Hello friend,

I hope you’re enjoying your weekend.

OK, here’s what I have for you today:

• One big thing. A look at how the lenses we use—not the events themselves—shape our reality, from ancient worldviews to modern psychology. 👓

• You have to check this out. Do conservatives see the world as more dangerous than progressives? 💣

Let’s jump in! 🦘

1️⃣ ONE BIG THING

What sort of world is this?

I.

A few years back, my Dad had cataract surgery.

With cataracts, the lens in your eye becomes clouded over time. A simple procedure swaps the old lens for a new one.

In a pre-surgery consultation, the doctor asked my Dad a question that we both laughed about for years, “Would you like a high-definition lens inserted, or just regular?” The “high-def” lens was about $500 extra with my Dad’s medical plan.

He and I joked about the kind of person who would reply, "Nah, just give me the regular one. Clear vision isn't that big a deal to me."

My Dad was blown away after the surgery, seeing birds in the trees and stars in the sky he hadn’t noticed in years.

Now, imagine a Black Mirror-esque extension of this surgery. What if, to facilitate more social sharing of photos and videos, everyone on Earth swapped the lenses in their eyes for tiny camera lenses?

Then imagine everyone gets different lenses—like the various lenses on your phone. Some people get a fish-eye lens installed, some a standard lens, and others get 5x, 10x, and 20x lenses.

For the rest of their lives, some would see the world around them in a wide-angle view, while others would see it in a zoomed-in view.

Do you think their lives would be different?

Would some be more satisfied? Some more anxious? Some more likely to help others?

If so, would the reason for these traits be explained by the type of person they are, or by the way they see the world?

II.

There are four noble truths at the heart of Buddhism.

Here’s a short (and likely imperfect) description of them:

1. The Truth of Suffering: Suffering, dissatisfaction, and imperfection are an inherent part of life.

2. The Truth of the Origin of Suffering: Suffering arises from craving and attachment. This is fueled by ignorance—a misunderstanding of reality—that keeps us trapped in a cycle of desire and aversion.

3. The Truth of the Cessation of Suffering: It is possible to end suffering and achieve a state of liberation called Nirvana.

4. The Truth of the Path to the Cessation of Suffering: The way to end suffering is to follow the Noble Eightfold Path. This path involves right understanding, right thought, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration.

Life is suffering, caused by craving. A first step in the cessation of suffering is "right understanding," which refers to a clear understanding of the true nature of the world.

The Buddha saw the world in a unique way—through a distinct lens.

The Stoic philosophers saw the world differently.

Here is an example from Marcus Aurelius in Meditations:

The Stoics did not see a world defined by suffering.

The Stoics saw the world as a single, rational organism governed by logos—a universal intelligence structuring all events. They believed human beings share in this rational order, so everything that happens is interconnected and part of nature’s unfolding.

Buddha and the Stoics saw the world through different lenses. They had different answers to:

“What sort of world is this?”

III.

For most of its history, psychology has focused on who we are — our personalities, motivations, biases, and relationships. But it largely assumed we were all looking out at the same objective world.

But what if our deepest psychological differences aren’t only about us, but are about the kind of world we believe we inhabit?

For example, imagine meeting someone who recently withdrew all their money from their children's college fund, donating half of it to a food bank and spending the other half at a casino.

If you find their actions baffling, you are likely to attribute it to personal weaknesses—such as poor rational thinking or a lack of concern for family.

But what if a better explanation is simply that they fundamentally believe the world works differently than you do?

What if you have the fish-eye lens installed and they have spent their whole life seeing the world with the 10x lens?

Now, you might be tempted to say: Sure, but if they see the world differently than it really is, that must be because they just aren’t smart and can’t think rationally.

But Buddha and the Stoics, certainly among the sharpest minds of our time, had vastly different views on the nature of the world.

IV.

One of my favorite principles in behavioral science is called the fundamental attribution error, which describes “how, when making judgments about people’s behavior, we often overemphasize dispositional factors and downplay situational ones. In other words, we believe that people’s personality traits have more influence on their actions, compared to the other factors outside of their control.”

Sally didn’t call you back for four days because she was with her Mom at the hospital (situation), not because she is forgetful, selfish, or mad at you (personality traits).

You understand Sally’s actions differently (and more accurately) once you understand their context.

Unlike these more temporary context variables, the fundamental way someone perceives the world—their personal understanding of how the world works—has the potential to provide a more accurate understanding of a wide range of human actions.

Said another way, what if the more accurate explanation for many human actions is the lens in their eye (the way they see the world), not their brain or heart?

If there are 26 photographers using cameras with 26 different lenses, all taking photographs of the same lake and mountain range, we’d expect 26 different photos to result.

Yes, some of the variation in the photos would be attributed to the photographer, but it would clearly be wise to attribute some variation to the camera lenses.

Why 26?

It turns out, a long-running research project sought to measure and categorize how people all over the world answer the question, “What sort of world is this?”

V.

Jer Clifton didn’t begin as someone trying to rewrite a corner of psychology. He started with a simple question he couldn’t shake: why do people seem to inhabit such different versions of the same world?

As a graduate student in positive psychology, he noticed that many theories hinted at "world beliefs" but none directly mapped them. That curiosity evolved into a capstone project, then a research proposal, and in 2014, the idea followed him to the University of Pennsylvania.

At Penn, Clifton built a small team and began the slow work of identifying every way people describe “the world” itself. Here is how he describes the work in a recent article:

By 2019, the data consistently pointed to a stable structure: 26 distinct "Primal World Beliefs," many of which clustered under three major dimensions—whether people see the world as Safe or Dangerous, Enticing or Dull, and Alive or Mechanistic.

Next week, I'll describe the Primal World Beliefs in more detail and provide a link to test your own primals.

Thanks for reading.

See you next week.

Kevin