled through thought or become thought in a more practical, but philosophical way.
One of the biggest obstacles to change in the US is the populace is taught not to tear down the profit system, because no matter how poor you were raised or you currently are, one day you'll be a millionaire or a billionaire and you won't want to pay those same high taxes nor support the welfare system. Of course, I would argue the wealthy in the US have a far more beneficent welfare system than the poor have ever had or ever will have.
I am aware of the EU labeling laws and even in the UK the labeling laws are far more protective than in the US. In the last several decades since its inception the FDA has banned approximately 6 substances in total, compared to 450 in the EU.
I love all of these proposals, Colin, but I’m not sure how much people value (at least consciously) the goals they are trying to get us to. For example, the Republican Party in the US does not seem to care about training its citizens to participate more competently in American democracy (though I allow that some conservatives do) and all I see from most businesses these days is encouragement to learn how to use AI to become much more productive, which is a kind of thinking but may be more like encouraging people to learn how to use a calculator: learning a new technology that only accelerates the concern for atrophy you raise at the outset of your post.
I think that for this to take off people would need to be encouraged to see the benefits to democracy and to understand the intrinsic benefits of slow contemplation, independent of whether it makes you more productive in some superficial and material way.
Thank you Norman. You have expressed the core prerequisite that my essay perhaps takes for granted: the question of whether we, as a culture, still value the destination.
Your real-world examples are perfect. There are certainly powerful political factions that do not appear to prioritize creating a more reflective electorate (very much the case in Europe too). I agree there is a strong cross-current from the corporate world, where the dominant push is to leverage AI for sheer efficiency. This drive often works directly against the deeper, slower cognitive goals I've outlined.
You are right, none of these structural proposals can take root if the society doesn't first appreciate the fruit they are meant to bear. A foundational shift must come first, a renewed appreciation for the intrinsic worth of contemplation and its vital role in a self-governing society, entirely separate from its economic utility.
I believe you've identified the missing "Chapter Zero" of my argument. Which is a classic chicken-and-egg question: do the values change first, or does the system change first? My sense is that they have to evolve together, in a feedback loop.
I think of the early environmental movement. There was a massive push to change public consciousness about the importance of clean air and water. But that cultural campaign was powerfully accelerated and solidified by policies like the Clean Air Act. The law itself acted as a potent teacher; it reshaped our economy and daily lives in a way that made the value of a healthy environment tangible and non-negotiable. It reset the cultural baseline.
My hope is that policy aimed at "cognitive wellness" could function similarly. By creating structures that support deep thinking, we don't just provide an opportunity; we make a collective statement that this is valuable. We begin to shape the culture through our actions, even as we make the case for it intellectually.
But your point stands as a crucial reminder. The arguments for why this matters must be made with as much, if not more, passion and energy as the arguments for how to achieve it. Thank you for bringing that essential point into focus.
“do the values change first, or does the system change first? My sense is that they have to evolve together, in a feedback loop” This is very well said, Colin, and your analogy to the environmental movement is apt. What does/would the cognitive wellness movement look like? I would argue that we bake a lot of this into what we do in Kallion Leadership, though I’m sure we could do more, and do it more explicitly.
I hit the like symbol and hesitated. The like is for the description/analysis of the status quo, the hesitation due to the suggested solution. Perhaps I should mention that I am cautious and reserved as regards generalizations, solutions that might be understood as "one fits all" and entrepreneurial as well as technocratic attitudes in different areas or systems such as society. Obviously this is more about me than your text. So let me explain what I have perceived reading your text - restricted to dissent:
a. The society - we often think in large quantities, but good for many ist not good for all and perhaps a misleading thought from the beginning.
b. The trend and the masses - reminds me of the invention of printing, TV, internet. As I mentioned earlier, and we seem to share the view, it depends on us how to make proper use of the tools.
c. It is all bout the individual. Some people always seem to find a way to improve, making use of changes, transformations, tools to become a better version of themselves. => Are the others able to change? What might help at least some of them?
d. There are no quick fixes and I am skeptical that a government or a centralized solution will work out.
e. It is all about education, but may be not in a factory systems we call school and public education.
What if education would not be standardized, but at least - well, as regards tailoring: Made-to-Measure or even better: Full Bespoke?
What does that mean? Use more resources in a different way. Think education in a different way. Neglect standardization, truly care about children and teenagers at something that used to be called school snd needs a different name as it is all about preparation for life and most proportionate development of strengths into a whole. At least to a certain extent, even truly care about students and perhaps trainees addressing their strengths and weaknesses as well as (deep-rooted) interests - personally, in small groups with competitive and manifold "solutions" that are supplied by various forms of educational institutions, most of them private I suppose.
Thank you for this Michael. The "hesitant like" is perhaps the most valuable form of engagement possible. It signals an agreement on the diagnosis of the problem but a crucial and respected skepticism about the proposed cure.
