First of all, I want to say that this is a really good article! 👏 It explains something that we often observe in others (of course we see it more in others than in ourselves).
We tend to think that rationality and discussions are both meant to help us evaluate information based on its merit so we can find and adopt the best beliefs and arguments out there. But like you say, this is not what usually happens. Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber argue that reason evolved to create reasons (so we can justify our behavior to others) and to evaluate reasons (so we are not fooled by the reasons other people give to persuade us). They believe that when we discuss something, the first reasons we share are often weak and it is only when we are challenged that we try to come up with better reasons. Aside from the fact that this understanding of reason makes us seem a bit pathetic (in my opinion) and not as wise as we want to think we are, this interpretation also reveals a great opportunity to foster rationality: debates with people who disagree with us!
I've realized that when someone disagrees with me, I see it as a challenge and this forces me to make an effort: to try to find relevant information, express it clearly and persuasively, and to craft better arguments – more so than when I just think about that topic on my own. So I think that when two people disagree, they can challenge each other which can help them reason better. Of course, for this to happen many things must go right (people need to be somewhat rational, educated on the topic, and open to learning more or able to admit they may be wrong). But I think that, if we can focus more on the beliefs or topics discussed and leave the group identity behind, we can evaluate ideas on their merit (more than usual). If both people act like lawyers or press secretaries for their beliefs, they are determined to make the best case for them and that's what we want. But the other person will do the same. So then we then need to try to find the best information, perspective, or arguments presented - regardless of who shared them and which groups they belong to.
But of course, doing this takes effort and we need someone else to help us reason better. When we just assess information on our own, we don’t put in as much effort and we often rely on heuristics that save us time – at the expense of accuracy. In my opinion, judging a piece of information based on what the group thinks about it is not just about proving our allegiance, but about avoiding effort. If we like and trust our group, we assume that they know better than us, so we adopt the group’s beliefs and values (as long as they do not seem too irrational). It’s the same with people assuming that whatever an expert says, it must be true – it’s easier to trust them than to go and look for scientific studies and figure out what’s true or false. Plus, when we evaluate information, it’s much easier to think that whatever is familiar and makes intuitive sense is true, and we’re likely to be more familiar with the beliefs and arguments shared by someone in our group or someone we already like and trust.
I think that *good* debates are very valuable – they give us the chance to think deeply about what we think and why we think that and to refine our beliefs and arguments. I just wish we had more opportunities to practice this. What we see and experience on social media is almost always the opposite of this (in my opinion). Anyway, this was my contribution to the topic; maybe you or someone else will find this interesting.
Thank you very much, Paula, for your thoughtful comment. I agree with you that under the right conditions, we can indeed move beyond that 'trap'. I plan to discuss potential solutions not in the next, but in the post after the next one, which will conclude the series. I will explore potential solutions. Science is an excellent example of a system of institutions designed to foster the emergence of truth through discourse. However, this observation is somewhat sobering, as these institutions impose significant constraints (e.g., peer review) and yet there's still quite a bit of of 'us-vs-them' thinking in scientific debates, which aren't as dispassionate as they claim to be.
The Hayek trick relies on the ambiguity of the word "men", which changes its meaning depending on whether it's used by a man last century or a woman today.
Re: the connection of colonialism (or its outcomes) and inflammation, you might want to check with Peter Sterling on how much of a link one could make. Elevated blood pressure from chronic stress is pretty well known, as Sterling describes in a talk at Berkeley: https://youtu.be/cGZ53ecu8Jk?si=RrgLb0nSirJMXVyL&t=833
Thanks for the reference, will check it out. The idea suggested by the graph hinges on underestimating human resilience. For comparison: "Holocaust survivors had poorer psychological well-being", but "no significant differences in cognitive functioning or physical health." https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2010/09/holocaust-survivors
I think the point usually made by 'colonialism' is a chronic stress (like racism, which is the blood pressure link, and probably everything affected downstream), as opposed to a nightmare that begins and ends, and from which the more vulnerable may not make it through to get studied later.
An example of the kind of repeated stress that would match what Sterling began to study: if you're a Black parent in the US with a teenage son, is he safe if he encounters cops when he leaves the house?
First of all, I want to say that this is a really good article! 👏 It explains something that we often observe in others (of course we see it more in others than in ourselves).
