Why New Information Feels So Hard
David Bohm observed that we often defend conclusions as if they are reality. When conditions change, that reflex can delay the updates that protect downside and open opportunity.
Bohm in one sentence
“Thought creates our world, and then says ‘I didn’t do it.’”
— Bohm
This is why new information can feel uncomfortable before it feels useful. It’s not a character flaw. It’s a reflex: the mind protects stability first, then evaluates.
Why Bohm matters in decision making
Bohm helps explain something you can observe in yourself in seconds: when you hold a conclusion long enough, it stops feeling like a conclusion. It starts feeling like “the way things are.”
That’s when new information becomes hard to receive. It isn’t competing with an opinion — it’s competing with an internal map that has become “invisible.”
In investing, that delay can be costly — not because you were “wrong,” but because reality shifted and the model didn’t. Bohm’s work is essentially a spotlight on that gap.
Why reaching a new decision is harder than it looks
Bohm’s lens is simple: thought is often automatic. When new information arrives, the first internal question is rarely “Is this true?” It’s more like: “Does this threaten what I already believe?”
If it does, thought tends to defend the old view first — and only later considers whether an update is wise. That creates decision-lag.
Discomfort
A new signal doesn’t fit the current map. The first feeling is often irritation, not curiosity.
Defense
Dismiss, minimize, attack the source, or reframe the meaning so nothing must change.
Delay
“Let’s wait.” Sometimes wise. Sometimes it’s simply avoiding the emotional cost of updating.
Missed opportunity
By the time it feels safe, repricing is often underway and options have narrowed.
This isn’t a call to “act fast.” It’s a call to notice when “wait” is wisdom — and when it’s reflex.
Thought and markets — why Bohm is so relevant
Markets don’t just reflect data. They reflect how human beings process change. That’s why Bohm fits so well here: markets amplify belief, identity, and consensus.
Here is the chain Bohm helps you see — and break — in real time:
We treat a strategy like “the way the world works”
When something works for years, it stops feeling like a strategy. That’s fine in stable periods — risky in transitions.
We attach identity to the strategy
The more success, reputation, or public commitment tied to an idea, the harder it is to update without feeling loss.
We delay updating until consensus makes it comfortable
Many people don’t respond when evidence appears. They respond when the crowd agrees — and by then, opportunity is often repriced.
The Bohm move: update without panic
Bohm didn’t recommend “arguing harder.” He recommended seeing thought as a process. When you can observe your reaction, you can suspend reflexive defense long enough to evaluate what’s real.
Instead of “Is this right or wrong?” ask:
What would have to be true for this to matter?
Then write 2–3 conditions. You don’t have to agree — you just have to examine.
This is education, not prediction. The goal is not certainty — it is clarity.