You highlight a central tension in any large-scale proposal: the inherent risk of monolithic thinking. Your caution against broad-stroke solutions that might not serve everyone, and your reminder that new technologies have always prompted similar societal anxieties, are vital checks against oversimplification. I agree that the locus of responsibility for using our tools wisely ultimately falls to us as individuals.
I was particularly impressed with your vision for education. The idea of moving away from a standardized, industrial model toward something deeply personalized and dedicated to nurturing individual strengths is incredibly compelling. That is a system that prepares people for life in a much more holistic, human-centric way. I believe that is the absolute ideal.
This leads me to a question your comment raises for me: how do we create the conditions for that kind of personalized model to flourish for everyone, not just those with the most resources?
To borrow from your powerful tailoring analogy: a master tailor needs a few things to succeed, access to quality materials, good tools, a safe workshop, and a way for clients to find them.
Perhaps the role for "policy" here isn't to be the tailor, it absolutely should not dictate the cut or the style of the suit. That would be a disaster. Instead, its role could be to ensure that every potential artisan, regardless of their background, has access to the best fabrics and tools. It could be to maintain the public square (as I said in other comments above) where their workshops can thrive safely.
So, the "cognitive infrastructure" I imagine isn't a single, government-run factory telling everyone how to think. It's a public commitment to funding the high-quality "materials", like open-access information, well-supported educators, and diverse learning platforms, that would allow a thousand different private and community-led personalized educational models to compete and succeed.
Ultimately, it seems we both envision a society that values the unique potential of each person. You have laid out a powerful vision for how that cultivation should happen at the individual level. My hope is that we can find a way to build a framework that supports, rather than stifles, that exact kind of flourishing.
Let me limit my response. There are two aspects I would like to draw attention to:
1. In economic matters, there are free trade zones. In education, there could be comparable special conditions that provide legal exemptions. The foreseeable success might do the rest.
2. A common argument is: What about the poor? Comparing is not equating. However, it is amazing what James Tooley describes in his book The Beautiful Tree. A personal journey into how the world’s poorest people are educating themselves. (In India and Africa, in rural areas and cities, the poorest of the poor want to and are able to send all their children to fee-paying private schools; they prefer these to free state schools because of the better quality of education. The parents, who are often illiterate, successfully take responsibility for their children's education themselves. Entrepreneurial school principals and dedicated teachers operate under typical market conditions for the benefit of all.)
And since all good things come in threes:
3. As with many other things, I assume that the biggest hurdle is the regulations and the power structures behind them. If this is correct, we need a profound entrepreneurial shift, which means that we also see ourselves as entrepreneurs in a broader sense.
Not in the US. We are at war with ourselves right now. As the saying goes, “WE HAVE MET THE ENEMY, AND HE IS US.”
On one side, there is a push to reduce regulation and minimize government involvement in public affairs; on the other, there’s a call for more regulation and government oversight. I firmly believe the solution, as in most cases, lies somewhere in the middle. But right now, finding common ground feels impossible, and the divisions we face seem to grow deeper each day. There is no light at the end of the tunnel—at least not yet. To complicate matters, the wealthiest among us—whether in Silicon Valley or Wall Street—seem focused solely on keeping people hooked to their platforms or pursuing short-term profit schemes with little regard for long-term consequences or societal well-being.
However, as citizens, we cannot sit idly by and wait for sweeping societal reforms. Change begins with us, and we all have a role to play. Here’s what I’ve been doing in my organization: we’ve established book clubs across our leadership teams (4 clubs, each with 5–8 members). Over the past three years, we’ve read and discussed books about management, leadership, history, psychology, sociology, and AI. While not everyone participates, most do—and the impact has been significant in some cases.
These discussions have inspired our team members to think about topics they might not typically engage with, explore new ideas, and learn from one another. It’s not just about personal growth; it’s also about creating a culture of intellectual curiosity and shared learning. The book clubs have fostered collaboration, encouraged open dialogue, and provided a valuable window into what others care about and how they think.
Perhaps most importantly, this initiative is preparing our team for the future. By challenging ourselves to think critically and engage deeply, we’re not just solving today’s problems—we’re equipping ourselves to tackle tomorrow’s opportunities. It’s been a way to go beyond the surface, to step outside our silos, and to collectively expand our understanding of the world and our role in it.
In the end, the path to a smarter, more resilient society doesn’t begin with massive top-down reforms; it begins with individuals and communities taking small but meaningful steps to foster curiosity, connection, and critical thinking. As Margaret Mead once said, “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”
I share your 'pessimism' (for want of a better word) about the current state of our civic discourse. Your line, "WE HAVE MET THE ENEMY, AND HE IS US," feels painfully accurate right now, and the deep polarization (The elections in Germany and Poland also show such polarization, over 20% voting for far right wing), this does make the large-scale policy solutions I propose feel distant, if not impossible.
But then you pivoted to what you're doing about it, and that's where your experience becomes so powerful and inspiring.
