Podcast Summary
Reasoning evolved for social functions: Cognitive science suggests humans developed reasoning to convince others and build complex societies. Platforms like Indeed, Rocket Money, and FedEx use reason to facilitate desired outcomes.
Our capacity for reasoning evolved not just for individual problem-solving, but for giving reasons to others. According to cognitive scientist Hugo Mercier, humans developed reason as a social tool to convince others to cooperate and make agreements. This social function of reason is crucial for building complex societies. In the hiring world, Indeed serves as a platform to help employers find and connect with quality candidates efficiently, acting as a reason for job seekers to apply. Similarly, Rocket Money functions as a reason for individuals to cancel unwanted subscriptions and save money. Both platforms leverage the power of reason to facilitate desired outcomes. Additionally, FedEx provides reasons for businesses to trust its fast and reliable delivery services. Overall, the ability to give reasons is a fundamental aspect of human development and progress.
The importance of being open to evaluating all potential information: Being skeptical is crucial, but we should also consider contrary evidence and not overlook the importance of reason in our decision-making process
Being skeptical of crackpot theories is important, but we may be overlooking the importance of being open to evaluating all potential information. According to Hugo Mercier, our skepticism often focuses on the wrong things, and we should be more open to considering contrary evidence. Reason, as defined by Mercier and his co-author Dan Sperber, is the reasons we give and the cognitive mechanisms that allow us to produce and evaluate these reasons. It's important to note that reason does not equate to being logical or rational. Many animals and humans engage in rational behavior without using reason. Reason is a specific cognitive process, and most of our mind goes on without using it. In their book "Enigma of Reason," Mercier discusses the idea that there are dual process models of how we think in the brain, and in his new book "Not Born Yesterday," he explores how humans are less gullible than often assumed. Overall, the conversation highlights the complexity of reason and the importance of being open-minded in our evaluation of information.
Beyond Dual Process Model: The mind is made up of numerous modules, each dedicated to specific functions, and rationality emerges from their interactions
Our understanding of human cognition goes beyond the dual process model, which divides mental mechanisms into intuitive (System 1) and rational (System 2) processes. This model, popularized by Daniel Kahneman, is intuitive but has limitations. A more complex view suggests that the mind is made up of numerous modules, each dedicated to specific functions, and rationality emerges from their interactions. This perspective, inspired by evolutionary psychology, is more in line with how complex systems, including the human mind, operate. Each module works relatively independently but communicates with others to enable coordinated decision-making. This perspective provides a more nuanced understanding of human cognition, recognizing that it's not as simple as two distinct processes.
The role of unconscious processes in reasoning: While we use reason consciously, much of it happens unconsciously, shaping our beliefs and understanding through intuition and complex communication systems.
While we use reason as a conscious process, a significant portion of it actually happens unconsciously. We may intuitively know if a reason is good or bad without being able to explain why. This unconscious cognitive layer is present even in seemingly explicit processes like reasoning. It's important to remember that a lot of our beliefs, formed through reasoning and reflection, are influenced by unconscious processes. This isn't a cause for concern, as there's an infinite regress to the point where we just have intuitions. However, it's worth noting that human beings are the only species known to reason, likely due to our complex communication systems. This ability to produce and evaluate reasons sets us apart from other animals. While they can engage in complex thoughts, only humans can express these thoughts through language. The unconscious processes in reasoning add depth to our understanding of how our minds work and emphasize the importance of recognizing their role in shaping our beliefs.
The Unique Human Ability to Offer Reasons: Humans have the unique ability to offer reasons through language, while animals communicate through actions and body language
While animals, including dogs, have complex thought processes and problem-solving abilities, they do not have the capacity to offer reasons or explanations for their actions like humans do. This unique ability in humans is closely linked to language and communication, allowing us to express our thoughts and understand the meaning behind others' words and actions. The evolution of reasoning and language are interconnected, with the belief that reason evolved after the development of complex communication systems. However, it's important to note that the ability to understand and decode meaning, whether through language or nonverbal cues, is crucial for both humans and animals in communicating effectively. While animals may not be able to offer reasons in the same way humans do, they can still convey meaning through their actions and body language. The discussion also touched upon the idea that language is not the only means of expressing reasons, as pointing to an object or situation can also effectively convey the reason behind a belief or action. Overall, the ability to reason and offer reasons is a distinctly human trait, and it's this meta-level of communication that sets us apart from other animals.
