Understanding the Limits of Rationality in Human Judgment
Written on
Rather than only engaging with those who share your views or curating examples that support your beliefs, seek out individuals who challenge your perspective. This can significantly enhance your comprehension of the world. — Hans Rosling, “Factfulness”
In the last three years, I've taken up chess, playing over 6,000 games. For seasoned players, this might seem trivial. Initially, I struggled with responses to the e4 opening due to its numerous possibilities. As I learned the fundamental principles of chess, I began to understand that the game has a structure, with some responses to e4 being superior to others.
Now, I rarely deliberate over my responses to e4; I've internalized various openings and can react swiftly to common strategies. My instincts guide me effectively against opponents of similar skill levels. Observing Grandmasters like Magnus Carlsen, Hikaru Nakamura, or Garry Kasparov reveals that they have committed numerous games to memory but often rely on intuition, especially during the endgame, which offers nearly limitless possibilities. Carlsen himself has noted that he typically thinks through moves only to validate his initial intuitive choices.
Intuitions are not inherently detrimental; we all possess them. Research indicates that our instinctive judgments can often be accurate. For instance, many college students believe it’s risky to stick with their first choice on multiple-choice exams. However, studies show that initial instincts are often correct.
Yet, as Malcolm Gladwell argues in his book, Blink, intuitions aren’t mystical entities.
They are observable phenomena. Over the past two decades, experimental psychology has focused heavily on unconscious processing. The American economist and cognitive psychologist Herbert Simon referred to intuition simply as "recognition."
There’s little difference between a child accurately identifying an object and a virologist pinpointing a virus. Thus, distinguishing between reliable and unreliable intuitions becomes easier. While we all possess solid intuitions that provide quick solutions to many problems, we also have misguided ones.
Research into unconscious processing reveals just how fallible our perceptions can be, often swayed by unknown influences. For example, studies have shown a connection between physical and moral disgust. We might like to think our moral judgments stem from logical reasoning, but that is often not the case.
Liljenquist, Zhong, and Galinsky demonstrated that individuals are more inclined to donate to charity in a clean-smelling environment than in a neutral one.
Additionally, Schnall, Haidt, and others found that exposure to unpleasant odors affected participants' moral judgments, leading them to make harsher or milder evaluations based on the scent's intensity.
Similar results appeared when comparing clean and messy workspaces. Other research indicated a correlation between feelings of disgust and the disapproval of gay men. Notably, conservatives were found to react more strongly to both unpleasant scents and tastes than liberals.
This suggests that our intuitions frequently overshadow our rational judgment. Yet when asked, many of us believe we are rational thinkers, assuming our moral evaluations are carefully considered. Too often, this is far from the truth.
Intuition and Our Inability to Reason
Researchers such as Daniel Kahneman, Keith Stanovich, Richard Nisbett, Lee Ross, Thomas Gilovich, Amos Tversky, and Hal Arkes have emphasized that "human thinking is not nearly as rational as once commonly believed."
Critical thinking is notoriously context-dependent and challenging to apply across disciplines. No one is immune; even intelligent scholars struggle to transfer their critical thinking skills to different subjects.
Michael Shermer noted that highly intelligent individuals are often better at rationalizing their beliefs, thanks to their engagement with research. Jay S. Snelson referred to this as the "ideological immune system," a psychological defense mechanism against evidence that contradicts our beliefs.
History is replete with examples illustrating this tendency: the misclassification of same-sex attraction as a mental disorder, the Catholic Church's rejection of heliocentrism, resistance to germ theory proposed by Louis Pasteur, and the persistent prevalence of various forms of prejudice throughout history.
Max Planck encapsulated this phenomenon with what is now known as Planck’s Maxim:
> "An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out and that the growing generation is familiarized with the idea from the beginning."
This dynamic can be observed in our discussions with peers, especially when we possess extensive knowledge on a topic while they do not, or in conversations with older generations who may hold outdated views on contemporary issues.
As noted, being well-informed about one subject does not guarantee accuracy on other significant matters.
For instance, the distinguished American geneticist and director of the Human Genome Project, Francis Collins, offers "evidence" for God's existence in his book, The Language of God (2006). What does he classify as evidence? A sense of joy experienced at the sight of a waterfall, which he interprets as a manifestation of God’s presence. This subjective experience is hardly objective or empirical.
When researchers posed basic questions about the world to highly educated individuals—medical students, teachers, scientists, and others—they sometimes performed even worse than the general populace. In fact, findings revealed that chimpanzees could provide more accurate answers at random than humans.
I've observed this reasoning failure and skepticism within Christianity, having invested considerable time studying the Christian right. It seems that debates among Christian New Testament scholars never yield definitive conclusions on doctrines.
Calvinists staunchly advocate for predestination, while Arminians argue against it as unbiblical and unjust. Universalists believe everyone will attain salvation, while evangelicals assert that judgment is based on individual faith. The list of disagreements is extensive.
