23/03/2026
We have more facts than ever, but less understanding of what they mean.
In Brussels, especially across policy, comms, and advocacy, the issue isn’t volume. It’s how casually we move through it. We skim, summarise, circulate. Sources start to blur. Big names and institutional logos carry more weight than they should, and we call that efficiency. In reality, it often slips into a kind of professional autopilot.
Shane Parrish offers a simple way to cut through it. First, look at the source. Are they close to the information, or just interpreting someone else’s work? Then ask what they stand to gain. And finally, look at the evidence itself. Because a compelling anecdote isn’t data, and correlation still isn’t causation, no matter how neatly it’s packaged. For a place that prides itself on evidence-based policymaking, Brussels can be surprisingly quick to accept the appearance of rigour.
Speed is the constant pressure. Too many dossiers, too many deadlines, everything moving at once. Slowing down can feel unrealistic. But speed without discernment doesn’t make you effective, it just makes you reactive. You end up passing information along rather than shaping it into something useful.
That’s where the real value lies. Not in knowing everything, but in being more deliberate about how you know what you know. It means being clearer about what’s solid and what’s still uncertain, and being comfortable saying “I don’t know” when needed. That kind of honesty can feel out of place in environments that reward certainty, but the alternative is quietly eroding your own credibility.
So it’s less about whether you can afford to slow down, and more about whether you can afford not to.
🔗 https://fs.blog/evaluating-information/
