How to Educate Yourself Like a Harvard Scholar (without school)

You don't need to be a Harvard grad in order to learn, think, or innovate like one. Over my more than 12 years of

one. Over my more than 12 years of experience as an educator and also as a peer-reviewed scholar who has attended an Ivy League university myself, I've learned that there is a significant

difference between people who are simply smart and those who have a special type of brilliance that changes the world. In

this video, we'll explore five of these Harvard scholars, as well as the hidden intellectual habits they've developed that you can use daily to outperform everyone around you. So, let's begin

with our first Harvard scholar, Neil deGrasse Tyson. Tyson studied physics at

deGrasse Tyson. Tyson studied physics at Harvard. But what distinguishes him

Harvard. But what distinguishes him isn't only his scientific expertise.

It's the way he treats physics as an entry point into much larger questions, philosophical, cultural, and even moral.

He's often described as a science communicator. But the deeper truth is

communicator. But the deeper truth is that he approaches science as an interdisciplinary conversation. He sees

interdisciplinary conversation. He sees physics not as a closed system, no pun intended, but as a lens through which we can examine everything from human

meaning to public policy. His

fascination with the cosmos started long before Harvard. And even then, his

before Harvard. And even then, his interest wasn't purely technical. He

wasn't drawn to astronomy because of only the mathematics of it. He was drawn to the deeper understanding of reality it could provide. When Tyson talks about dark matter, for instance, he doesn't

confine it to astrophysics. He explores

how our uncertainty about it shapes our reasoning. When he explains gravity, he

reasoning. When he explains gravity, he draws parallels to philosophy and to scientific history. In other words, he

scientific history. In other words, he doesn't simply see the technical aspects of science and mathematics. He also sees both its underlying beauty and its inherent ability to expand our

intellectual excellence as human beings.

As he has famously stated, "Knowing how to think empowers you far beyond those who know only what to think." And this is what you could call a critical thinking based approach to learning.

Tyson asks questions such as, "What are the assumptions behind this idea? What

are the implications of it? What can

physics teach us about every other field or type of knowledge? And what can every other field teach us about physics? And

you see, this is a habit worth adopting.

When you encounter a concept in any field, don't stop at simply understanding the rules and frameworks like most people do. Examine the rules, make new connections, and this will

empower you to find solutions most people will never be able to spot. And

this was the same mindset of the second scholar we'll explore, Grace Hopper, who was one of the most influential innovators in computing. She didn't

attend Harvard as a student, but she worked extensively with the Harvard Mark1 computer during World War II, developing the conceptual groundwork for programming languages. However, her

programming languages. However, her learning process wasn't the typical mindless process of memorizing diagrams or code that most learners use. Instead,

it was a sort of first principles approach to learning. Hopper believed

[music] you should never accept complexity at face value. When she

encountered a system that seemed too intricate or obscure, she reconstructed it from basic principles. Breaking an

idea down to its essential components and rebuilding it in clearer form became the foundation of her work on compilers, which eventually led to the development of the programming language Cobalt. You

see, people often imagine that innovators possess some innate brilliance that others simply lack.

Sure, you need a certain level of IQ to innovate, but there are plenty of high IQ people who spend their days scrolling on their phones and who haven't picked up a book in years. IQ alone isn't

enough. You also [music] need curiosity.

enough. You also [music] need curiosity.

You see, Hopper wasn't just intelligent.

She was relentlessly curious about the implications of her ideas and how they could be used. And this curiosity forced her to dissect these complex ideas and rewrite them in her own words on a

regular basis as is evidenced from her famously precise notes. And this is one of the most overlooked scholarly habits, the habit of rearticulating complex concepts in your own words. Because when

you memorize, you can take a test on it and do well, sure. But when you reexlain it and summarize it, you own it. And so

if you want to learn like Hopper, try reconstructing the systems you encounter. Don't settle for memorizing

encounter. Don't settle for memorizing steps or formulas because that isn't true understanding. Instead, ask what

true understanding. Instead, ask what the underlying assumptions are. Ask what

each part depends on. Then write your own explanation of it. True scholars

don't just learn systems, they rebuild them. Yet another Harvard scholar,

them. Yet another Harvard scholar, Chimamandan Goi Adichi, also engaged in this habit, but in a different way.

Adishi spent time at Harvard's Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study, and her learning habits are some of the clearest examples of reflective scholarship you'll find. She is widely known for

you'll find. She is widely known for exploring the danger of a single story, a phrase that critiques oversimplified narratives and intellectual narrowness.

She deliberately seeks out perspectives that challenge her own, reading across cultures, political spectrums, and histories. In her interviews, she

histories. In her interviews, she describes how exposure to multiple narratives is not just a moral exercise.

It's an intellectual one. It deepens

thought. It complicates easy conclusions. This is reflective thinking

conclusions. This is reflective thinking and critical thinking at its highest level. The willingness to examine your

level. The willingness to examine your assumptions, not just gather more information. Adichi often rewrites

information. Adichi often rewrites passages again and again until she can feel the emotional and intellectual integrity of an idea. Her revisions in effect are explorations of meaning. As

she refineses a sentence, she refineses a thought. As she strengthens a scene,

a thought. As she strengthens a scene, she refineses a world view. And the

habit we learn from her is this. Expand

the number of lenses through which you see the world. Because remember, the border between fields is only imaginary.