The book club initiative in your organization is a perfect, living example of the very "cognitive fitness" I talk about. It’s a micro-version of the solution, I also implemented this in my corporate world, creating a protected space for curiosity, deep engagement, and shared understanding. What you’ve achieved with your teams, fostering collaboration, encouraging open dialogue, and preparing them for the future, is exactly the goal. It’s proof that this isn't just an abstract ideal; it has tangible, real-world benefits. I wrote in another comment that boards should actively encourage this in organizations, on Monday I have a meeting with a board member of a major bank, I will promote the idea to him.
This brings up a crucial point about how change happens. I see it not as an "either/or" between the bottom-up approach and top-down one (eg policy), but as a necessary partnership. Yours and my book clubs create the demand for and the proof of concept for wider change. The policies are what would help scale that success and make that kind of intellectual vitality the norm, not the exception.
You are right to quote Margaret Mead. That small group of thoughtful, committed citizens is always where the spark begins. The next step in their journey is often to change the rules of the system so that more sparks can catch fire.
Ultimately, I still believe that we need both: individuals and leaders like you building pockets of intellectual vitality from the ground up, and a framework of policy that supports and champions that work on a national scale.
I really love the idea of a 'citizen-scholar' program. That would be so beneficial to local governments and municipalities. I worked for an electric utility company for 10 years and the ranting, raving, and unbelievable nonsense that would come out of any public comment sessions was almost comical. No one wants their utility rates to increase but there is also an almost ubiquitous lack of understanding how a rate is created (spoiler-alert, it has very little to do with profit in a regulated industry.) But, why would there be understanding on something like that? Providing such avenues for a deeper and meaningful understanding of "how things work" would be an absolute boon to society. It would also serve as a bulwark against media bias itself. You know very well, when the news is glossing over something you know a lot about, it is plain as day that a certain bias is afoot. AI can be a force for good, or bad, depending how we get ahold of it. I have this piece bookmarked for sure.
Thank you so much Nikolas. Your story is the perfect, real-world illustration of the problem. You capture it exactly: the "unbelievable nonsense" that can fill public discourse often isn't born from malice, but from a genuine, "ubiquitous lack of understanding" about complex systems.
Your question gets to the absolute heart of the matter and what I am thinking about. We have often failed to build the civic and cognitive infrastructure for that understanding to grow, which is precisely why I'm so thrilled the 'citizen-scholar' idea connected with you. Such a program, applied to something like utility rates, could transform a "ranting session" into a constructive, informed dialogue. Which we need more of!
I really like your point about it serving as a "bulwark against media bias". That's my hope. The best defense against misinformation is a population that has deep, firsthand knowledge in a variety of areas. Once you see how your own field is misrepresented, my hope is that you learn to apply that same critical lens everywhere else.
I agree completely on AI, its potential depends entirely on our collective wisdom to steer it. Building that 'capacity and awareness' is the central challenge.
Could you please expand on this: "I have regularly instituted reading and writing groups in corporations that I have worked for, with much success and community"?
Good question Douglas. Yes, within teams I have managed I regularly bought books, 20 or 30, eg Freakonomics, Moneyball, others and we would all read them, discuss our thoughts, some would write summaries and lead discussions. We would set aside 2 or 3 hours per week during regular work time for these discussions. It always brought a sense of belonging, good debates (not everyone interprets something the same way).
Sadly, this is part of his point, ins't it? I also had a non-fiction book club, but there were eventually no participants. I asked them if there were needed changes, but for the most part, it was either lack of time, or lack of interest.
That's unfortunate. I guess my approach worked because it was during work hours, I also never frowned at anyone reading in the workplace. It is rather strange when I visit CEO or board members offices, stacked with books and yet they never take the time to read them in the office, during work hours, bizarre really as it is part of 'growth'. I actively encourage these people to support employees reading and learning habits.
Yes, having it during work hours would make all the difference. I'm fairly certain you are a rarity in this perspective. I know several CEO's and NONE is provided time to read precisely the books that would add value not only to the company, but to their personal lives. They try to squeeze in the time during their non-work hours, but family priorities come first, as they should. They listen during drives, but just listening is not sufficient. A good book requires dialoguing with the ideas, especially with others who've read the book.
As well, I find it strange how employees will attend seminars, often hosted by their companies, where the speakers provide actions to do, right after the event , and often have books to buy . Wouldn't that be the perfect opportunity, right after the seminar, to provide some company-time to engage with what was learned, via the book? Yet, no one I know has experienced this in their company.
A position that makes me say, Hmmmm.
I always struggle with any recommendation that says that we need a government policy to direct our decisions about our own priorities, time, and effort. As much as I believe in the vision of this piece, I can't support it as a thing that belongs in the hands of the government to direct.
