Lean Into Irrational Aversion
Investigate what you reject before your first impression hardens
- Difficulty
- Easy
- Time to result
- ~weeks to results
- Steps
- 5
- Confidence
- 96%
Derek Sivers treats intense, poorly grounded aversion as a prompt for investigation. First, notice the recoil and distinguish an intellectual story from a physical safety signal. Then ask whether the judgment comes from current firsthand knowledge or from a label, old experience, or stereotype. Learn enough to reach the contents behind the package, then run a bounded experiment: taste the coffee, inspect the programming language, visit the place, or understand the animal. The output is not forced approval; it is a view based on evidence rather than dismissal. Sivers links this process to five reversals involving coffee, Python, pet rats, China, and Dubai, and says the joy of changing those fixed positions helped make the year exceptionally happy.
Origin
Extracted from The Tim Ferriss Show, where Derek Sivers connected five changed opinions to a habit of investigating irrational aversion.
Core principles
- 01Strong aversion can reflect an untested story rather than direct knowledge
- 02Learning about a rejected subject can create appreciation without demanding agreement
- 03A first thought is only one possible perspective
- 04Physical danger signals deserve different treatment from intellectual dislike
How to run it
- 1
Catch the recoil
Notice when your response is an immediate, emphatic rejection rather than a considered conclusion.
Pro tip Use unusually strong language in your internal reaction as a cue to pause.
- 2
Classify the signal
Distinguish an intellectual story about disliking something from a bodily warning that you may be unsafe.
Watch out Do not override credible danger signals merely to prove openness.
- 3
Audit your evidence
Ask what direct, recent experience supports the rejection and whether you are judging the package instead of its contents.
Pro tip Look for stale experiences and secondhand stereotypes.
- 4
Move closer
Learn from the subject itself or from people who understand it instead of relying on the label you rejected.
Pro tip Choose a small exposure that is easy to reverse.
- 5
Revise from experience
Keep, soften, or reverse the opinion according to what the closer look reveals.
Pro tip Treat a changed mind as a gain, not an admission of defeat.
In the wild
Sivers had placed Dubai among the places he never wanted to visit, despite never having been there. When a flight connected there, he extended the layover, read about the city and region, met people, and experienced Emirati hospitality. He came away fascinated and began considering spending much more time there.
→ A stereotype became a firsthand, substantially more positive view.
After years of excluding Python because he had chosen Ruby, Sivers noticed that his refusal had no good reason. He finally examined Python and found it beautiful and useful.
→ He adopted a tool he had irrationally rejected for two decades.
Common mistakes
Confusing discomfort with danger
Intellectual dislike can be investigated, but an unexplained feeling of physical danger deserves close attention.
Forcing a positive verdict
The method requires a fair test, not a predetermined reversal. New evidence may confirm the original view.
Is it for you?
Best for
People who notice themselves dismissing a place, practice, tool, culture, or idea they barely know.
Not ideal for
Situations where an immediate bodily fear response signals credible danger rather than an intellectual story.
From the transcript
“the theme is that if you feel completely averse to something get to know it better”
“whatever you feel yourself leaning away from try leaning into”
“questioning that first story can pay a lot of incredible dividends”
From the episode
#777: Derek Sivers, Philosopher-Entrepreneur — The Greatest Year of His Life
Derek Sivers