Home Menu

Menu


Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old Jun 04, 2011, 09:22 AM
TheByzantine
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
"The article,” Haidt said, "is a review of a puzzle that has bedeviled researchers in cognitive psychology and social cognition for a long time. The puzzle is, why are humans so amazingly bad at reasoning in some contexts, and so amazingly good in others?"

"Reasoning was not designed to pursue the truth. Reasoning was designed by evolution to help us win arguments. That's why they call it The Argumentative Theory of Reasoning. So, as they put it, "The evidence reviewed here shows not only that reasoning falls quite short of reliably delivering rational beliefs and rational decisions. It may even be, in a variety of cases, detrimental to rationality. Reasoning can lead to poor outcomes, not because humans are bad at it, but because they systematically strive for arguments that justify their beliefs or their actions. This explains the confirmation bias, motivated reasoning, and reason-based choice, among other things."
http://edge.org/print/conversation.p...ntative-theory

Quote:
And the beauty of this theory is that not only is it more evolutionarily plausible, but it also accounts for a wide range of data in psychology. Maybe the most salient of phenomena that the argumentative theory explains is the confirmation bias.

Psychologists have shown that people have a very, very strong, robust confirmation bias. What this means is that when they have an idea, and they start to reason about that idea, they are going to mostly find arguments for their own idea. They're going to come up with reasons why they're right, they're going to come up with justifications for their decisions. They're not going to challenge themselves.

And the problem with the confirmation bias is that it leads people to make very bad decisions and to arrive at crazy beliefs. And it's weird, when you think of it, that humans should be endowed with a confirmation bias. If the goal of reasoning were to help us arrive at better beliefs and make better decisions, then there should be no bias. The confirmation bias should really not exist at all. We have a very strong conflict here between the observations of empirical psychologists on the one hand and our assumption about reasoning on the other.

But if you take the point of view of the argumentative theory, having a confirmation bias makes complete sense. When you're trying to convince someone, you don't want to find arguments for the other side, you want to find arguments for your side. And that's what the confirmation bias helps you do.

The idea here is that the confirmation bias is not a flaw of reasoning, it's actually a feature. It is something that is built into reasoning; not because reasoning is flawed or because people are stupid, but because actually people are very good at reasoning — but they're very good at reasoning for arguing. Not only does the argumentative theory explain the bias, it can also give us ideas about how to escape the bad consequences of the confirmation bias.

People mostly have a problem with the confirmation bias when they reason on their own, when no one is there to argue against their point of view. What has been observed is that often times, when people reason on their own, they're unable to arrive at a good solution, at a good belief, or to make a good decision because they will only confirm their initial intuition.

On the other hand, when people are able to discuss their ideas with other people who disagree with them, then the confirmation biases of the different participants will balance each other out, and the group will be able to focus on the best solution. Thus, reasoning works much better in groups. When people reason on their own, it's very likely that they are going to go down a wrong path. But when they're actually able to reason together, they are much more likely to reach a correct solution.
Thanks for this!
Open Eyes, Rohag, Rose76, Thomas in Ohio

advertisement
  #2  
Old Jun 04, 2011, 09:46 AM
madisgram's Avatar
madisgram madisgram is offline
Elder
 
Member Since: Nov 2008
Location: Sunny East Coast Florida!
Posts: 6,873
goodness, byz, a long article but filled with plausible theory. a few thoughts re myself:
one i find brainstorming with others leads to better results thru reasoning. used this in my business career.
two relying on my own individual reasoning to weigh out all the facts as i see them. pros and cons. by doing this i come to a decision. the way i am comfortable with the final decision is i ask myself am i willing to accept the outcome, good or bad. if yes, i proceed to act. of course i realize there is bias in my mind regardless.
three i do find in a conversation two things happen. if i am seeking their opinion i find it useful to see the other side or their thoughts. it helps me weigh out the truth as i see it knowing i may be missing something i need to consider. the other, i find most times in a conversation where there are opposing viewpoints i fall into the trap of being argumentative. when a member of a debating club i was especially argumentative on an intellectual scale. funny thing tho watching a debate i find both sides make sense as in truth.
enough about me. very good, thought provoking article.
__________________
Do not let your fire go out, spark by irreplaceable spark, in the hopeless swamps of the approximate, the not-quite, the not-yet, the not-at-all. Do not let the hero in your soul perish, in lonely frustration for the life you deserved, but have never been able to reach. Check your road and the nature of your battle.
The world you desired can be won. It exists, it is real, it is possible, it is yours..~Ayn Rand
Thanks for this!
Open Eyes
  #3  
Old Jun 05, 2011, 08:09 AM
elliemay's Avatar
elliemay elliemay is offline
Grand Magnate
 