Like you, I believe an educated, reflective, thoughtful citizenry is a necessity for a successful society. Providing opportunities for people to participate in these type of forums sounds fabulous and of value. I encourage individuals to create these communities, but to hand it to government as a responsibility, I think would be a mistake. We already recognize that education in the hands of the government is a waste of resources. Most teachers are incapable of applying critical thinking themselves, so I'm not sure that is where to start teaching it.
I read an interesting article about the history of "NGO's". During the depression years, communities started to create funds that they used to support those in their immediate communities who were struggling the most. It was voluntary and it generated a lot of money that could be invested and grow. Roosevelt was curious about this and decided this was a model that should be applied at the federal level. It gave him another "sales pitch" to institute the safety-net, and tax regime that never went away. Today, these are the very institutions that are causing us grief. If something is truly good for the public, and the public wants it, we don't need the government getting involved. I believe humans are compassionate and will take care of each other without coercion from above.
As I reflect further, I wonder if this position, that we both hold, that critical thinking is something important, may be just an elitist position. We hold formal degrees, years of working experience and wisdom. For us there is value and importance in deep thinking and deep reflection, but for working-class people struggling to just get through their day, it certainly isn't a priority. To be honest, it wasn't a priority for me either in my career days as a single parent. Technology is a tool that gives time back, AI is a tool that can remove much of the time we spend having to select, consume and internalize data from a world that is drowning in data. Today, society focuses on doing not thinking, and AI is positioned to encourage people to apply it for the benefit of more "doing".
Long before we start making government mandates for people to "think better" (which could very easily turn into an insidious propaganda machine), we need to change the ethos of our culture from doing to thinking. But perhaps that in itself would be un-American. It does occur to me that AI taking over all the "doing" will provide us with an opportunity to refocus our efforts toward thinking, as long as we are not starving or homeless. But until then, I suspect doing and thinking will continue to remain in silos. The best we can hope is to encourage as many people as possible to consider multiple angles on the topics they care about, and always be curious.
And in the meantime, absolutely, build communities of thinkers everywhere you can - like what I'm seeing here on Substack.
There you go - proof. We don't need the government, we just need the time to interact with other thinkers.
Thank you Susan. You have raised some of the most difficult and important questions that hover around this topic, and I appreciate you laying them out so clearly.
Your skepticism of top-down government solutions is well-founded, and your historical example of voluntary community funds being supplanted by federal programs is a powerful cautionary tale. It shows a core tension I grapple with: how do we support a public good without creating a bureaucracy that can, as you say, cause its own grief down the line?
You also raise a point that is absolutely critical: is this focus on "critical thinking" an elitist position? You are right. For someone struggling to get through the day, or for a single parent (as you were), deep reflection can feel like an unaffordable luxury. It’s a crucial reality check. My hope isn't to impose this as a priority on people, but to ask if we can create a society where more people have the basic security and "slack time" to engage in it if they so choose.
This is where we might view the role of government differently. I agree completely that a government mandate to "think better" would be a disaster and could easily become the propaganda machine you rightly fear. When I think of "policy" or "cognitive infrastructure," I'm not thinking of mandates or coercion. I'm thinking of something closer to a national park or a public library system.
The government doesn't force you to read a specific book or have a picnic. It creates and maintains a beautiful, accessible space where you can choose to do so. It provides the enabling conditions for voluntary action. Right now, our digital public square is more like a chaotic, privately-owned mall filled with slot machines designed to addict us. The policy question for me is: could we use our collective resources to build more "digital parks and libraries" in that space, instead of just letting the malls expand? Corporations could build these as a public good.
Your framing of "doing vs. thinking" is also very sharp, and I agree that AI is a powerful tool for "doing." The specific danger I see isn't that AI helps us do things, but that it's becoming a tool that does our thinking for us in ways that aren't transparent. Our cultural focus on "doing" makes that an easy trade-off to accept without reflection, which is a perilous path. I have countless examples of executives not reading the AI output and presenting it!
Ultimately, you are proving your own point by living the solution. You are here, in this community, engaging in exactly the kind of interaction that builds a smarter culture. My position isn't that the government should create these conversations, but that it should help foster the conditions where more of these voluntary, essential communities can emerge and thrive for everyone, not just for those of us with the time and resources to find them.
The Substack communities, the book clubs, these are the labs. The question is how we can use their success to inform the design of a healthier public square for all. And I strongly believe that this should be encouraged to grow within organizations, employees should not be penalized for having a reading group during office time, it must be actively encouraged.
Thank you again for the pushback and the deep reflection. It’s essential for sharpening my position.
Some excellent points, Colin—I'd like to reflect on a few of them.
Your question—whether we can build a society where more people have the security and “slack time” to think deeply—is the right one. Culture drives behavior, and in cultures like ours that prize freedom of choice, incentives matter. What would encourage someone to trade doom-scrolling for meaningful thought?
