What's Our Problem

What’s Our Problem? explains what’s going on in our modern times, why everyone seems to be acting crazy, and how societies function, fall, and thrive, using plenty of original frameworks to give us new, better ways of thinking and communicating in our complicated world.

The most important concept from the book is what Urban calls “the Ladder.” The Ladder is a 4-rung, vertical framework showing that how we think is more important than what we think.

We all have a “higher mind” and a “primitive mind.” The newer parts of our brain are capable of reason, restraint, and thoughtful analysis. The older parts, however, just want us to eat, sleep, and reproduce. Depending on which part is currently in charge or at least stronger, we’ll think like one of the following 4 archetypes, each on a lower rung of the Ladder than the last:

Scientist — We truly think for ourselves. We gather information, form hypotheses, and are open to changing our mind whenever new evidence appears. Sports fan — We’re slightly more biased. We’ll still accept the rules of the game, but we really want our team to win. Whatever is good for our team, we’re likely to believe. Attorney — With the primitive mind taking over, we become attorneys arguing our case, regardless of the facts. An attorney is always on their client’s team. They get paid to be. So if the client wants to be not guilty, they’ll work tirelessly to prove it — even if it’s not true. Zealot — We are no better than religious zealots, refusing any dissenting information. We hold on desperately to our beliefs and defend them viciously. No amount of facts or differing opinions will change our mind.

No matter the topic and situation, rather than ask, “What is this person thinking?” we should ask “What rung are they thinking on right now?” Only on the higher rungs can we have real intellectual discourse and solve humanity’s problems. Which brings us to…

Politicians who think clearly concern themselves mainly with 3 questions, Urban says: What is? What should be? How do we get from what is to what should be? Often, it is only the third question that the political left and right disagree on. So even if they might argue about the methods of making progress, charting a path forward together is usually possible. It’s entirely an attitude-problem: Are you open to other people’s ideas and willing to work with someone with a different worldview? As long as politicians share that attitude, governance runs fine. High-rung thinkers differ in what they think but relate to one another in how they think — and that makes all the difference. In low-rung…