Almost every piece of advice about thinking well asks you to take in more. Read more closely. Consider more angles. Gather more information before you commit to anything.
William James put the opposite at the center of his account of intelligence, and he meant it technically rather than as a comfort.
The sentence appears in The Principles of Psychology, published in 1890, on the final page of the chapter on reasoning. Its immediate neighbor is a claim about reading: past a certain point in your education, reading well means skipping well.
James put the two side by side on purpose, because they describe the same operation. Almost everything that reaches a working mind gets discarded, and every brain is constantly deciding what to ignore well before you have any say in the matter.
The line is the closing argument of a chapter about how reasoning works
James spends the chapter defining reasoning as the act of breaking a situation into parts and picking out the one part that leads where you need to go. Everything else in the situation gets set aside for the moment.
His example is a sheet of paper. It is a writing surface, a combustible material, a rectangle of a certain size, an object at a certain location, and a compound of hydrogen and carbon, all at once and all equally truly. Which one counts as its essence depends entirely on what you are trying to do.
That’s the argument the quote closes. There’s no property that is absolutely essential to anything, so every act of thought involves temporarily treating one property as essential and being, in James’s word, unjust to the rest.
The chapter’s last sentence makes the point without the aphorism: selection implies rejection as well as choice, and the function of ignoring matters as much to mental progress as the function of attending.
One thing worth noting, since the passage is easy to find. The pages immediately around this line carry the class prejudices of 1890, including a long riff on the “gentleman” who ignores what the vulgarian frets over, and the chapter elsewhere contains claims about women and about non-European peoples that were wrong then and are embarrassing now. The observation about selection survives that. The surrounding framing does not.
Skipping well depends on knowing the material well
The obvious failure mode of this advice is using it to justify not looking. James blocks that off in the same chapter, though he does it earlier and less memorably.
His examples of people who see into a situation at a glance are the sailor at a shipwreck, the fireman at a fire, and the general at a battle. The layman in the same room is helpless, because nothing in the scene has separated out for him yet. It’s one undifferentiated mess.
Discrimination comes first. You cannot skip a part you have not yet learned to see as a part.
Which puts the skill James describes at the far end of expertise, arriving after the knowledge and never instead of it. The bird watcher ignores most of the field because she can already name what’s in it. The novice ignores most of the field because he cannot.
James also names the price, and he is unusually blunt about it. Once the steps drop out of your conscious thinking, they are gone, and you can no longer walk anyone else through them. He points at the universities full of brilliant investigators who cannot lecture, and at the mathematician Nathaniel Bowditch, who learned that whenever Laplace wrote that something was evident, hours of work were coming.
More Bolde Stories
The people who hold the most in mind are the best at shutting things out
There’s a version of this that shows up in the brain on a timescale of milliseconds, well below anything you would call a decision.
Working memory capacity is the number of items you can hold active at once, usually three or four, and it predicts performance on a long list of cognitive tasks. The interesting question is what makes some people better at it.
The answer turned out to have very little to do with the size of the container.
Recording brain activity while people searched a cluttered visual display, John Gaspar and colleagues at Simon Fraser University found that high-capacity individuals actively suppressed the salient distractor, while low-capacity individuals failed to suppress it in time and had their attention captured by it.
What separated the good filter from the bad one was the push-down. How fast the irrelevant thing got shoved out of the way, before it could take up room.
The precise mechanism here is still contested in the attention literature, and later work has found conditions where high-capacity people are captured first and suppress afterward. The broad finding has held up: what varies most between people is the filtering, and the holding follows from it.
Weighing every option makes people less happy with the same choice
The everyday version of failing to overlook is the person who can’t stop comparing.
Barry Schwartz and colleagues built a scale to separate people who search for the best available option from people who take the first one that clears their bar. The first group they called maximizers, the second satisficers.
Across seven samples, higher maximizing scores correlated negatively with happiness, optimism, self-esteem and life satisfaction, and positively with regret, depression and perfectionism. In a separate study, maximizers were less satisfied with the consumer choices they had made and more likely to compare themselves with others.
The gap opens up in what the searching costs to run, and in what it leaves behind once the decision is made. The choices themselves can be identical.
This one comes with a caveat. The Maximization Scale has been revised repeatedly since 2002 and researchers still disagree about what the construct actually measures, with the high-standards component behaving differently from the exhaustive-search component. The strongest evidence attaches to the search behavior itself, the refusal to stop looking, more than to the standards that set the looking in motion.
Researchers now teach ignoring as a trainable skill
James’s line has been picked up directly by a group of psychologists who think the current information environment has turned it into a civic competence.
Anastasia Kozyreva, Sam Wineburg, Stephan Lewandowsky and Ralph Hertwig call it critical ignoring, which they define as “choosing what to ignore and where to invest one’s limited attentional capacities”. Their paper opens and closes with James.
Their central argument is that critical thinking, applied to something that should have been skipped, is already a loss. Once you are carefully evaluating the bad-faith post, the post has won.
The clearest example is lateral reading, the habit professional fact-checkers use. Instead of reading an unfamiliar site closely, they leave it immediately and look up who is behind it elsewhere. In the research the authors cite, fact-checkers reached a verdict in seconds while people reading the page carefully took far longer and did worse.
The James-shaped detail is the precondition. To know what to ignore, you first have to be able to recognize the warning signs of something not worth reading, which is itself a form of knowledge. The skill sits on top of the knowing.
The authors are also careful about the limits of their own advice. They argue individuals should not be left carrying this alone, and that platform moderation has to be the first line of defense.
More Bolde Stories
Not everything you skip over is noise
James saw the failure mode of his own principle and named it in the same passage. The things a person declines to consider, he wrote, may be of the deepest moral consequence, and the refusal to engage can look like superiority while functioning as inertia.
That’s the version worth watching for in yourself. Chronic overlooking in a relationship tends to work as avoidance with better branding, converting a signal about someone’s behavior into something you have decided not to have an opinion about.
The useful test is intensity. Most irritation is proportionate and needs no interpretation at all. The ones worth stopping for are the ones where the reaction outruns the offense, because a reaction that size is reporting on something other than the thing in front of you.
Those are the ones to look at. Nearly everything else is fine to discard.
The practical version is smaller than the quote makes it sound
What the research supports is narrow and fairly dull, which is usually a good sign.
Before you start comparing options, decide what would actually change your answer, and refuse to weigh anything else. When you notice yourself reaching for one more data point, ask whether that point could plausibly flip the decision. If it can’t, you are collecting, not deciding.
When you find yourself reading something carefully in order to determine whether it deserved to be read, you already have your answer.
And when something small will not stop bothering you, that is the one to look at, precisely because it’s small.
None of this comes free. Overlooking has a real cost, and every so often the thing you set aside was the thing that mattered. James was promising something narrower: that the alternative is worse, because a mind holding everything at once cannot move at all.
The choosing is not something you do before the thinking starts. It is the thinking.