I don't believe governments are the place to build public digital spaces, but they can help shape the incentives. Corporations could likely implement these ideas faster and more creatively—if they see the incentive value. It occurs to me that the rise of AI-driven research may be a signal that deeper thinking is, at some level, still valued. The challenge is getting people to recognize that human reflection, even with AI deep research still matters just as much—perhaps more.
As someone who uses AI tools extensively, I see their limits. They organize, consolidate, and structure knowledge, but they can’t create meaning. That comes from us. As traditional jobs shift, this realization will likely spread—and work itself may evolve into more reflective, insight-driven roles. The belief is that the AI will give us time to do that reflective step. We might just need to give the transition time. Interestingly, I saw a stat showing social media engagement is down 13% this year, while OpenAI’s is soaring. Maybe the shift is already happening.
I laughed at your comment about executives presenting AI output they haven’t read. I’ve seen it too. It might work once, but anyone serious about their work quickly learns how unreliable unfiltered AI output can be. If someone lets the tool do their thinking without review, it’s hard to feel sorry when the tool replaces them.
As for your national parks and library metaphor—I think you’re partly right. National parks require federal stewardship so it makes sense to have them designated and managed for the good of all people. But libraries? Those are deeply local, often built by communities themselves. While traveling full-time in our RV, I saw it firsthand—book exchanges at the end of driveways, maintained by individuals. It's proof that there are already thoughtful spaces created by and for like-minded thoughtful people, in online and physical writing communities, book clubs, and even quiet corners of the internet. So maybe the question isn’t about access and more place —but how to inspire and incentivize more people to seek them out.
Ultimately, we're on the same page. The question is how do we do it? Perhaps some deep reflection on what makes a good incentive is the first step :)
That comes back to culture again. If the volume on mainstream and social media were turned down just a bit, people might find themselves looking for answers more intentionally. And the very act of looking is already the beginning of thoughtfulness.
Just my two cents, critical thinking is what drove innovation long before elite degrees. My grandfather was a machinist with no formal training. He held 30+ patents and was an amazing critical thinker. It has been people wanting to make life easier for themselves, not elite degrees, that has moved innovation forward. I'd say 'society forward' but that is questionable at this point.
Japan’s “Metabo Law” would only work in an open society where for instance food labeling laws are transparent; where a corporation’s duplicitous behaviors are not protected by the government’s they spend billions lobbying. I worked for a consulting firm many years in a London. The managing director believed McDonald’s was a brilliant business model. And yet they impoverished and abused their own low grade employees, harmed the health of their own customers and used a supply chain and distribution system to deliver the same bag of ‘food’ worldwide. A system which at some point in the future we will come to realize is mind-bogglingly stupid. We will never achieve anything until we change our discourse on the meaning of profit. Once we do that we can begin to serve everyone and everything i.e the planet and its resources are not here to be exploited, rather they are here to teach us something we are still trying to learn and those fixated on profit and power are still very much deaf and blind to and intentionally so.
You are absolutely right. The issues you raise, from the immense power of corporate lobbying that neuters regulations to a deeply entrenched and often destructive definition of 'profit', are formidable barriers to any kind of meaningful societal change. Your McDonald's example is a strong example of a system that often prioritizes quarterly earnings over the long-term well-being of people and the planet.
And this brings me directly back to the central thesis of my points. The question is, why do these 'mind-bogglingly stupid' systems persist? You mention that people are 'deaf and blind' to these realities, and my post tries to diagnose the root of that very blindness.
As I state this is, fundamentally, a cognitive crisis. The very intellectual atrophy I describe, and have described over and over again, the shrinking attention spans, the decline in critical analysis, the passive acceptance of information, is what makes a population vulnerable to the kind of corporate messaging and short-sighted logic you've outlined. A society that outsources its thinking is fertile ground for the kind of exploitation you describe. It becomes far easier to protect harmful business models when citizens lack the cognitive tools and intellectual stamina to rigorously question them and demand accountability.
So, while I agree that simply passing a law in the face of such lobbying would be immensely difficult, my argument is that a 'Metabo Law for the Mind' is a necessary precondition for any of the deeper changes you call for. We can't hope to 'change our discourse on the meaning of profit' if we don't first rebuild the public's capacity for deep, critical, and sustained discourse. The policies suggested are about creating citizens who are more resilient to manipulation and better equipped to architect the profound systemic changes you rightly argue are needed.
Incidentally, we have solid food labelling laws in the EU and have nowhere near the levels of obesity that exists in the UK and US. Plus the EU is on par / has the same GDP as the US, except for exchange rate, so yes laws are possible. This is not a US centric situation the world is much bigger.
In short, you're pointing to a profound sickness in our system. My post argues that we must first strengthen our collective 'cognitive immune system' to even begin to fight it.
I agree with much of what you say. To build on that, I also believe we need to teach humanity to feel. To understand the world and our environment from our feeling nature. Teaching cognitive thinking will only go so far. We can think our way into or out of anything with enough persuasion. Feelings are harder to ignore and are in my opinion a far more efficient 'immune system.' I would also add that feelings and emotions are entirely different senses. The former is more connected to intuition and those feelings can be channeled through thought or become thought in a more practical, but philosophical way.