And we limit our ability to innovate and find creative solutions if we limit ourselves to a single field or paradigm.

And so if you want to learn like Adichi, identify a belief you hold with confidence and then study the strongest argument against it. Not to convert yourself, but to cultivate mental

breath. Knowledge deepens when it's

breath. Knowledge deepens when it's placed in tension with other knowledge.

But yet another Harvard scholar who embodies this mindset is Natalie Portman, who graduated with a degree in psychology while maintaining an international acting career. What makes

her learning habits valuable is not her celebrity status, but the discipline and cognitive balance her life has required.

She has spoken often about the demands of switching between analytical study and creative performance. This kind of dual path learning develops a rare flexibility, the ability to inhabit two

modes of thought without losing depth in either. Many people imagine the

either. Many people imagine the humanities and sciences as opposites, but Portman's life shows how they can reinforce one another. Her psychological

studies inform her acting. Her acting

informs her understanding of human behavior. She pursues both not as

behavior. She pursues both not as competing commitments but as complimentary ones. That mindset

complimentary ones. That mindset reflects a classical scholarly principle. Breath is not the enemy of

principle. Breath is not the enemy of depth. If cultivated well, breadth

depth. If cultivated well, breadth sharpens depth. Portman also

sharpens depth. Portman also demonstrates the power of private discipline. She studied for exams while

discipline. She studied for exams while on film sets. She prepared research work while traveling. And this was her

while traveling. And this was her commitment to maintaining intellectual standards regardless of circumstance. So

if you want to adopt Portman's habits, practice shifting between different learning modes, one analytical, one expressive, and allow each to inform the

other. After all, learning is not just

other. After all, learning is not just about absorbing facts. It's about

integrating them. The fifth Harvard scholar here, the philosopher John RWS, embodied all of the principles and habits we've discussed so far, along with a habit that's even more important.

You see, RS studied and taught at Harvard, and his work has shaped modern moral and political philosophy more profoundly than almost anyone else in the last century. RS is often remembered

for his book, A Theory of Justice. But

what makes him relevant here isn't just the theory he produced. It's the kind of mind he cultivated in order to produce it. RS approached learning with a level

it. RS approached learning with a level of ethical seriousness that is surprisingly rare, even in elite academic settings. His ideas didn't

academic settings. His ideas didn't emerge from abstract exercises alone.

They emerged from a lifetime of moral reflection. RS served in the Pacific

reflection. RS served in the Pacific during World War II, and the experience deeply altered his intellectual trajectory. He witnessed the

trajectory. He witnessed the consequences of injustice, suffering, and arbitrary power in ways that textbooks could never convey. After the

war, he turned down a comfortable career path in the clergy and instead pursued philosophy, not because it was prestigious, but because it gave him a way to wrestle honestly with the questions the world had confronted him

with. He wanted to understand how

with. He wanted to understand how societies should be structured so that fairness wasn't just an accident, but was an intentional system. What makes RS especially instructive for anyone

pursuing a highle education on their own is the way he used reflection as a method of learning. He didn't rush to conclusions. He didn't treat knowledge

conclusions. He didn't treat knowledge as a collection of positions to memorize. He would revise drafts of his

memorize. He would revise drafts of his theory for years, sometimes abandoning entire sections because he felt they did not meet the moral and intellectual standards he was committed to. His

thinking was slow on purpose. For RS,

mental clarity was an ethical obligation. The result of all of this

obligation. The result of all of this was one of R's most influential ideas, what is called the original position.

And it's a powerful critical thinking tool. It asks you to imagine designing a

tool. It asks you to imagine designing a society without knowing anything about your own position in it. Not your class, your race, your abilities, your privileges. What kinds of policies would

privileges. What kinds of policies would you then endorse? The idea is simple, but the habit behind it is powerful.

Remove your biases. Step outside

yourself and think from a standpoint of fairness and impartiality. That habit is the essence of reflective judgment. It's

the willingness to let your thoughtful process of deliberation rather than merely your preferences and biases to guide your reasoning. If you want to learn like RS, begin by asking not only

what you believe, but why you believe it. Ask whether your conclusions would

it. Ask whether your conclusions would still feel right if you had been born as someone else. Ask whether the standards

someone else. Ask whether the standards you apply to others are standards you would willingly apply to yourself. This

is the kind of reflective discipline that turns information into wisdom. So

you see, none of these thinkers were elite because of their Harvard degree or their innate [music] processing speed or any of that. Instead, they were elite because of the kind of thinking they were willing to engage in. That

reflective critical thinking that isn't taught in school, but which if you master it will help you achieve true greatness. If you want to keep leveling

greatness. If you want to keep leveling up your critical thinking to make a massive impact not only on your own life but also on the lives of countless others, then be sure to watch this next video.