Understanding Pointing and Abstract Reasoning in Humans and Animals: Humans possess a unique ability for abstract reasoning through words, gestures, and communication, while animals, including chimpanzees, do not understand pointing as a helpful gesture and have limited capacity for abstract reasoning.
While some animals, particularly domesticated species, can understand pointing to some extent, it is not a universal ability among animals. Chimpanzees, for instance, do not understand pointing as a helpful gesture, as they live in competitive environments and do not assume others want to help them. Humans, on the other hand, have a unique ability to express and understand complex meanings through words, gestures, and other forms of communication. This capacity for abstract reasoning is thought to have evolved in humans due to our unprecedented ability to cooperate and communicate with each other. This social environment created the selection pressures that favored individuals with better reasoning abilities, leading to the development of a specialized neural system for finding and evaluating reasons. This is why humans are the only animals known to possess this level of reasoning ability.
The social importance of giving reasons: People give reasons for their actions to build trust, maintain relationships, and make informed decisions, suggesting that reason evolved primarily for social needs.
The development of reason in humans may have been driven primarily by social needs, rather than just logical or objective ones. According to the discussion, when people interact and cooperate, they need to be able to justify their actions to each other for accurate judgment and understanding. This ability to explain ourselves and give reasons for our actions allows us to build trust, maintain good relationships, and avoid misunderstandings or conflicts. The exchange of reasons during disagreements also helps us make informed decisions about who to trust and what is true. Ultimately, the success of this communication and reasoning process relies on its ability to lead us to more accurate beliefs overall. While the idea of reason being objectively out there in the world is often considered, the social perspective suggests that the intuitions people have about good reasons and bad reasons must track what is actually true in order for the process to be beneficial and selected for in human evolution.
The development of reasoning, language, and social structures in humans: Reasoning enabled effective communication and cooperation, leading to complex social structures, but also has a persuasive side that can be biased. The evaluative side of reason helps us assess argument validity and move closer to the truth.
The evolution of reasoning, language, and social structures in humans was a progressive process, likely triggered by ecological changes that made cooperation more beneficial. Reasoning, in turn, enabled more effective communication and cooperation, leading to the development of complex social structures. However, reasoning also has a rhetorical side, used to persuade others, which can be biased and disconnected from the truth. Yet, the evaluative side of reason helps us assess the validity of arguments and move closer to the truth. The exact sequence of events leading to these developments is not fully understood, but it's clear that they are interconnected.
Objective evaluation of reasons in discussions: Recognizing biases in reason production and objectively evaluating reasons presented can foster productive discussions and openness to new ideas
While we strive for objective reasoning and accuracy in our beliefs, our production of reasons can be influenced by biases. However, when engaging in good faith discussions with others, we can objectively evaluate reasons presented to us, leading to a productive exchange of ideas. Reason alone may not be sufficient to change deeply held beliefs, as other cognitive mechanisms and social pressures can interfere. Yet, recognizing and addressing these influences can help us remain open to new information and perspectives. In essence, the objective evaluation of reasons, combined with the biased production of reasons, fosters a dynamic and evolving understanding of the world.
Beliefs influenced by factors beyond reason: Our beliefs are shaped by social interactions, personal experiences, and reasoning, with social influences and personal experiences often coming first.
