I recently read a fascinating article that was about a TED talk explaining two different mindsets: one very common mindset that leads you to make errors in judgment, and the other that can help prevent those errors. This is the type of article that’s right up my alley, so of course, I read it with great interest. The mindsets were described as the soldier and the scout.
First, a little about these two mindsets from the author:
Imagine for a moment you’re a soldier in the heat of battle — perhaps a Roman foot soldier, medieval archer or Zulu warrior. Regardless of your time and place, some things are probably constant. Your adrenaline is elevated, and your actions stem from your deeply ingrained reflexes, reflexes that are rooted in a need to protect yourself and your side and to defeat the enemy.
Now, try to imagine playing a very different role: the scout. The scout’s job is not to attack or defend; it’s to understand. The scout is the one going out, mapping the terrain, identifying potential obstacles. Above all, the scout wants to know what’s really out there as accurately as possible. In an actual army, both the soldier and the scout are essential.
Julia Galef, the author, explains the concept of motivated reasoning which explains why someone with a soldier mindset is not able to be objective. She defines it as:
a phenomenon in which our unconscious motivations, desires and fears shape the way we interpret information. Some pieces of information feel like our allies — we want them to win; we want to defend them. And other pieces of information are the enemy, and we want to shoot them down. That’s why I call motivated reasoning “soldier mindset.” . . . Our judgment is strongly influenced, unconsciously, by which side we want to win — and this is ubiquitous. This shapes how we think about our health, our relationships, how we decide how to vote, and what we consider fair or ethical. What’s most scary to me about motivated reasoning or soldier mindset is just how unconscious it is.
As she points out, these mindsets are under the surface, and they are emotional. We don’t realize that we are operating in this way because we don’t realize that we aren’t being logical and objective. One key to recognize our mindset is to pay attention to which emotions are engaged. While the soldier mindset is related to our unconscious favoring of an outcome, the scout mindset is motivated by curiosity.
scouts are curious. They’re more likely to say they feel pleasure when they learn new information or solve a puzzle. They’re more likely to feel intrigued when they encounter something that contradicts their expectations.
Scouts also have different values. They’re more likely to say they think it’s virtuous to test their own beliefs, and they’re less likely to say that someone who changes her mind seems weak. And, above all, scouts are grounded, which means their self-worth as a person isn’t tied to how right or wrong they are about any particular topic. For example, they can believe that capital punishment works and if studies come out that show it doesn’t, they can say, “Looks like I might be wrong. Doesn’t mean I’m bad or stupid.” This cluster of traits is what researchers have found — and I’ve found anecdotally — predicts good judgment.
The key takeaway about the traits associated with scout mindset is they have little to do with how smart you are or how much you know. They don’t correlate very closely to IQ at all; they’re about how you feel.
The author shares a quote from The Little Prince to explain the value of a scout mindset: “If you want to build a ship, don’t drum up your men to collect wood and give orders and distribute the work. Instead, teach them to yearn for the vast and endless sea.” Soldiers follow orders out of duty and loyalty; scouts use different parts of their brains to find unforeseen solutions.
Her conclusion about the value of shifting our mindset from soldier to scout in summary:
We need to change the way we feel — to learn how to feel proud instead of ashamed when we notice we might have been wrong about something, or to learn how to feel intrigued instead of defensive when we encounter some information that contradicts our beliefs. So the question you need to consider is: What do you most yearn for — to defend your own beliefs or to see the world as clearly as you possibly can?
In thinking about the two mindsets, a Bible story came to mind, one that we will be studying this year in the Old Testament. While the Israelites wandered in the desert, twelve spies (one from each tribe) were sent to scout out the promised land, the land of Canaan. Their mission was to determine whether the Israelites could conquer the Canaanites and take (or take back) their land. They return to the camp and ten of the spies report that the Canaanites are undefeatable, exaggerating the size of their forces, and claiming that they are giants that make the Israelites look like grasshoppers in comparison. The Israelites all start kvetching again and wishing they were back in captivity in Egypt, and Moses and Aaron lament that they were ever stuck leading these faithless people, falling on their faces. It’s a great story.
The reason I thought of this story after reading the article is that although they were sent as “scouts” (the word used in the KJV), they had a soldier mindset. Even Caleb and Joshua who reported that they could defeat the Canaanites had a soldier mindset. Nobody was acting with curiosity to understand what the actual situation was. They all went in with their pre-existing biases, either for or against war. Some of them didn’t want to wage war because of the potential for defeat, and others wanted to demonstrate their faith by waging war and relying on God’s help to win.
