16 ms·

Ideology Impairs Sound Reasoning

169 points by Reedx 8y ago

gibsonf1 8y ago
So True!
fossuser 8y ago
This feels like evidence for motivated skepticism: https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Motivated_skepticism https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Motivated_skepticism
ilaksh 8y ago
My take on this is that people need to realize that they are not an exception to this. _Everyone_ has an ideology that overrides logic for many topics. I think the reason for this is that our brains just generally don't operate on a rational basis because it's not practical for humans. We have to rely on preformed perspectives when it comes to certain broad perspectives. Another reason is that it's almost necessary to adopt your group's perspectives in order to fit in socially. Or at least it's unlikely you will have a different perspective if much of your information comes from one group.
- azeotropic 8y ago
  Nonsense, my views are based on sound reasoning, unlike my opponents, who are blinded by their ideology!
- tathougies 8y ago
  On a fundamental level, the decision to stick with 'rationality' as the basis off of which to make decisions is its own kind of ideology.
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    Rationality is just a tool, which can be used or misused. That said, it has a really impressive list of accomplishments when it is used well. The rationalist view and rationalist methods have created more wealth and alleviated more human suffering than most any mystic of the world pre-1800s would ever have imagined.
    - pl1234 8y ago
      "The rationalist view and rationalist methods have created more wealth and alleviated more human suffering than most any mystic of the world pre-1800s would ever have imagined." This is not the rational statement you seem to think it is. A lot of cultures/religions think they are the saviors of humanity, do you really think it is different this time? How do you even quantify the total "human suffering" pre and post-1800? You can't, dig into it and you will find it's a morally loaded term. There can be specific quantifications like measuring pain with a likert scale, but these are not the same as an overall "human suffering" factor, any attempt at measurement introduces subjectivity. What you have is a hardcore religious belief, not a rational one.
    - throwaway2048 8y ago
      People would do well to remember that the ideology of the Nazis had deep roots in rationalism and ideas about the enlightenment. Rationality is not an unmitigated good when not tempered with humanity and empathy for others. A decent discussion on this topic: https://old.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/6k2f7d/how_did_the_philosophy_of_the_enlightenment_led/ https://old.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/6k2f7d/how_d...
      - stcredzero 8y ago
        Rationality is not an unmitigated good when not tempered with humanity and empathy for others. No disagreement at all.
    - tathougies 8y ago
      > That said, it has a really impressive list of accomplishments when it is used well Of course it does. Almost every person in the history of mankind will have claimed to act rationally, including the scientist inventing better means of wheat production on fewer acres, as well as the voodoo witch doctor trying to do the same thing. By necessity, whatever works is going to claim to have been inspired by rationality.
      - stcredzero 8y ago
  - weberc2 8y ago
    What do you mean, exactly? 1) Objectivity is a kind of ideology? This is objectively false ;) 2) Assigning desirability to that which we perceive as rational is a kind of ideology? In this case, can something so universal that it's surely biologically hard-coded be considered an 'ideology', esp in the context of the article? 3) Choosing to reason rationally instead of ideologically is an ideological choice (or perhaps even a choice motivated by the kind of ideological reasoning discussed in the article)? 4) Something else entirely?
    - throwawayjava 8y ago
      Rationality is not ideology, but epistemology and ideology are often closely related. Also, it's not as if rationality is "above the fray", so to speak. Differing relationships to rationality are at the core of major differences between schools of thought in both international relations and economics, for instance.
      - weberc2 8y ago
        I think of it as different errors in perspective about what is rational, but rationality is still the virtue regardless.
        throwawayjava 8y ago
        You're redefining words; rationality means something much more specific than "not magical thinking".
    - throwaway2048 8y ago
      The mistake is to think you can reach a state of "objective" to begin with.
      - eeZah7Ux 8y ago
        Spot on. The word "rationality" is thrown around as it was possible (and desirable) to reach a objective view on every subject.
  - p1necone 8y ago
    I think you need to justify this claim. I don't think that fundamentally rationality is just the same as any ideology, in fact it seems fundamentally wrong to me, the same way that claiming that opinions trump observable facts would be to me.