Member Since: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,555
It is perhaps somewhat ironic that the authors, in fact, use reasoning to point out that humans are bad using reasoning to come to rational conclusions.

I guess by their own contention their own argument is likely incorrect, but self-serving?
__________________
.........................
Thanks for this!
venusss
  #4  
Old Jun 05, 2011, 08:12 AM
elliemay's Avatar
elliemay elliemay is offline
Grand Magnate
 
Member Since: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,555
I think I should immediately disagree with the author's contention in order to make it better - as in "more correct".
__________________
.........................
  #5  
Old Jun 05, 2011, 01:42 PM
TheByzantine
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I often am amused how frequently some so unwittingly provide evidence of the crux of the premise being put forth.
Thanks for this!
Open Eyes
  #6  
Old Jun 06, 2011, 06:32 AM
elliemay's Avatar
elliemay elliemay is offline
Grand Magnate
 
Member Since: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,555
Any argument provides evidence of the theory. In that sense it's brilliant.
__________________
.........................
  #7  
Old Jun 06, 2011, 08:39 AM
venusss's Avatar
venusss venusss is offline
Maidan Chick
 
Member Since: Mar 2010
Location: On the faultlines of the hybrid war
Posts: 7,139
I still prefer existentialism and post-modernism. You can argue with those, but in the end it does not really matter.
__________________
Glory to heroes!

HATEFREE CULTURE

  #8  
Old Jun 06, 2011, 09:02 AM
Open Eyes's Avatar
Open Eyes Open Eyes is offline
Legendary Wise Elder
 
Member Since: Mar 2011
Location: Northeast USA
Posts: 23,289
Very interesting Byz, are you in agreement with this article?

As I understand it, yes we have our own individual reasoning. And we have our own individual intuition. And if we make decisions just based on that we may not see the whole perspective of a situation. I personally do have my own strong reasoning skills along with strong intuition, however I do like to make sure that my perception is not in someway incorrect.

I strongly feel that by working in a group verses just making decisions and judgements based on my own personal reasoning and intuition is a better way of making sure that my perception of any given situation is correct. Now this word perception is not really included within this article and it is very significant. The way to gain in the power of existentialism is to make sure that our own perceptions are not getting in the way of progress. I have found this extremely useful myself.

As humans we grow and develope in different situations, especially today. Therefore we may have perceptions that can be harmful to us, we may have reasoning and intuition that revolves around a very distorted perception.

By engaging within a group of individuals who have different perceptions of behaviors and even mental illnesses, we can better look at our own perception and come to a better understanding about the issue. Once we look at the different possible perspectives we can better use our reasoning and intuitive skills to move forward and make better decisions. So yes, making decisions on our own can be harmful.

The real intelligence lies within allowing ourselves to veiw other perceptions and have the courage to listen and consider these different perspectives. It is a way to gain
and make much better decisions and actions. For those who wish to improve their psycological conditions and healing, it can be very benificial.

I appreciated the last thread as I got to view the different ideas and perceptions in the different posts last night. In opening my mind up, well, I saw other opinions that really helped inprove my own perceptions. And I also saw similar perceptions as my own helping me to also realize that I was not alone in my perceptions.