One of the biggest obstacles to change in the US is the populace is taught not to tear down the profit system, because no matter how poor you were raised or you currently are, one day you'll be a millionaire or a billionaire and you won't want to pay those same high taxes nor support the welfare system. Of course, I would argue the wealthy in the US have a far more beneficent welfare system than the poor have ever had or ever will have.
I am aware of the EU labeling laws and even in the UK the labeling laws are far more protective than in the US. In the last several decades since its inception the FDA has banned approximately 6 substances in total, compared to 450 in the EU.
I love all of these proposals, Colin, but I’m not sure how much people value (at least consciously) the goals they are trying to get us to. For example, the Republican Party in the US does not seem to care about training its citizens to participate more competently in American democracy (though I allow that some conservatives do) and all I see from most businesses these days is encouragement to learn how to use AI to become much more productive, which is a kind of thinking but may be more like encouraging people to learn how to use a calculator: learning a new technology that only accelerates the concern for atrophy you raise at the outset of your post.
I think that for this to take off people would need to be encouraged to see the benefits to democracy and to understand the intrinsic benefits of slow contemplation, independent of whether it makes you more productive in some superficial and material way.
Thank you Norman. You have expressed the core prerequisite that my essay perhaps takes for granted: the question of whether we, as a culture, still value the destination.
Your real-world examples are perfect. There are certainly powerful political factions that do not appear to prioritize creating a more reflective electorate (very much the case in Europe too). I agree there is a strong cross-current from the corporate world, where the dominant push is to leverage AI for sheer efficiency. This drive often works directly against the deeper, slower cognitive goals I've outlined.
You are right, none of these structural proposals can take root if the society doesn't first appreciate the fruit they are meant to bear. A foundational shift must come first, a renewed appreciation for the intrinsic worth of contemplation and its vital role in a self-governing society, entirely separate from its economic utility.
I believe you've identified the missing "Chapter Zero" of my argument. Which is a classic chicken-and-egg question: do the values change first, or does the system change first? My sense is that they have to evolve together, in a feedback loop.
I think of the early environmental movement. There was a massive push to change public consciousness about the importance of clean air and water. But that cultural campaign was powerfully accelerated and solidified by policies like the Clean Air Act. The law itself acted as a potent teacher; it reshaped our economy and daily lives in a way that made the value of a healthy environment tangible and non-negotiable. It reset the cultural baseline.
My hope is that policy aimed at "cognitive wellness" could function similarly. By creating structures that support deep thinking, we don't just provide an opportunity; we make a collective statement that this is valuable. We begin to shape the culture through our actions, even as we make the case for it intellectually.
But your point stands as a crucial reminder. The arguments for why this matters must be made with as much, if not more, passion and energy as the arguments for how to achieve it. Thank you for bringing that essential point into focus.
“do the values change first, or does the system change first? My sense is that they have to evolve together, in a feedback loop” This is very well said, Colin, and your analogy to the environmental movement is apt. What does/would the cognitive wellness movement look like? I would argue that we bake a lot of this into what we do in Kallion Leadership, though I’m sure we could do more, and do it more explicitly.
I need to understad more about Kallion Leadership.
Would be happy to discuss: www.kallion.org
I hit the like symbol and hesitated. The like is for the description/analysis of the status quo, the hesitation due to the suggested solution. Perhaps I should mention that I am cautious and reserved as regards generalizations, solutions that might be understood as "one fits all" and entrepreneurial as well as technocratic attitudes in different areas or systems such as society. Obviously this is more about me than your text. So let me explain what I have perceived reading your text - restricted to dissent:
a. The society - we often think in large quantities, but good for many ist not good for all and perhaps a misleading thought from the beginning.
b. The trend and the masses - reminds me of the invention of printing, TV, internet. As I mentioned earlier, and we seem to share the view, it depends on us how to make proper use of the tools.
c. It is all bout the individual. Some people always seem to find a way to improve, making use of changes, transformations, tools to become a better version of themselves. => Are the others able to change? What might help at least some of them?
d. There are no quick fixes and I am skeptical that a government or a centralized solution will work out.
e. It is all about education, but may be not in a factory systems we call school and public education.
What if education would not be standardized, but at least - well, as regards tailoring: Made-to-Measure or even better: Full Bespoke?
What does that mean? Use more resources in a different way. Think education in a different way. Neglect standardization, truly care about children and teenagers at something that used to be called school snd needs a different name as it is all about preparation for life and most proportionate development of strengths into a whole. At least to a certain extent, even truly care about students and perhaps trainees addressing their strengths and weaknesses as well as (deep-rooted) interests - personally, in small groups with competitive and manifold "solutions" that are supplied by various forms of educational institutions, most of them private I suppose.