    - tathougies 8y ago
      Can you point me to a system of logic that is both able to make substantial claims and for which every statement in that system can be proven. Mathematics says you cannot (the incompleteness theorems), so there will always be a fundamental truth you will need to subscribe to. This indicates that those claiming 'rationality' almost certainly have a belief that is irrational even according to themselves (if they are honest enough to admit it). Here is an example. Suppose we are arguing about the need for a certain tax. The point of contention is whether the tax will majnly benefit the rich or the poor. You start out with an argument: even if the tax benefits those not in poverty, the effects will trickle down. Despite your opinions on trickle down economics, the argument was unsound at the very first words. 'Even if' is a form of argument via excluded middle. It presupposes that either tbe tax will help those in poverty or it will not. The law of excluded middle forms unsound logical systems. There are ways around it but i guarantee you you will not see this in 'rational' discourse In the context of these everyday absurdities and the fact most logical systems are -- by necessity -- incomplete, its almost inavariably more interesting to talk about the unproven statements (the ideology) than the system of logic surrounding it. In other words, the ideology is ultimately what matters, even to rational thinkers.
  - james_s_tayler 8y ago
    Correct. This is what the Age of Reason and The Age of Enlightenment were all about. Philosophy underpins ideology to a large extent.
  - trashtester 8y ago
    "Rationalism" is an ideology$. It elevates ideas arrived at by rational arguments to a special status. Other sources of knowledge, such as empirical knowledge, culture and tradition as well as biological instincts and gut feelings are often disregarded by rationalists which can potentially prevent the adherents from reaching their goals. "Rational" is also a word that can be used for rhetorical purposes. If one claims that something is "rational", it is often specifically because it is not obvious to the audience that it IS rational. The claim is an attempt to influence the listener to believe the truthfulness of the something. Similarly to when people say "trust me", such a claim may in itself be a reason to be a bit cautious. "Rationality" is a tool than can be wielded in many ways and for many purposes. Properly used, it is a good source to knowledge, but it needs to be combined with empirical knowledge as well as heuristical information stored in social groups and even our DNA, even when not fully understood. Edit: $ From the definition of "Ideology", epistemology is specifically excluded. Since Rationalism deals with epistemology, it is technically excluded from the definition, as long as the Rationalism is in good faith, and not driven by ulterior motives. This distinction does not make a difference for the rest of the argument.
    - tathougies 8y ago
      > From the definition of "Ideology", epistemology is specifically excluded Considering there are epistemologic ideologies, I'm not sure how you can claim this. For example, in the West (and now common throughout the world, since most of the world has adopted Western epistemology, whether they admit it or not), we believe in the scientific method -- that if we can observe, measure, and replicate an experiment, we have established 'empirical truth'. The idea that such a process can establish universal truth (rather than simply be individual measurements of how the universe acted at a certain point in time) is based on the Abrahamic notion of an unchanging God. It is certainly an ideology in and of itself. It may be a useful ideology, but claiming that it is not an ideology is just dishonest.
      - trashtester 8y ago
        You are right. I checked the definition on wikipedia after writing my comment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology But further reading shows that my correction was wrong, and my initial assumption was correct. Thanks for pointing this out :)
- haberman 8y ago
  I believe the best ways to buck this weakness are: 1. Invest more energy into trying to falsify your favored beliefs than into confirming them. 2. Embrace humility, since we're always wrong sometimes. Humility to me means: you can have convictions, but you should never assume that people who disagree with you are stupid or evil.