Likewise, apologetics often function this way. As I’ve described before, the way I see apologetics is that both sides are biased–critics and apologists–starting with their conclusion and seeking any evidence, no matter how weak, to support that argument. All the apologist has to do is show that there’s some possible way for the thing to be true, for the critic to be wrong. And the critics of course only have to show that the religious argument is weak in some way. Apologetics starts out trying to prove that the Book of Mormon was historical, and ends up showcasing a dude riding a tapir into battle, wielding an obsidian sword on the way to synagogue. Unbelievers don’t find apologetics convincing–they are only comforting to those who are already predisposed toward belief. Critics don’t find them convincing, but then again, critics have their own biases, their own soldier mindset. Reality doesn’t need defenders. As we used to say in business, when you’re explaining (or defending), you’ve already lost the argument. The truth will come out whether you fight for or against it. Truth is better than arguments.
A scout mindset would be interested in finding out more information and letting the information lead where it will. Was Joseph Smith a good man? (Or Gandhi or Buddha?) Did Book of Mormon people exist historically? How much of the temple ceremony is divine inspiration vs. human creation? These are questions that will often lead to shades of gray if you take a curious approach, but doing so means finding a way to be dispassionate about outcomes, not hoping to find out that they aren’t true or that they are true. Identifying and setting aside our bias toward outcomes is very difficult to achieve. It requires practice.
It occurs to me that a scout mindset is far more valuable to us in a missionary-minded church. Investigators don’t have a soldier mindset predisposed to defending Mormonism, so if our missionaries do, they aren’t going to be convincing–they will actually erode faith by trying to build it on what isn’t sustainable. Faith isn’t built on proofs and evidences of historical facts or theological ideas. Faith stems from subjective spiritual experiences individuals have. If historical facts don’t line up with our narratives, we have to be willing to discard them in order to retain what really matters: subjective personal experiences with the divine.
Unfortunately, we do a terrible job of creating a scout mindset, and instead give a lot of instruction to our membership to develop a soldier mindset. Here are some examples of trying to instill a soldier mindset:
- Prohibiting bringing in “unapproved” materials in teaching or anything outside the manual.
- Telling people to avoid any troubling or controversial information as a way to preserve belief.
- Manuals that include unsustainable claims such as that the Pentateuch was written by Moses, claims most scholars disagree with.
- Having approved answers and questions designed to elicit specific answers rather than allowing people to openly discuss and follow the spirit.
- Expecting people to “defend the family.” Defense is about loyalty and soldiering. Instead, we should try to strengthen our own families.
- Instructions on what can and can’t be part of bearing one’s testimony.
- Instructions to “obey” and “follow the prophet” when not coupled with personal revelation and seeking understanding (blind obedience focus).
There are some examples of a scout mindset, too:
- Instructions to follow the spirit, even if it takes a lesson in an unforeseen direction or causes you to change the topic of your talk.
- The idea of bearing testimony can be if it’s an honest expression of the heart rather than rote phrases that are acceptable.
- The idea of avoiding “vain repetitions” in prayer so long as we really do, once again, speak from the heart and not just use the same old phrases.
- The Joseph Smith Papers Project and having more openness in exploring Mormon history.
- The new council format for the third hour of church.
Let’s see what you think.
- Can you think of other examples of the scout mindset or the soldier mindset in church? How would you suggest increasing scout mindset in our congregations?
- Do you think it’s important to avoid a soldier mindset in order to avoid error?
- Does this help you evaluate your own motives in analyzing information?
Discuss.
Wheat & Tares 
We all have scout and soldier tendencies, it is just a matter of proportions that come out. And that proportion I would assume can be different in different situations, but I would also assume we have generally tendencies.
But to your discussion points, I get the feeling (oh – does that make me a “scout”?) that the current top church leaders are leaning more on the soldier side, especially when you compare them to Joseph Smith. I sense for many a groundswell of tiring of too much soldiering and on their own are starting to be a bit more of scouts for themselves personally.
And isn’t it obvious that the church is moving away from the Scout mentality given they are not utilizing the BSA as much anymore? That was a joke in case you were wondering.
