Reading a Lot Doesn't Make You Open-Minded. Reading the Right Way Does.
If you love this content (please share it), but also check out my Podcast & connect with me on YouTube / Twitter.
We turn your favorite newsletters into podcasts at 10minmindset.org
Most people read to confirm what they already believe and call it education. The people who are actually good at being wrong read the things that make them uncomfortable.
Sponsored by LinkedIn Ads: I get dozens of ads served to me every week. Most of them have nothing to do with me. Wrong industry, wrong stage, wrong everything. They’re burning budget on people who were never going to convert. That’s the problem with most ad platforms. You’re paying for eyeballs, not the right eyeballs.
LinkedIn Ads flips that. You can target by job title, company size, industry, seniority, skills, even specific companies on your prospect list. You’re not guessing who sees your ad. You’re choosing. And it works. LinkedIn Ads has the highest ROAS of any major ad network at 121%. That’s not a vanity metric. That’s real dollars back on every dollar spent.
If you’re running a startup and want to test it, LinkedIn is offering a $250 ad credit to get started. Learn more at LinkedIn.com/ScottClary.
I used to think I was open-minded because I read a lot.
Fifty, sixty books a year. Business. Psychology. Biography. Philosophy. I had a Goodreads profile. I had a “currently reading” stack on my nightstand. I recommended books to people constantly. I was, by every visible measure, a reader. A learner. Someone who valued ideas.
Then I looked at what I was actually reading.
Business books that validated my strategy. Psychology that confirmed how I already thought about people. Biographies of founders who made the same decisions I would have made. Nothing that challenged the worldview I’d already built.
I wasn’t learning. I was decorating. Surrounding myself with books that made me feel smart about what I already believed. Collecting intellectual furniture that matched the room I’d already built.
Not a single book on my shelf in the last two years had made me uncomfortable. Not one had forced me to reconsider something I held deeply. Not one had made me put it down and think “wait, I might be completely wrong about this.”
I was reading sixty books a year and none of them were changing my mind about anything.
The Confirmation Library
Most people who read a lot are doing exactly what I was doing. They’re building a confirmation library. A collection of books that agrees with them.
The conservative reads conservative authors and the liberal reads liberal ones. Everyone is reading within their own worldview, finding evidence for what they already believe, and walking away feeling more certain than when they started.
This feels like learning. You’re absorbing new information. You’re highlighting passages. You’re thinking about ideas. All the mechanics of learning are happening.
But the direction is wrong. You’re moving deeper into what you already understand, not toward anything new. Reinforcing, not exploring. And reinforcement, no matter how sophisticated, doesn’t produce growth. It produces certainty. And certainty, as it turns out, is the opposite of wisdom.
The most well-read people I know are often the most entrenched. They’ve read so many books that agree with them that their positions feel unassailable. They don’t just believe what they believe. They believe it with footnotes. With citations. With a bibliography that proves them right.
That’s not education. That’s an expensive echo chamber.
What Actually Changes Your Mind
Now here’s the other pattern I’ve noticed. Among the 800+ people I’ve interviewed, the ones who are good at being wrong, who can update their thinking without treating it as failure, they read differently.
They don’t read to confirm. They read to challenge.
They deliberately seek out books that argue against what they believe. The investor reads critiques of capitalism. Not to be converted. To understand what the strongest argument against their position looks like. The optimist reads the pessimists, not because they enjoy it but because they want to pressure-test their own thinking against the best opposing case.
Charlie Munger called this “destroying your best-loved ideas.” He said the most important thing a thinker can do is actively seek out evidence that contradicts their favorite beliefs. Not the beliefs they hold loosely. The ones they hold most tightly. Because those are the ones most likely to be wrong in ways they can’t see.
Munger got this habit from reading across every discipline. Biology. Physics. History. Psychology. And what he found everywhere was the same story: the consensus was wrong, someone challenged it, the consensus eventually updated. The pattern repeated across every field throughout all of recorded history.
When you’ve read that story a hundred times, you stop trusting certainty. Including your own.
The History of Being Wrong
This is what reading teaches you when you’re doing it right. Not facts. Not frameworks. The history of being wrong.
Charles Darwin spent twenty years developing his understanding of how species change. He didn’t start with natural selection. He started with theories that turned out to be wrong. He revised. Found contradicting evidence. Revised again. Read an economics book by Thomas Malthus that had nothing to do with biology and suddenly saw the mechanism he’d been missing. Natural selection wasn’t a flash of genius. It was twenty years of being wrong in progressively more useful ways.
Einstein spent the last three decades of his life arguing against quantum mechanics. “God does not play dice,” he said. He was wrong. The theory he rejected became one of the most validated frameworks in the history of science. The greatest physicist who ever lived held an incorrect position for thirty years.
Every great book is a snapshot of someone’s best thinking at a specific moment. And if you read enough of them across enough time periods, you realize something humbling: the smartest people who ever lived were wrong about enormous things. Repeatedly. The history of human knowledge isn’t a straight line toward truth. It’s a long series of people getting it wrong, realizing they got it wrong, and getting it slightly less wrong the next time.
Once you’ve internalized that, your relationship with your own opinions changes. You stop gripping them so tightly. Not because you care less about being right. Because you’ve seen what “being right” looks like across a lifetime of serious thinking. And it looks a lot like being wrong first, then revising, then being wrong again in a more interesting way, then revising again.