  - toufiqbarhamov 8y ago
    I believe the best ways to buck this weakness are: 1. Invest more energy into trying to falsify your favored beliefs than into confirming them. 2. Embrace humility, since we're always wrong sometimes. Humility to me means: you can have convictions, but you should never assume that people who disagree with you are stupid or evil. I’d add two other ideas that I try to adhere to, continuing your list. 3. Try to adopt the perspectives of those you disagree with, especially when you’re finding yourself ascribing malice, stupidity, moral failing, or just find yourself baffled by someone. Such feelings are often a sign that you don’t understand where someone is coming from, and though you may still disagree with them, you’ll have a better platform to discuss matters. 4. Try to see yourself and your time through the same lens you use to look back on history. We’re not special or unique, we’re goinf to be seen as primitives eventually, and it can be helpful to imagine in which ways that perception might be levied. Both of these help to broaden perspective and depend empathy, while also divorcing yourself from a strict “first person view” or tribal view. It’s also a couple of concrete steps to gain some distance from your feelings in the present, which makes your steps easier to achieve. You’ll also find that the people you end up despising form a much smaller pool than most.
    - logicchains 8y ago
      "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
      - stcredzero 8y ago
        Then what kind of mind not only refuses to entertain novel thoughts, but will condemn anything that even contains a whiff of what seems to be different thinking? It's easy to see the answer in history.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  _Everyone_ has an ideology that overrides logic for many topics. Indeed. Both sides of the political spectrum have this! As a person who values truth and knowledge, let me warn my fellow people: Beware of jingoistic and tribalistic claims that reality has a [political-descriptor-here] bias. No human being is free of the need for a little self doubt and introspection. No ideology can act as an oracle, and ideologies which have made that claim throughout history have acted against the truth and even given rise to tragedy and atrocity. If you have reached the point where you believe your opponents are somehow lesser than you are, and that you no longer need to convince but instead must coerce their cooperation, you need to take a step back and beware. No belief system, philosophy, or intellectual movement is so clued into ultimate truth, that its adherents can afford to cease questioning themselves. It's precisely those groups of people who cease questioning themselves and suppress the questions from others who are most at risk of becoming history's villains. (One of my most disilusioned days was when I saw fellow atheists wearing their atheism like an arm band, using it as a pretext to declare their superiority over fellow human beings, and intoning it like some sort of religious creed. Everyone was wasting time preaching to the choir, and as I was at a musical gathering and just wanted to play music, I called it out. Then I watched them turn on me.) (Both sides of the political spectrum deny science for ideology. They just deny different parts of science. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkdIB03RdBg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkdIB03RdBg )
  - weberc2 8y ago
    You're getting downvoted, but I can't tell why. Maybe you've offended both sides by contending that their side is as guilty as the other of ideological reasoning?! :) EDIT: Wow, someone downvoted me literally ~2 seconds after I posted. Good work, Quickdraw!
    - stcredzero 8y ago
      You're getting downvoted, but I can't tell why. Maybe you've offended both sides by contending that their side is as guilty as the other of ideological reasoning?! :) There is a big part of online society for whom such jingoistic tribalism is thought of as some sort of virtuous, intellectually worthy exercise. I find this highly disturbing. If one is interested in finding the truth, then self doubt and the willingness to ask questions is paramount! It's precisely that "you're either with us, or against us" mentality which is a hallmark of the tyrants and the enemies of reason. It's precisely that mindset that burned witches and imprisoned Galileo. It's precisely that mindset that gives rise to ideological reasoning. EDIT: Wow, someone downvoted me literally ~2 seconds after I posted. Good work, Quickdraw! It seems like some group of activists has tried to come in to Hacker News and use it to push their agenda. I, for one, do not appreciate their attempts to push their agenda by creating fear of being labeled an "-ist."
- weberc2 8y ago
  > My take on this is that people need to realize that they are not an exception to this. _Everyone_ has an ideology that overrides logic for many topics. Agreed, but it's also worth pointing out that not everyone indulges in ideological reasoning to the same degree in general. I've heard people make related arguments that because everyone reasons ideologically at points, there can be no objective position on <topic>; of course this argument holds little water, and it seems designed to rationalize the conversant's belief to himself rather than to persuade his audience.
- s17n 8y ago
  > My take on this is that people need to realize that they are not an exception to this. _Everyone_ has an ideology that overrides logic for many topics. Is that what the paper actually says? Based on my personal experience I would think there's a lot of variance but I would be interested to see actual data.
