Beyond the Scout Mindset

Julia Galef’s 2021 book The Scout Mindset describes two modes of reasoning – the soldier and the scout. But are there other modes? And what implications might they have for libraries?

[Image: “Priest” by Kinolamp (flickr) Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-SA 2.0)]

On June 30th and July 7th, Heterodox Academy Libraries (HxLibraries) as part of its first “Community Read” hosted two events built around Julia Galef’s 2021 book The Scout Mindset: Why Some People See Things Clearly and Others Don’t. The first was an overview of the book and discussion (facilitated by myself), while the second was an excellent and thought-provoking keynote by Galef. In between these Zoom events, HxLibraries mounted an online (anonymous) engagement on Padlet offering participants an opportunity for further contemplation. During her keynote, Galef applied some of the concepts in the book to the debate over library neutrality and intellectual freedom, encouraging participants to apply some of the book’s thought experiments to these issues (for example, considering if we are making what are otherwise empirical claims when we have no actual evidence, e.g., neutrality increases trust in libraries).

To recap, soldier mindset treats reasoning like a form of combat in which one must defend one’s beliefs from attack through the use of motivated reasoning – viewing evidence in terms of the extent to which it supports one’s preconceptions – whereas the scout is concerned with the accuracy of the information, and follows the evidence wherever it leads. With the former, beliefs are bound up in one’s personal identity, (constituting a potent motivation to dismiss inconvenient evidence) while in the case of the latter the focus is on the “map” of information, rather than affirming self-image. Soldiers are defined by “directionally motivated reasoning” and scouts by “accuracy motivated reasoning.” She stresses that we’re rarely all one or the other, but that we can shift over time or in regards to particular issues. I can certainly relate to this myself, and find that her metaphors are highly generative, intuitive and practical.

However, one of the most provocative themes that emerged from the discussions prior to and during the week of programming centered on the question: as rich as they are, do the metaphors of soldier and scout – and the spectrum in between – fully capture all the modes of reasoning we might consider. Are there others? Based on our conversations I believe there may be at least three we might contemplate.  

Before I explore them, it’s worth discussing further the nature of Galef’s two modes and their differences. First, let’s clarify the distinction between the search for knowledge (episteme) and the holding and defense of beliefs (doxa). The first is more characteristic of the scout, the second of the soldier. Both, however, fall under the domain of belief ethics, which inquires into our practices of belief-formation, belief-maintenance, and belief-relinquishment, owing to the impacts — positive or negative — that our beliefs can have on others, based on the extent to which they are supported by sufficient evidence. Also, the intersubjective contexts of their respective searches are quite different: the scout, while capable of being a social actor, is highly empiricist and individualist, focused on gaining knowledge by gathering evidence without reference to others, whereas the soldier is more an example of social epistemology, in which knowledge is generated in the context of other social actors. After all, if reasoning is a form of defensive combat, one must have an opponent! The scout, on the other hand, has no such urgency or imperative and can spend a lifetime alone pursuing whatever questions require answering.

With these distinctions in mind, let’s see what might lie beyond the soldier and scout mindsets (bearing in mind that my proposed metaphors are highly tentative!)     

Steward Mindset

While the soldier and scout are both actively engaged in gathering evidence – however motivated – may we also conceive of a mode in which no such gathering, form of inquiry or engagement with others is involved at all? How many people live incuriously, simply never questioning, doubting or revisiting their beliefs, assumptions and knowledge claims – all acquired from others -- and simply take them for granted? Would this not be akin to a steward charged with looking after a house or other form of property that doesn’t actually belong to them, and making sure that it remains undisturbed? This mindset is marked by contentedness, having never been inconvenienced by contradictory information, nor sought the views of others.