“Onward, Christian soldiers,” “we are all enlisted … soldiers in the army.” Let’s “follow the prophet” that others may “Behold! A royal army,
With banner, sword, and shield … marching forth to conquer.” But remember, to scout out “The straight and narrow way to heav’n [that] is found Thru constant secret prayer” and subjective personal experience with the divine.
Maybe there’s a good case for both soldier and scout mindsets in various circumstances or for a balance between them. I suspect there is not only one true balance that is best for everyone in all circumstances, but keeping the poles in mind may help in finding a good balance.
This may just be my own cynicism but it seems so me that we are a bit obsessive with the terms ‘obedience’ and ‘listen to the leaders’.
If we want to move into a scout mindset with the church I think we need to get to a point where people aren’t afraid to voice different opinions, given there’s a good dose of respect from both sides. I think of the outrage people had over those who voted in opposition to the brethren during conference a few years back. Why ask if no one is actually supposed to be able to do it?
If you could get honest responses from every person in Sunday school on a given subject, the differences in ideas would be as numerous as those sharing them. People need to feel a sense of liberty to work outside of the predictable ‘safe’ answers.
Great post, thank you for writing it. For me a good gauge is to ask if I was on the outside looking in how would I interpret this behavior? For example, Jehovah’s Witnesses are discouraged from getting a college education and are expected to spend 10-20 hours a week of free time proselyting. As an outsider, it’s easy for me to say that behavior seems unhealthy and excessive. I then have to ask myself what “soldier-like” activities in the Church could also be viewed in that light and am I OK with that and willing to go along? Many of us spent 18 months or 2 years as missionaries, paying our own way, doing hard things and obeying a long list of rules. This is Mormonism most soldiered experience. In hindsight, I recognize that some of it was pretty ridiculous, but it was a great experience and I’m glad I did it. I think testimony meeting often takes on a soldier tone with people spouting off what is essentially a creedal statement of knowing the Church is true, etc. A pet peeve of mine is when soldier-type mindsets are couched as scout-type and open. For example, Sheri Dew’s talk where she told BYU students that it’s good to ask questions as long as they are asked in faith and are the right type of questions. Or, how under the guise of being open about our history we will mention the multiple accounts of the First Vision and then give the same old talk about the First Vision without saying why the multiple accounts may be problematic or the questions that they raise.
“A pet peeve of mine is when soldier-type mindsets are couched as scout-type and open. For example, Sheri Dew’s talk where she told BYU students that it’s good to ask questions as long as they are asked in faith and are the right type of questions.” Felixfabulous, this drives me nuts as well. It’s my experience that God doesn’t really mind if questions are asked in anger or softness – he knows the intent and frustration and is just grateful when his child is still willing to keep the lines of communication open.
I also agree with JR and Happy Hubby that we bounce between the scout and soldier mindsets. Hawk says, “If historical facts don’t line up with our narratives, we have to be willing to discard them in order to retain what really matters: subjective personal experiences with the divine.” This requires a “soldier”-like devotion to the validity of the subjective personal experience. Either we discard the historical facts as not useful or false, or we discard the narrative as flawed, but, either way, loyalty to the subjective experience is paramount. Other people consider themselves just as much of a scout, but they tie that subjective experience to the narrative under which the personal experiences were received and interpreted. If the narrative is found to be faulty (through the discovery of historical facts), they feel the subjective personal experiences are just as worthy of reconsideration. They may require discarding as well.
So it’s not always clear-cut what the ideal soldier/scout balance is with religious belief.
Love this! My first though was, ‘I’m totally a scout.” Then my second thought was, ‘I bet everyone sees themselves as scouts and sees everyone else as soldiers. So am I really a scout? Or do I just like that label better?” Seems likely that I wavier all over the place. I have a feeling that has less to do with the topic and more to do with the person/situation I am engaged with. When I feel attacked I tend to be more of a solider. When I feel safe, I tend to be more of a scout. The goal is to be/feel strong enough to not ever need to be that soldier.
And I suppose in addition to that, How do I make others feel safe so that they drop the need to soldier and become scouts as well? Especially when I and the other person are disagreeing? I don’t think I’m very good at this currently.