Open Eyes
  #9  
Old Jun 06, 2011, 09:36 AM
TheByzantine
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Common sense is the most fairly distributed thing in the world, for each one thinks he is so well-endowed with it that even those who are hardest to satisfy in all other matters are not in the habit of desiring more of it than they already have. ~Rene Descartes

If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things. ~Rene Descartes

Solipsism: Belief that only I myself and my own experiences are real, while anything else—a physical object or another person—is nothing more than an object of my consciousness. As a philosophical position, solipsism is usually the unintended consequence of an over-emphasis on the reliability of internal mental states, which provide no evidence for the existence of external referents.

"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" ~John Maynard Keynes
My purpose in citing the article was not intended as persuasive. In view of my perception of how readily so many will embrace a proposal that reasonably may be contrary to their own best interest, I found the article intriguing. No doubt, my confirmation bias kicked in.

Whether the premise of the article truly has merit remains to be seen. Until the critiques are in and the advocates for and against have had a go at it, we likely should reserve judgment about the efficacy of the theory.
Thanks for this!
Open Eyes
  #10  
Old Jun 06, 2011, 09:54 AM
Perna's Avatar
Perna Perna is offline
Pandita-in-training
 
Member Since: Sep 2006
Location: Maryland
Posts: 27,289
Seems to have been written by a bunch of men? The whole "rational" thing, as if that's all there is, that "not rational" is the same as "irrational"; very Professor Higgins, poor Professor Higgins.

I reason to figure out what I think is best for me, at the moment. Whether someone else thinks it's the best for me or whether I will think it is the best for me next week, is beside the point. I can't think how my trying to figure out what I should say/do would be to win an argument; I try not to argue with myself very much.
__________________
"Never give a sword to a man who can't dance." ~Confucius
  #11  
Old Jun 06, 2011, 10:31 AM
TheByzantine
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Gerd Gigerenzer finds this view on reasoning is most provocative as "reasoning is not about truth but about convincing others when trust alone is not enough. Doing so may seem irrational, but it is in fact social intelligence at its best." Steven Pinker notes that "The Argumentative Theory is original and provocative, has a large degree of support, and is strikingly relevant to contemporary affairs, including political discourse, higher education, and the nature of reason and rationality. It is likely to have a big impact on our understanding of ourselves and current affairs."
http://edge.org/print/conversation.p...ntative-theory

Putting the chauvinism aside, Perna, I think the context of the article is different from what you discuss. Of course a solipsist would not be concerned with testing the efficaciousness of another's thought process.
  #12  
Old Jun 06, 2011, 10:35 AM
Open Eyes's Avatar
Open Eyes Open Eyes is offline
Legendary Wise Elder
 
Member Since: Mar 2011
Location: Northeast USA
Posts: 23,289
Thanks Byz,
Yes intrigueing and something to ponder. LOL Perna, yes, can't help wondering if any women were included in this thought process. LOL And the merit of this article, if women are added with their interpretation may never come to a conclusion. And I can't help but chuckle with that thought.

LOL arguing with oneself can be confusing as well perna. Often leading to no decision making at all, so to some degree another opinion can be useful at the very least as we can debate ourselves into oblivian.

Again Byz thank you for putting different ideas up as it is really nice to see the thoughts and opinions of others. Something different to ponder other than our day to day stuggles with whatever we are dealing with. Even to allow for a chuckle is nice, thank you perna.

To be honest, I am in need of both right now as I have been very tangled and overwhelmed at the moment. So thanks Byz, I don't think you realize how nice it is to ponder about something else, thanks.

Open Eyes

Last edited by Open Eyes; Jun 06, 2011 at 11:28 AM.
Reply
Views: 823

attentionThis is an old thread. You probably should not post your reply to it, as the original poster is unlikely to see it.




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:31 AM.
Powered by vBulletin® — Copyright © 2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.




 

My Support Forums

My Support Forums is the online community that was originally begun as the Psych Central Forums in 2001. It now runs as an independent self-help support group community for mental health, personality, and psychological issues and is overseen by a group of dedicated, caring volunteers from around the world.

 

Helplines and Lifelines

The material on this site is for informational purposes only, and is not a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis or treatment provided by a qualified health care provider.

Always consult your doctor or mental health professional before trying anything you read here.