3 ms·

I suggest a more simple and straightforward explanation for the limitations of "reason": our brain is, in fact, write only. That seems to be inconsistent with

I suggest a more simple and straightforward explanation for the limitations of "reason": our brain is, in fact, write only. That seems to be inconsistent with the research described in the article where subjects were asked for an opinion, then in some way required to explain that opinion, and then asked for another opinion on the same issue. People apparently did weaken in their convictions, but only when forced to confront them by examining the details.

bambax 10y ago
If you're referring to this paragraph: > A recent experiment performed by Mercier and some European colleagues neatly demonstrates this asymmetry. Participants were asked to answer a series of simple reasoning problems... then no. While I don't know the exact content of the experiment or the wording of the questions, a reasoning problem isn't an opinion, it's a process. A process (a function) can indeed yield a different result when some parameters are tweaked or a different input is used. But my theory is that opinions, once formed, are difficult / impossible to change, not for some unfalsifiable evolutionary explanation, but for a very simple structural reason that the brain is a WORM system. Also, my theory is just that: a hypothesis, a thought experiment. I don't pretend to know how the brain works; I'm just asking the question, if we think of the brain as WORM, can we explain more behaviors?
- Silhouette 10y ago
  I was referring to the third section, about Sloman and Fernbach's work.
- majewsky 10y ago
  > my theory is that opinions, once formed, are difficult / impossible to change How can you explain that this completely contradicts my experience, down to basic everyday experiences like: "I didn't like this album initially, but it has grown on me"?
cortesoft 10y ago
Yeah, I think it is more like 'lazy loading' than write only; we assume we have strong reasons for believing something, and only realize we don't when we are asked to actually explain why we believe something.

bambax 10y ago

If you're referring to this paragraph: > A recent experiment performed by Mercier and some European colleagues neatly demonstrates this asymmetry. Participants were asked to answer a series of simple reasoning problems... then no. While I don't know the exact content of the experiment or the wording of the questions, a reasoning problem isn't an opinion, it's a process. A process (a function) can indeed yield a different result when some parameters are tweaked or a different input is used. But my theory is that opinions, once formed, are difficult / impossible to change, not for some unfalsifiable evolutionary explanation, but for a very simple structural reason that the brain is a WORM system. Also, my theory is just that: a hypothesis, a thought experiment. I don't pretend to know how the brain works; I'm just asking the question, if we think of the brain as WORM, can we explain more behaviors?

Silhouette 10y ago
I was referring to the third section, about Sloman and Fernbach's work.
majewsky 10y ago
> my theory is that opinions, once formed, are difficult / impossible to change How can you explain that this completely contradicts my experience, down to basic everyday experiences like: "I didn't like this album initially, but it has grown on me"?

cortesoft 10y ago

Yeah, I think it is more like 'lazy loading' than write only; we assume we have strong reasons for believing something, and only realize we don't when we are asked to actually explain why we believe something.