I think it’s very hard to truly be a scout. We all have things we defend. Setting church topics aside, think about something like the #metoo movement. There are a lot of very strong feelings there, on all sides, and there are things that are taboo to say or even think. That doesn’t mean those things are right or wrong–just that it’s a minefield. There was an interesting sketch on SNL last week about the Aziz Ansari story where whenever anyone at the dinner table tried to say something about the story, someone else at the table (a different person each time) would say “Careful . . .” because the person was treading on what they believe about the situation. That’s also a soldier mindset.
This is a great topic and discussion. My reading of the post is that a scout mindset is generally superior, and I’m not convinced. For example, when I first entered the business world and went through the process of trying to justify investment in new products, it seemed almost impossible to do so. Engineers are generally very conservative (they have to be or nothing would ever work), and when we’d see the marketing projections, cost estimates, etc., no product could ever be justified unless we made some wildly optimistic assumptions. What got us through the logjam was the guy with the vision and enthusiasm who knew the product would be profitable and just made the numbers work. Definite soldier mentality. The scouts would never get anything done.
By the way, why do you think the spies who went into Canaan went in with a soldier mentality? I’d say the ones who came back scared had the scout mentality — based on what they saw, there was no chance. It was Joshua and Caleb with the soldier mentality.
Isn’t faith a type of soldier mentality? Isn’t exercising faith exercising soldier mentality? Isn’t change your mind constantly whenever something challenges your faith scout mentality? That’s one of the tricks of religion. Faith in what’s right is good, faith in what’s bad is bad. No faith is simply bad. Otherwise, why would you have religion at all?
Those who have been in the military, an especially in combat, understand the value of the solider mindset. In some military situations, thoughtful deliberation (the scout mindset), will result in military defeat and death. The Book of Mormon points this out powerfully in the account of the 2000 stripling warriors. The 2000 stripling warriors were victorious because of their faith and training. Their training is summed up in here: ” they did obey and observe to perform every word of command with exactness…”
19 But behold, my little band of two thousand and sixty fought most desperately; yea, they were firm before the Lamanites, and did administer death unto all those who opposed them.
20 And as the remainder of our army were about to give way before the Lamanites, behold, those two thousand and sixty were firm and undaunted.
21 Yea, and they did obey and observe to perform every word of command with exactness; yea, and even according to their faith it was done unto them; and I did remember the words which they said unto me that their mothers had taught them. (Book of Mormon | Alma 57:19 – 21)
I think the following from the Book of Mormon is an example of the scout mindset. It is describing the sons of Mosiah:
2 …they had waxed strong in the knowledge of the truth; for they were men of a sound understanding and they had searched the scriptures diligently, that they might know the word of God.
3 But this is not all; they had given themselves to much prayer, and fasting; therefore they had the spirit of prophecy, and the spirit of revelation, and when they taught, they taught with power and authority of God. (Book of Mormon | Alma 17:2 – 3)
It seems to me, that the solider and scout mindsets both have value. The key is to determine which one is the best in a given situation. In some cases, a mix of the two mindsets may be best.
I see Sherri Dew’s approach to faith and questions as a wise mix of the two mindsets, especially when speaking at BYU. I also see the value of the apologetic approach to defending faith. Apologetics is like a court room approach to find truth, useful, but not perfect.
The scout and soldier may have different mindsets, but ultimately the scout’s duty and purpose is to inform the soldier. The soldiers must have clear and accurate knowledge of their operational areas to ensure success on the battlefield. The function of the scout is to move behind enemy lines and to provide the soldier will intelligence that he/she needs to be victorious in battle.
Without the scout, the soldier is blind and risks subjecting himself to unnecessary harm. Without the soldier, the scout has no purpose.
I think we see this playing out with apologetics. The scouts, for too long, have been providing the soldiers with faulty, or even fraudulent intelligence. The scouts have led the soldiers into indefensible spaces; battles have been lost. The church needs honest, reliable scouts. The church needs soldiers who have to discipline to act on only the very best, most credible intelligence.
The church can no longer withstand the false reports that have preoccupied its scouts for so long; the war is being lost.
My peculiar bias caused me to initially not comprehend this distinction at all until I read it again and thought about it more.
I am a scout leader in a non-LDS troop that has an extreme approach to boy leadership (which is currently running the troop off a cliff-but I digress). Lord Baden Powell who started scouting was a military general and fought in the Boer Wars in South Africa. He was so impressed by the military prowess of the individual Boer soldiers (the original cowboys) that he considered how to train better British soldiers. From his ideas he created the boys scouts. It has been modified extensively over the years but I am told by my friends from Latin America that it still has too much of a para-military atmosphere to not make parents from countries with oppressive military regimes nervous. A number of our former scouts are now serving in the military including a couple in the military academies and one who is flying the F-18 off of aircraft carriers.