Our beliefs are not solely formed through reason, but rather, we often come to our beliefs first, and then use reason to justify them. This process is influenced by various factors, including social interactions and personal experiences. While reason is a crucial tool for justifying and challenging beliefs, it did not evolve specifically for that purpose. Instead, it's an accidental byproduct of our evolutionary history, which includes the need to persuade others and engage in social interactions. This helps explain why our reasoning abilities are subject to biases and irrationalities. In essence, our reasoning abilities are shaped by both our biology and our social environment.
The power of social support in shaping beliefs: People tend to hold onto beliefs, even if false, due to the value of social support. Our brains prioritize perception over communication to form an accurate worldview.
Our brains can be confusing the costs and benefits when it comes to holding onto beliefs, even if they are false. Using the example of a doomsday cult, people stayed in the cult despite the evidence that the world was not ending because the social support they received was more valuable to them than leaving. Our minds are wired to be persuasive, but we should be cautious when updating our beliefs based on communication. Our perception is trusted more than communication because it helps us form an accurate vision of the world, while communication comes from sources that may have different interests. The process of updating our beliefs is essentially conservative, and we don't want to make radical changes from moment to moment. Our minds process communicating information differently than perception, and we cannot just take someone else's word for it in an evolutionary context, as they may have their own interests.
The persistence of beliefs despite evidence: People's beliefs, influenced by perception and incentives, can be resistant to change even with evidence. Intuitive resistance and rationalization play a role in maintaining beliefs.
People's beliefs, even those close to us, may diverge from ours, and their incentives might not align with ours. This filter makes us require proof and good reasons to change our minds. Perception, on the other hand, can override memory. People's false beliefs, which are surprisingly consistent across the world, are not typically caused by persuasive propagandists but rather their readiness to accept certain beliefs. Examples of this include vaccine skepticism, which is not caused by the stories fed to them but rather an intuitive resistance. People rationalize their beliefs more often than they have their minds changed by others. This was also evident in the studies of Nazi propaganda, which might not have been as successful in changing people's minds as previously thought. Overall, the ease with which people grow up accepting certain beliefs, compared to others, is the main reason for their persistence.
Propaganda reinforces existing beliefs: Propaganda can strengthen beliefs and unite like-minded individuals, but it's less effective at creating new beliefs from scratch
Nazi propaganda was most effective in reinforcing existing beliefs rather than creating new ones. Historian Jan Kershaw found that in areas where Germans were already highly anti-Semitic, Nazi propaganda was widely accepted and spread. However, in areas with low antisemitism, it had no effect or even backfired. The Nazis also attempted to persuade factory workers to give up communism and impose euthanasia for the handicapped, but these efforts were largely unsuccessful. More recent studies confirm Kershaw's conclusion that propaganda can have insidious effects even if it doesn't persuade anyone. For instance, it can give people a false sense of support for their beliefs and coordinate actions with like-minded individuals. However, when people lack a preexisting strong belief, propaganda can help shape new attitudes, which is known as the "non-attitudes" phenomenon. In summary, propaganda can be a powerful tool for reinforcing existing beliefs and coordinating actions, but it is less effective at creating new beliefs from scratch.
The Influence of Trusted Sources and Advertising on Public Opinion: Trusted sources can shape public opinion, and advertising can influence consumer choices, but some efforts may be ineffective or even a waste of money
Individuals can be easily influenced by trusted sources, even on topics they have no knowledge or intuition about. This can lead to problematic collective consequences, as public opinion influences policy. Advertising, while not always changing people's minds, can still be effective in shifting brand awareness and influencing consumer choices, even if the effects are relatively small. However, there is evidence that some advertising efforts may be a waste of money, as companies may not fully understand the reasons behind their spending. The use of a medical analogy could be applied to this concept, suggesting that individuals may have pre-existing biases or conditions (represented by their trust in certain sources) that can be exploited or influenced by external factors (represented by advertising or other persuasive efforts). These influences may not fundamentally change the individual's beliefs or behaviors, but they can still have significant collective impacts.