Priest Mindset

The soldier may be defensive and closed-minded, but at least does submit their beliefs and knowledge claims to scrutiny by others. What about claimants that admit no such challenge? For someone convinced that their beliefs constitute an Absolute Truth, why would there be any need to gather evidence or admit doubt – or tolerate questions from others? When we hear that certain issues¹ are “beyond doubt” or that there can be “no debate,” it’s likely that we are in the presence of the Priest mindset, in which beliefs are held with such religiosity that skepticism or alternative perspectives on the part of anyone are simply inconceivable and intolerable.² Furthermore – and most significantly – for the Priest, dissent is not just an error, but an actual sin for which there is no redemption. As such, ideological opponents are not to be reasoned with or learned from.³

When a field of inquiry is dominated by Priests (and their “acolytes”) another mode unfortunately becomes inevitable.

Prisoner Mindset

However different their motivations and varied their encounters with ideological opponents, both the soldier and scout operate openly in the public. Yet, when there is a strong social imperative to suppress dissent and punish inquiry, where perceived “thoughtcrimes” carry enormous social risk, the inquirer becomes a Prisoner unable to exercise their epistemic or doxastic agency. This was the situation depicted by one of the participants in our Zoom breakout rooms, a professor who said her students were simply too afraid to speak and express their views fearing the disapprobation of their classmates. In this mode, there can be no genuine inquiry.

In sum:

              Steward: Inquiry unsought/undesirable.

              Priest: Inquiry inconceivable/intolerable/morally wrong.

              Prisoner: Inquiry impossible.

This scheme (and Galef’s) does bear some resemblance to that of Adam Grant’s in his 2021 book Think Again, in which he posits four modes of persuasion: the Preacher (believing we’re right and convincing others we are too), the Prosecutor (proving others wrong), the Politician (winning approval) and the Scientist (actually searching for evidence to support arguments). However, my proposed “Priest” differs from Grant’s “Preacher” in that they are not so much seeking to persuade others as they are forbidding them to ask questions.  

Once more, social dimensions are significant, and highly salient for libraries. To the extent that the Steward simply keeps their unexamined beliefs to themselves, impacts beyond the individual are minimal: the public library can only hope that such a person will avail themselves of its resources, but has no ability (or right) to compel curiosity. Priest mindset, however, is clearly antithetical to open inquiry in libraries and will be manifest in pressure (either internal or external — or both) to proscribe particular authors, speakers and perspectives, rendering many interested users essentially Prisoners of this epistemically constrained environment, unable to access the information and ideas that they seek. And once a narrow range of thought is institutionalized, it becomes all too easy for Stewards to remain so — making it more likely this mindset is reproduced.

The promotion of scout mindset — and the intellectual freedom that makes it possible — may be an ideal remedy for all three of these additional modes; yet the cultural, social and institutional pressures involved – exacerbated by social media – immeasurably complicates this project.

We’re so accustomed to thinking of the relationship between intellectual freedom and democracy (and debate regarding it) at a rather high level, that it’s sometimes easy to overlook libraries’ individual and intersubjective psycho-cognitive effects and potentialities. Julia Galef’s book The Scout Mindset provides a valuable framework for our profession, reminding us of the fine-grained role libraries play in the ecosystem that is social epistemology, as mediated by these individual and collective intellectual dispositions.

To promote viewpoint diversity, Heterodoxy in the Stacks invites constructive dissent and disagreement in the form of guest posts. While articles published on Heterodoxy in the Stacks are not peer- or editorially-reviewed, all posts must model the HxA Way. Content is attributed to the individual contributor(s).

To submit an article for Heterodoxy in the Stacks, send an email with the article title, author name, and article document to hxlibsstack@gmail.com. Unless otherwise requested, the commenting feature will be on. Thank you for joining the conversation!

1. But by no means all. This is not intended to give intellectual cover for Holocaust denial, for example.

2. I should stress that I am not including actual religious faith in this mode – I’m referring to beliefs about knowledge claims that should, all things being equal, be empirically verifiable.

3. Much more could be said of the role of this mindset within wider ideological contexts. See for example Bari Weiss’ powerful speech to the University of Austin, “The New Founders America Needs”, detailing what I would see as its present manifestation in the West.