Thank you for this Michael. The "hesitant like" is perhaps the most valuable form of engagement possible. It signals an agreement on the diagnosis of the problem but a crucial and respected skepticism about the proposed cure.
You highlight a central tension in any large-scale proposal: the inherent risk of monolithic thinking. Your caution against broad-stroke solutions that might not serve everyone, and your reminder that new technologies have always prompted similar societal anxieties, are vital checks against oversimplification. I agree that the locus of responsibility for using our tools wisely ultimately falls to us as individuals.
I was particularly impressed with your vision for education. The idea of moving away from a standardized, industrial model toward something deeply personalized and dedicated to nurturing individual strengths is incredibly compelling. That is a system that prepares people for life in a much more holistic, human-centric way. I believe that is the absolute ideal.
This leads me to a question your comment raises for me: how do we create the conditions for that kind of personalized model to flourish for everyone, not just those with the most resources?
To borrow from your powerful tailoring analogy: a master tailor needs a few things to succeed, access to quality materials, good tools, a safe workshop, and a way for clients to find them.
Perhaps the role for "policy" here isn't to be the tailor, it absolutely should not dictate the cut or the style of the suit. That would be a disaster. Instead, its role could be to ensure that every potential artisan, regardless of their background, has access to the best fabrics and tools. It could be to maintain the public square (as I said in other comments above) where their workshops can thrive safely.
So, the "cognitive infrastructure" I imagine isn't a single, government-run factory telling everyone how to think. It's a public commitment to funding the high-quality "materials", like open-access information, well-supported educators, and diverse learning platforms, that would allow a thousand different private and community-led personalized educational models to compete and succeed.
Ultimately, it seems we both envision a society that values the unique potential of each person. You have laid out a powerful vision for how that cultivation should happen at the individual level. My hope is that we can find a way to build a framework that supports, rather than stifles, that exact kind of flourishing.
Thank you again for pushing my thinking on this.
Let me limit my response. There are two aspects I would like to draw attention to:
1. In economic matters, there are free trade zones. In education, there could be comparable special conditions that provide legal exemptions. The foreseeable success might do the rest.
2. A common argument is: What about the poor? Comparing is not equating. However, it is amazing what James Tooley describes in his book The Beautiful Tree. A personal journey into how the world’s poorest people are educating themselves. (In India and Africa, in rural areas and cities, the poorest of the poor want to and are able to send all their children to fee-paying private schools; they prefer these to free state schools because of the better quality of education. The parents, who are often illiterate, successfully take responsibility for their children's education themselves. Entrepreneurial school principals and dedicated teachers operate under typical market conditions for the benefit of all.)
And since all good things come in threes:
3. As with many other things, I assume that the biggest hurdle is the regulations and the power structures behind them. If this is correct, we need a profound entrepreneurial shift, which means that we also see ourselves as entrepreneurs in a broader sense.
Not in the US. We are at war with ourselves right now. As the saying goes, “WE HAVE MET THE ENEMY, AND HE IS US.”
On one side, there is a push to reduce regulation and minimize government involvement in public affairs; on the other, there’s a call for more regulation and government oversight. I firmly believe the solution, as in most cases, lies somewhere in the middle. But right now, finding common ground feels impossible, and the divisions we face seem to grow deeper each day. There is no light at the end of the tunnel—at least not yet. To complicate matters, the wealthiest among us—whether in Silicon Valley or Wall Street—seem focused solely on keeping people hooked to their platforms or pursuing short-term profit schemes with little regard for long-term consequences or societal well-being.
However, as citizens, we cannot sit idly by and wait for sweeping societal reforms. Change begins with us, and we all have a role to play. Here’s what I’ve been doing in my organization: we’ve established book clubs across our leadership teams (4 clubs, each with 5–8 members). Over the past three years, we’ve read and discussed books about management, leadership, history, psychology, sociology, and AI. While not everyone participates, most do—and the impact has been significant in some cases.
These discussions have inspired our team members to think about topics they might not typically engage with, explore new ideas, and learn from one another. It’s not just about personal growth; it’s also about creating a culture of intellectual curiosity and shared learning. The book clubs have fostered collaboration, encouraged open dialogue, and provided a valuable window into what others care about and how they think.
Perhaps most importantly, this initiative is preparing our team for the future. By challenging ourselves to think critically and engage deeply, we’re not just solving today’s problems—we’re equipping ourselves to tackle tomorrow’s opportunities. It’s been a way to go beyond the surface, to step outside our silos, and to collectively expand our understanding of the world and our role in it.
In the end, the path to a smarter, more resilient society doesn’t begin with massive top-down reforms; it begins with individuals and communities taking small but meaningful steps to foster curiosity, connection, and critical thinking. As Margaret Mead once said, “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”
I share your 'pessimism' (for want of a better word) about the current state of our civic discourse. Your line, "WE HAVE MET THE ENEMY, AND HE IS US," feels painfully accurate right now, and the deep polarization (The elections in Germany and Poland also show such polarization, over 20% voting for far right wing), this does make the large-scale policy solutions I propose feel distant, if not impossible.