  - perfmode 8y ago
    Do you believe it is possible to be ideology-free?
- maxerickson 8y ago
  I think it's often even simpler, where ideology just provides false premises. So people are acting in a mostly rational manner but starting from bad information. (I get that acting on false information is not rational, I'm arguing that it is frequently the core of the irrationallity)
  - ilaksh 8y ago
    My point is that everyone has a set of premises. Logically speaking, I think we should be aware we are making a leap when we assume that all of our own premises are correct and the other person's premises are incorrect. I mean there is no logical basis for the premises, they are just assumed by both parties. Even in the case where one set of premises is supposed to be based on science or rationality. They are still just broad assumptions.
- burtonator 8y ago
  > _Everyone_ has an ideology that overrides logic for many topics. Yes. However, my ideology is that logic, evidence, and reason, and reality are far more important than ideology. All I care about is evidence and if I hold a position that is faulty I abandon it the moment there is evidence that I'm incorrect.
  - ilaksh 8y ago
    See I believe even people who (like me) have a scientific or rational worldview are biased by their existing pre-conceived premises. You have to start from some perspective. So effectively this idea that your worldview is totally evidence-based just acts as a blanket and automatic (non-rational) reinforcement for you existing views.
  - perfmode 8y ago
    Do you believe there are things that cannot be understood through reason alone? Are there things that lie beyond understanding? That cannot be understood or discussed rationally?
  - mbrock 8y ago
    In political issues, what kind of evidence do you require? For example, what evidence can settle the question of whether the state ought to use taxes to provide healthcare?
    - draugadrotten 8y ago
      Remember time. One way to think about this dilemma is that evidence is a result of observing reality. Evidence are about the present and the past. Politics on the other hand is a way to change reality, which will change the future observations to give different evidence as a result. Politics is about making changes now to change the future. Evidence and politics are connected but separated by time.
      - mbrock 8y ago
        Indeed. But questions of how to evaluate results are always answered by way of some kind of preference, desire, or ideology, right? Different ethical principles can be in conflict; there's no objective measurement of the good.
- mc32 8y ago
  I see at work at work. There is someone who is bound by ideology and tries to manage by that (managerial) ideology. It has lead this person to make decisions which do not fit the characteristics of their current company. They have taken the experience from other industries and from companies with other characteristics and have tried to apply them and shoehorn them. It has lead to some poor decisions, execution as well as inferior relationships with other key players in the company. Superficially something like Mr. Johnson when he went from Apple to JCPenney.
- analog31 8y ago
  I'm certainly not an exception. I wouldn't say that I let ideology override reason, but I let it override argumentation and persuasion, which can easily masquerade as reason. I think that a certain level of stubbornness may actually be a survival trait, because it protects a highly social animal from manipulation and deception. In modern society, we are deluged with information with a very poor signal-to-noise ratio and many false leads. My approach is to let my short term decisions, such as voting, be influenced to a certain degree by ideology, but let my ideology be influenced over the long term by a preponderance of evidence. This allows me to function without being jerked back and forth by the best debater or hottest news du jour.
- tj-teej 8y ago
  All due respect I don't think the article proved or indicated that "everyone has an ideology which overrides logic on many topics." The study found that people are less successful at spotting logical fallacies when the conclusions are supported by their politics. This is itself an interesting finding, but (1) I don't think the "everyone has biases" argument is justified by this article and (2) that precise argument is often used by people to apologize for allying themselves with others who have abhorrent views but are otherwise inline with their political interests (e.g. White Evangelicals in Iowa who vote for Steve King). I'm 1000% not suggesting that you're doing this but I think it's an unfortunate conclusion many draw from your argument. Yes everyone has some level of irrationality but not everyone has a sound ideology, many people often waiver between conclusions and human judgement is real, important, and helpful.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - paulsutter 8y ago
    What’s a “sound ideology”?