The same pattern exists across various fields. In moral philosophy, utilitarians emphasize the importance of outcomes, while deontologists prioritize principles or imperatives. Moral absolutists assert the existence of definitive right and wrong answers, while relativists counter this notion.
The question arises: why do intelligent individuals struggle to converge on a shared ‘truth’ when presented with the same evidence?
The Rationalist Delusion
The simplest explanation is that we each possess unique experiences. Many of us draw broad conclusions about ‘the world’ based on our individual perspectives. This does not imply that every interpretation is identical; rather, our views are inherently fallible. While we may lack confidence individually, collectively we can devise effective solutions.
Each "individual reasoner" excels at justifying their viewpoints. Reflect on instances of anger in your life. I know that my feelings during those times were rarely grounded in rational assessments of the situation.
In those moments, we often believe we have clarity, perceiving the other party as lacking understanding. However, true clarity often emerges only after the emotion subsides.
These moments are crucial to remember. Individual reasoners benefit from the insights of others to identify their errors. Therefore, it is vital that we engage in productive communication aimed at progress rather than stubbornly adhering to our perceived truths.
History has shown us that rigid adherence to dogma—be it religious or Aristotelian—hindered our intellectual advancement for extended periods.
While many intriguing philosophical discussions occurred, we clung to unchallenged beliefs, stifling growth. We revered reason for too long, influenced by Plato’s widespread impact, and idolized those who proclaimed universal truths applicable to all. This was a misstep.
Jonathan Haidt confronts this deification of reason in the West in his book The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Religion and Politics, stating:
> "I’d say that the worship of reason is itself an illustration of one of the most long-lived delusions in Western history: the rationalist delusion. It’s the idea that reasoning is our most noble attribute, one that makes us like the gods (for Plato) or that brings us beyond the ‘delusion’ of believing in gods (for the New Atheists). The rationalist delusion is not just a claim about human nature. It’s also a claim that the rational caste (philosophers or scientists) should have more power, and it usually comes along with a utopian program for raising more rational children."
Haidt's central argument is not that we should abandon reasoning in favor of gut feelings; rather, he cautions against the overconfidence in any individual’s reasoning capabilities. Cognitive biases are so ingrained that we often resist evidence that contradicts our views.
I frequently witness this in discussions with some of my Christian friends. When I suggest books that question biblical inerrancy, they often dismiss the idea of reading them outright.
And I can’t fault them for that.
We tend to seek out information that confirms our biases rather than challenge our beliefs. Confirmation bias is simply the tendency to look for evidence that aligns with one's views while ignoring or reinterpreting contradictory evidence.
We all fall victim to this. Confirmation bias can also lead to belief perseverance, the tendency to maintain a belief despite clear evidence to the contrary.
Research in the United States has shown that readers of liberal literature, such as The Fall of the House of Bush and What Liberal Media?, are more likely to purchase other liberal works. The same pattern holds true for conservative literature, with readers of The O’Reilly Factor and If Democrats Had Any Brains showing little interest in opposing viewpoints. This trend explains why some of the smartest individuals may be reluctant to engage with "the opposition." Yet, interacting with differing perspectives is essential for forming well-rounded opinions. John Stuart Mill articulated this best:
> "He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion... Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them... he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form." — On Liberty
Mill's assertion captures a crucial truth: we must actively engage with opposing viewpoints presented by those who genuinely believe in them, in their most compelling form.
Research indicates that exposure to weak arguments can make individuals resistant to strong ones, suggesting that effective argumentation hinges on the persuasiveness of the opposing position.
Mill was right; we need to actively seek out arguments from those who sincerely hold them.
If you found this article insightful, I delve into similar themes in my upcoming book, Beyond Reason, set to release in August 2021. I also encourage you to check out my previous blog post, “Our Intuitions, Biases & Why Objective Reasoning is a Myth”:
In it, I will: 1. Explore the history of certainty and skepticism. 2. Examine the prevalence of intuitions and biases in our reasoning about various issues. 3. Discuss the decline of philosophy in public discourse and the shift towards social media.
Ultimately, I believe that the answers to our most pressing questions are complex, which is why it is essential to consider each other's arguments with an open mind.
The world would undoubtedly be a more harmonious place if we did.
Stay connected with me on social media (I’m most active on Instagram) for updates about my book! Thank you for your support!
Before you go…
I enjoy engaging with fellow thinkers. Connect with me on Twitter, Facebook, Goodreads, or Instagram.
Here’s a link to MY BOOK: “Up in the Air: Christianity, Atheism & the Global Problems of the 21st Century.” I would greatly appreciate your support if you decide to purchase it.
My podcast is available on Spotify, Google Podcasts, and SoundCloud.
If you found this article valuable, I’d love for you to share it on Facebook or Twitter to help others benefit from it. Until next time, keep reflecting!