Strive for open-mindedness, not skepticism: Be open to diverse perspectives and avoid rejecting information too easily to expand understanding of the world
Instead of focusing on being more skeptical, we should strive to be more open-minded and willing to consider diverse perspectives. The problem is not that people accept things too easily, but rather that they reject things too easily, especially when it comes to important issues like vaccines or scientific consensus. People often hold onto their beliefs despite being presented with compelling evidence to the contrary. Therefore, it's essential to seek out information from various sources, even if they come from different disciplines, political parties, or ethnic backgrounds. This approach will help us avoid missing out on valuable insights and expand our understanding of the world. By default, we tend to be quite conservative in our thinking, and the abundance of information available to us today makes it challenging to determine the credibility of sources. Therefore, being open-minded and willing to engage in dialogue with others can help us overcome these challenges and make more informed decisions.
The challenge of letting go of false information: Creating trustworthy governments and institutions, as well as increasing transparency, can help reduce the belief in conspiracy theories and misinformation.
Our personal beliefs and social connections can make it difficult for us to let go of false information, even when faced with evidence to the contrary. Conspiracy theories, for instance, can be deeply ingrained in a person's identity and social circle, leading to significant social costs if abandoned. The solution to this issue lies in creating trustworthy governments and institutions, as well as increasing transparency. Trustworthiness and transparency can help reduce the grounds for believing in conspiracy theories and other forms of misinformation, ultimately leading to a lower aggregate level of belief in such ideas. However, radical polarization and epistemic polarization in societies, such as the United States, present a challenge in changing people's minds. While the ideological and epistemic polarization may not be as extreme as often thought, addressing this issue requires ongoing efforts to promote open dialogue, factual information, and mutual understanding.
Despite political differences, Americans are closer on issues than perceived: Affective polarization, driven by ideological coherence and social media, is a significant issue in the US, but it's not the only factor and there's hope for bridging divides through technology
While Americans may hold strong political beliefs, the average Republican and Democrat are actually closer on issues than many believe. However, affective polarization, or the growing dislike between parties, is a significant issue. This trend is driven in part by increasing ideological coherence, which makes it easier to infer and disagree on various topics. Social media can exacerbate this issue by exposing users to extreme viewpoints, creating a distorted understanding of the opposing side. While social media is a contributing factor, it's not the sole cause of effective polarization. Historical issues, such as racial tensions, may also play a role. It's important to remember that this phenomenon isn't unique to the US, but it's not a global issue either. Politicians exploiting this distrust could be another factor. Despite these challenges, it's essential to remain skeptical of overly pessimistic views on new media and believe that technology can still bring people together.
Navigating the Opportunities and Challenges of Social Media: As we learn to discern trustworthy sources and engage in constructive criticism, we can enhance our reasoning abilities and build stronger relationships through social media, while remaining cautious of its risks.
The rise of social media and digital communication presents both opportunities and challenges for society. While it allows for larger-scale communication and faster social change, it also raises new dangers and challenges to traditional forms of government and social organization. However, an optimistic message can be drawn from this: as we become more adept at discerning trustworthy sources and engaging in constructive criticism, we can enhance our reasoning abilities and build stronger relationships. As the Japanese researcher Toshio Yamagishi suggested, trust is a skill that improves with practice. By trusting others more, we can learn who to trust and open ourselves up to new opportunities. However, it's essential to be mindful of the risks and not let our guard down completely. Ultimately, the key is to strike a balance between trust and caution, and to continue striving for reasonable and open-minded discourse.
View setbacks as learning opportunities: Mistakes are inevitable in the learning process, embrace them as stepping stones to progress
Making mistakes is an essential part of progress. According to Hugo Mercier, it's important to view setbacks as learning opportunities rather than insurmountable obstacles. Whether it's losing time or money, or looking a bit silly, the end goal is to keep moving forward and eventually emerge as a winner. Mercier emphasizes the importance of maintaining an optimistic perspective and understanding that mistakes are an inevitable part of the learning process. So, next time you encounter a setback, try to view it as a stepping stone towards progress, rather than a reason to give up.