My initial impression of this discussion: scouting is a preparatory program to produce better soldiers; and of course better college students, scientists, engineers, teachers, businessmen and also of course better husbands, fathers, citizens and church/community service volunteers. In this light many of the comments made no sense to me.
But my second impression causes me to agree with what has been written above. The analogy has nothing to do with my personal experiences in boy scouting or soldiering. When I redefine the terms to mean what Hawkgirrl has defined them to mean then I agree and understand and want to be a scout more than a soldier. (Personally I would rather camp with BSA than the USMC)
However, I am wondering if the agenda of the orthodox/correlated church really is coincidentally close to my first impression. The church wants to inspire us to grow out of or repent of our scout tendencies and become reliable Mormon soldiers in building the Kingdom. With the caveat that LDS scouting is not focused on leadership development and service but is soldiering, more of an achievement program with the same agenda as the rest of the orthodox church.
Now it makes sense, why church is so boring and the lessons are so intolerable. Because I have too many out-of-focus, undisciplined scout tendencies and not enough soldier left in me. The LDS church doesn’t want scouts, they want soldiers. We face ecclesiastical defeat and death as a church if we do otherwise, or so it seems many of our leaders believe.
Martin: ” My reading of the post is that a scout mindset is generally superior, and I’m not convinced.” I imagine it depends on what activity you are engaged in. The author was talking about gathering information to make a decision, and in that situation a scout mentality will help prevent errors in judgment whereas a soldier mentality will double down on decisions made without additional information. That’s fine when you are in a fire fight and questioning decisions (which causes delays) could be a bad thing. To your point about faith, again, I don’t think you want to be a scout every single time you are faced with a decision or you’d be like Chidi on the Good Place, never able to make a decision. Sometimes you need to just act.
“By the way, why do you think the spies who went into Canaan went in with a soldier mentality? I’d say the ones who came back scared had the scout mentality — based on what they saw, there was no chance. It was Joshua and Caleb with the soldier mentality.” I think both groups had soldier mentalities. The first group wasn’t really scouting–they were biased against war. They were looking with their fear and not their courage. But Joshua and Caleb didn’t accurately report the risks either. They just wanted to show they were faithful. Neither group gave an accurate account of what they saw and neither group went in with an open mind, or at least that’s how I read it.
Angela C., I re-read the story in Numbers 13 and 14, and I don’t get out of it what you do — I read it much like my professional experience with justifying products. The people had been wandering in the wilderness and undoubtedly wanted a land of milk and honey. The spies were specifically sent out to find out if the land was good and whether the inhabitants were strong, and the answer was yes to both. Most of the spies were in agreement that it would be unwise to attack, because based on what they saw, the inhabitants were too strong. Nothing in the account suggests that they were pre-disposed not to attack prior to seeing what they saw. To me, they were demonstrating scout mentality — objectively, they could not see how an attack would end well for the Israelites. Joshua (Moses’ spy) and Caleb (from Judah — the last group to control the account) demonstrated soldier mentality in that despite the evidence, they felt God would help them (kind of like the project manager who knew a product would be successful in his gut and cooked the numbers to get it approved).
By the way, I’m not saying the soldier mentality is always the right way to go either — that can be disastrous. Clearly, you need both. But when I read the post, I got the feeling that “when in doubt, be a scout”, and I don’t think that’s true. Having the wrong mentality, scout or soldier, at the wrong time can be equally problematic. It’s just hard to know which to be at any given time.
I’ve been thinking about this post more and my own response. I tried to present a different perspective to show the interrelationship between scouts and soldiers. My specific military analogy aside, I would add this: In non-military life, imho, we are both scout and soldier.
I view the scout mindset as pre-action and the soldier mindset as action. I agree that instilling the scout mindset is highly valuable (necessary even) and serves our interests even where no action is required or prudent. When we allow our inner scout to educate our inner soldier, our actions become informed and are guided by wisdom. Right or wrong, this outcome is about the best we can hope for.
Martin: Maybe I’m projecting onto Numbers 13-14 the things we traditionally are taught, that the naysayers were cowards and Joshua and Caleb were righteous ones.