The Opinion Half-Life
I’ve started thinking about opinions the way physicists think about radioactive decay. Every opinion has a half-life. A period after which there’s a decent chance it’s no longer accurate.
Some opinions have long half-lives. “Compound interest is powerful” and “relationships require effort” have been true for centuries. You can hold those with confidence.
Some have very short ones. The best marketing channel shifts every 18 months. How the economy works gets revised every decade. What technology will dominate changes every few years. Holding these with the same certainty as the long-lasting ones is a mistake most people make without realizing it.
Most people don’t sort. They treat every opinion with equal conviction. The view on nutrition they formed from one article five years ago gets the same confidence as a fundamental principle they’ve validated across decades of experience.
Readers who read to challenge learn to sort. They develop an intuition for which opinions are durable and which are temporary. They hold their views with different levels of grip depending on how much evidence supports them and how likely new evidence is to change the picture.
This isn’t being wishy-washy. It’s being accurate. The person holding every opinion at full strength is wrong about half of them and doesn’t know which half. The person holding opinions at varying levels of confidence is wrong less often, and updates faster when they are.
The Certainty Trap
The most dangerous people in any room are the ones who are certain. Not confident. Certain.
Confidence says “I’ve thought about this carefully and here’s what I think.” Confidence leaves room. It’s a position held with awareness that new information might change it.
Certainty says “this is how it is.” Certainty is closed. Challenging the opinion feels like an attack on the person because the opinion and the identity have fused. Being wrong isn’t just an intellectual update. It’s an existential threat.
I’ve seen this on the show hundreds of times. The most successful guests hold their opinions with confidence but not certainty. They’ll say “I believe X because of Y, but I could be wrong.” The ones who struggle most speak in absolutes. “This is the only way.” “Anyone who disagrees doesn’t understand.”
The difference isn’t intelligence. The certain person might be smarter. The difference is how much they’ve been exposed to the history of smart people being wrong. The confident person has read enough to know that certainty is usually a signal of how little you’ve explored, not how much.
Bertrand Russell put it plainly: “The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.”
He wasn’t praising doubt for its own sake. He was observing that wisdom and certainty rarely coexist. The more you learn, the more you realize how much you don’t know. And the more you realize how much you don’t know, the harder certainty becomes.
The Two Bookshelves
I reorganized my reading after I realized I was building a confirmation library.
Now I think of reading as two bookshelves. The first shelf is books that go deeper on what you already know. Your field. Your expertise. The domain you work in. These books are useful. They make you better at what you do. They sharpen existing skills and existing knowledge.
The second shelf is books that challenge what you already believe. Books from outside your field. Books that argue positions you disagree with. Books written by people who think differently than you do. These books are uncomfortable. They don’t sharpen existing knowledge. They break it open.
Most people only have the first shelf. They read to confirm and improve. Go deeper on what they know. Get better at what they do.
The people who are good at being wrong have both shelves. And they spend at least as much time on the second one. Because the first shelf makes you more competent. The second shelf makes you wiser. And competence without wisdom is just being confidently wrong.
The test is simple: When was the last time a book changed your mind about something you believed? Not added to what you knew. Changed what you thought. Made you put it down and reconsider a position you’d held for years.
If you can’t remember, your second shelf is empty. And an empty second shelf means you’re not reading to learn. You’re reading to feel smart about what you already think.
How to Read for Being Wrong
Read one book this quarter that argues against something you believe. Not something you mildly disagree with. Something you feel strongly about. Find the strongest version of the opposing argument and read it cover to cover.
You’re not reading to be converted. You’re reading to understand the best case against your position. If your position survives contact with the best counterargument, it’s stronger than it was. If it doesn’t survive, you just upgraded your thinking. Either way, you win.
When you finish a book, ask yourself: Did this change how I think about anything? If the answer is no, you read a book from your first shelf. Useful, but not growth. Find something from the second shelf next.
Keep a list of things you’ve changed your mind about. Not things you know. Things you used to believe and no longer do. If the list is short, you’re not growing. You’re accumulating evidence for what you already think.
Notice when you feel defensive about an idea. That defensiveness is a signal. Not that you’re right. That the idea has fused with your identity. Ideas fused with identity stop getting updated because updating them feels like losing a piece of yourself. Those are the ideas that need challenging most.
What Reading Actually Gives You
Reading doesn’t make you right more often. It makes you wrong less painfully.
It shows you, over and over, across centuries and disciplines, that the smartest people who ever lived spent most of their time doing exactly what you’re doing right now: figuring it out. Getting it wrong. Revising.
But only if you let it. Only if you read the things that challenge you, not just the things that confirm you. Only if you treat your bookshelf as a tool for growth instead of a trophy case for what you already know.
The people I’ve met who are best at updating their thinking don’t have better opinions. They have more revised opinions. Opinions that have survived contact with contradicting evidence. That have been challenged, updated, and sometimes completely abandoned.
Those opinions are more reliable than the ones someone formed in their twenties and never touched again. Not because revision makes you right. Because revision makes you less wrong. And less wrong, compounded over years of honest reading, eventually looks a lot like wisdom.
The goal isn’t certainty. It’s a shorter distance between being wrong and being less wrong. Books are the fastest way to close that distance.
But only the ones that make you uncomfortable.
Thank you for reading,
Scott
My Links