We tend to think that rationality and discussions are both meant to help us evaluate information based on its merit so we can find and adopt the best beliefs and arguments out there. But like you say, this is not what usually happens. Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber argue that reason evolved to create reasons (so we can justify our behavior to others) and to evaluate reasons (so we are not fooled by the reasons other people give to persuade us). They believe that when we discuss something, the first reasons we share are often weak and it is only when we are challenged that we try to come up with better reasons. Aside from the fact that this understanding of reason makes us seem a bit pathetic (in my opinion) and not as wise as we want to think we are, this interpretation also reveals a great opportunity to foster rationality: debates with people who disagree with us!
I've realized that when someone disagrees with me, I see it as a challenge and this forces me to make an effort: to try to find relevant information, express it clearly and persuasively, and to craft better arguments – more so than when I just think about that topic on my own. So I think that when two people disagree, they can challenge each other which can help them reason better. Of course, for this to happen many things must go right (people need to be somewhat rational, educated on the topic, and open to learning more or able to admit they may be wrong). But I think that, if we can focus more on the beliefs or topics discussed and leave the group identity behind, we can evaluate ideas on their merit (more than usual). If both people act like lawyers or press secretaries for their beliefs, they are determined to make the best case for them and that's what we want. But the other person will do the same. So then we then need to try to find the best information, perspective, or arguments presented - regardless of who shared them and which groups they belong to.
But of course, doing this takes effort and we need someone else to help us reason better. When we just assess information on our own, we don’t put in as much effort and we often rely on heuristics that save us time – at the expense of accuracy. In my opinion, judging a piece of information based on what the group thinks about it is not just about proving our allegiance, but about avoiding effort. If we like and trust our group, we assume that they know better than us, so we adopt the group’s beliefs and values (as long as they do not seem too irrational). It’s the same with people assuming that whatever an expert says, it must be true – it’s easier to trust them than to go and look for scientific studies and figure out what’s true or false. Plus, when we evaluate information, it’s much easier to think that whatever is familiar and makes intuitive sense is true, and we’re likely to be more familiar with the beliefs and arguments shared by someone in our group or someone we already like and trust.
I think that *good* debates are very valuable – they give us the chance to think deeply about what we think and why we think that and to refine our beliefs and arguments. I just wish we had more opportunities to practice this. What we see and experience on social media is almost always the opposite of this (in my opinion). Anyway, this was my contribution to the topic; maybe you or someone else will find this interesting.
Thank you very much, Paula, for your thoughtful comment. I agree with you that under the right conditions, we can indeed move beyond that 'trap'. I plan to discuss potential solutions not in the next, but in the post after the next one, which will conclude the series. I will explore potential solutions. Science is an excellent example of a system of institutions designed to foster the emergence of truth through discourse. However, this observation is somewhat sobering, as these institutions impose significant constraints (e.g., peer review) and yet there's still quite a bit of of 'us-vs-them' thinking in scientific debates, which aren't as dispassionate as they claim to be.
In this case, I look forward to reading that post! 🙂
The Hayek trick relies on the ambiguity of the word "men", which changes its meaning depending on whether it's used by a man last century or a woman today.
That’s right. I mention the change of meaning in a footnote. In that case what was said really depended on who said it.
Just in time for the traditional exchanging of views at the Thanksgiving dinner table!
Re: the connection of colonialism (or its outcomes) and inflammation, you might want to check with Peter Sterling on how much of a link one could make. Elevated blood pressure from chronic stress is pretty well known, as Sterling describes in a talk at Berkeley: https://youtu.be/cGZ53ecu8Jk?si=RrgLb0nSirJMXVyL&t=833
Robert Sapolsky might have thoughts, too.
Thanks for the reference, will check it out. The idea suggested by the graph hinges on underestimating human resilience. For comparison: "Holocaust survivors had poorer psychological well-being", but "no significant differences in cognitive functioning or physical health." https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2010/09/holocaust-survivors
I think the point usually made by 'colonialism' is a chronic stress (like racism, which is the blood pressure link, and probably everything affected downstream), as opposed to a nightmare that begins and ends, and from which the more vulnerable may not make it through to get studied later.
An example of the kind of repeated stress that would match what Sterling began to study: if you're a Black parent in the US with a teenage son, is he safe if he encounters cops when he leaves the house?
A related discussion:
https://www.heart.org/en/news/2021/04/15/the-link-between-structural-racism-high-blood-pressure-and-black-peoples-health