But then you pivoted to what you're doing about it, and that's where your experience becomes so powerful and inspiring.
The book club initiative in your organization is a perfect, living example of the very "cognitive fitness" I talk about. It’s a micro-version of the solution, I also implemented this in my corporate world, creating a protected space for curiosity, deep engagement, and shared understanding. What you’ve achieved with your teams, fostering collaboration, encouraging open dialogue, and preparing them for the future, is exactly the goal. It’s proof that this isn't just an abstract ideal; it has tangible, real-world benefits. I wrote in another comment that boards should actively encourage this in organizations, on Monday I have a meeting with a board member of a major bank, I will promote the idea to him.
This brings up a crucial point about how change happens. I see it not as an "either/or" between the bottom-up approach and top-down one (eg policy), but as a necessary partnership. Yours and my book clubs create the demand for and the proof of concept for wider change. The policies are what would help scale that success and make that kind of intellectual vitality the norm, not the exception.
You are right to quote Margaret Mead. That small group of thoughtful, committed citizens is always where the spark begins. The next step in their journey is often to change the rules of the system so that more sparks can catch fire.
Ultimately, I still believe that we need both: individuals and leaders like you building pockets of intellectual vitality from the ground up, and a framework of policy that supports and champions that work on a national scale.
I really love the idea of a 'citizen-scholar' program. That would be so beneficial to local governments and municipalities. I worked for an electric utility company for 10 years and the ranting, raving, and unbelievable nonsense that would come out of any public comment sessions was almost comical. No one wants their utility rates to increase but there is also an almost ubiquitous lack of understanding how a rate is created (spoiler-alert, it has very little to do with profit in a regulated industry.) But, why would there be understanding on something like that? Providing such avenues for a deeper and meaningful understanding of "how things work" would be an absolute boon to society. It would also serve as a bulwark against media bias itself. You know very well, when the news is glossing over something you know a lot about, it is plain as day that a certain bias is afoot. AI can be a force for good, or bad, depending how we get ahold of it. I have this piece bookmarked for sure.
Thank you so much Nikolas. Your story is the perfect, real-world illustration of the problem. You capture it exactly: the "unbelievable nonsense" that can fill public discourse often isn't born from malice, but from a genuine, "ubiquitous lack of understanding" about complex systems.
Your question gets to the absolute heart of the matter and what I am thinking about. We have often failed to build the civic and cognitive infrastructure for that understanding to grow, which is precisely why I'm so thrilled the 'citizen-scholar' idea connected with you. Such a program, applied to something like utility rates, could transform a "ranting session" into a constructive, informed dialogue. Which we need more of!
I really like your point about it serving as a "bulwark against media bias". That's my hope. The best defense against misinformation is a population that has deep, firsthand knowledge in a variety of areas. Once you see how your own field is misrepresented, my hope is that you learn to apply that same critical lens everywhere else.
I agree completely on AI, its potential depends entirely on our collective wisdom to steer it. Building that 'capacity and awareness' is the central challenge.
Could you please expand on this: "I have regularly instituted reading and writing groups in corporations that I have worked for, with much success and community"?
Good question Douglas. Yes, within teams I have managed I regularly bought books, 20 or 30, eg Freakonomics, Moneyball, others and we would all read them, discuss our thoughts, some would write summaries and lead discussions. We would set aside 2 or 3 hours per week during regular work time for these discussions. It always brought a sense of belonging, good debates (not everyone interprets something the same way).
Your article inspired me to try to bring back my old book club. Unfortunately it ended for lack of interest from its participants.
Sadly, this is part of his point, ins't it? I also had a non-fiction book club, but there were eventually no participants. I asked them if there were needed changes, but for the most part, it was either lack of time, or lack of interest.
That's unfortunate. I guess my approach worked because it was during work hours, I also never frowned at anyone reading in the workplace. It is rather strange when I visit CEO or board members offices, stacked with books and yet they never take the time to read them in the office, during work hours, bizarre really as it is part of 'growth'. I actively encourage these people to support employees reading and learning habits.
Yes, having it during work hours would make all the difference. I'm fairly certain you are a rarity in this perspective. I know several CEO's and NONE is provided time to read precisely the books that would add value not only to the company, but to their personal lives. They try to squeeze in the time during their non-work hours, but family priorities come first, as they should. They listen during drives, but just listening is not sufficient. A good book requires dialoguing with the ideas, especially with others who've read the book.
As well, I find it strange how employees will attend seminars, often hosted by their companies, where the speakers provide actions to do, right after the event , and often have books to buy . Wouldn't that be the perfect opportunity, right after the seminar, to provide some company-time to engage with what was learned, via the book? Yet, no one I know has experienced this in their company.
That's it