Update, Don't Defend
How should this change what I think?
When new information arrives that challenges your current position, write two things before responding: How should this change my view? (even slightly) and What would I need to see to change my mind completely? If you can't answer the second question, you're not holding a belief — you're holding an identity.
You've received information that contradicts something you believe or a decision you've already made.
The new information is clearly unreliable or comes from a source with obvious bias.
Why it works
Your brain's default response to contradictory evidence is to defend, not to update. Making the update explicit — even writing 'this shifts me from 80% to 75%' — turns a defensive reflex into a learning moment.
There are two ways to encounter information that challenges your view. The first is to ask ‘how can I explain this away?’ — finding reasons the new data is wrong, irrelevant, or an exception. The second is to ask ‘how should this update my thinking?’ The first feels powerful and protective. The second feels vulnerable and uncertain. But only the second one makes you smarter. The test question — ‘what would I need to see to change my mind completely?’ — is the most honest diagnostic available. If the answer is ‘nothing could change my mind’, you’ve discovered something important: that belief is functioning as identity, not as a conclusion from evidence. And identity-level beliefs are immune to learning.