    - kabouseng 8y ago
      The answer to that question is obviously : "My ideology"
  - ilaksh 8y ago
    I wasn't trying to say that the article proved "everyone" has an ideology. What the article does say is that among two groups, both groups were influenced by ideology. And I realize that you and many others feel that you are an exception. It is my belief that you are not. I believe that no one is an exception and everyone has an ideology. I know that more often than not "ideoloy" is thought of as something some _other_ group of supposedly _less rational_ people have, but I think that is not the case. So anyway these are beliefs that I have, so they are not something we can discuss constructively. Due to the nature of belief.
- baroffoos 8y ago
  Is sound reasoning even needed all the time though. I have an environmental ideology that causes me to not use cars even when its much more convenient for me. Have I ignored logical reasoning and is that even a bad thing?
- abecedarius 8y ago
  > our brains just generally don't operate on a rational basis because it's not practical for humans. It goes way deeper than that. Reasoning being hard to do well would explain a high error rate, but not systematic biases. I think human reason mainly evolved for (as you said) getting ahead socially, and only secondarily for solving object-level problems. There's a good recent book, The elephant in the brain.
- throwaway2048 8y ago
  This hits the nail on the head, plenty of engineering and programming types think they are way too smart to fall prey to politics and ideology, and are all the more vulnerable due to it. There is a reason that the majority of educated political extremists come from STEM backgrounds. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2015/11/17/this-is-the-group-thats-surprisingly-prone-to-violent-extremism/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2015/11/1...
- aaron695 8y ago
  > My take on this is that people need to realize that they are not an exception to this. _Everyone_ has an ideology that overrides logic for many topics. This is mostly a meaningless statement. If it's everyone then there is no escape, so there is no point saying it. So we move onto a definition that has meaning, such as a person without ideology is one who can change beliefs relatively easily compared to an ideological person.
- Pristina 8y ago
  > _Everyone_ has an ideology that overrides logic for many topics. speak for youself i have yet to be proven the case while i have shown many others that they are.
  - eeZah7Ux 8y ago
    Ironically, this in itself is a good example.
- danmaz74 8y ago
  > I think the reason for this is that our brains just generally don't operate on a rational basis because it's not practical for humans. We have to rely on preformed perspectives when it comes to certain broad perspectives. I think there is a more fundamental reason, ie, that there is no complete rational explanation of reality. What we do have is partial rational explanations which work well in some specific contexts, but are not absolute: they break down if you change context. See for example relativity/quantum mechanics; even the hardest of hard sciences doesn't have a unified, complete theory. That's why AI based on logical reasoning didn't work, and will never work IMHO. Rationality is a tool that intelligent creatures can use - the most advanced tool, probably - but it's not enough to live in the real world. Some of the cognitive shortcuts we use are "only" necessary to cut decision time, but many are fundamentally necessary for adaptation to our environment.
  - sooheon 8y ago
    > that there is no complete rational explanation of reality ... that fits inside a current day human's brain. I see no reason to believe this is true fundamentally.
    - tomhoward 8y ago
      They were referring to present time, not a hypothetical future of more complete explanations of nature and more powerful human brains for conceiving and storing them. That said, there is a reason why it may not be possible: human consciousness can only exist at a higher level than the most fundamental level of nature, and on that basis, consciousness may never be able to perceive enough of the fundamentals of nature to be able to formulate a complete explanation of it. However it's not really relevant to the topic at hand. I'm sure humans will always use cognitive shortcuts like ideologies in order to navigate our daily experience, for reasons of speed and efficiency.
    - danmaz74 8y ago
      Of course we can't prove anything about possible future non-human brains, but try to think about it this way. Is there a limit to the number of consequences that a single action can have? If you think about all possible future consequences, then the answer is clearly no. Using an example from another comment, opening a closed door could bring you to your death, which has infinite consequences for your (potentially future) family. Therefore, if rationally analysing each possible consequence takes any non-zero amount of time, deciding any action rationally would take an infinite time. You could try to rationally decide what is the maximum amount of time you can spend on each choice, but deciding that amount rationally would require infinite time. This isn't a proof, but this consideration comes from spending a lot of time thinking about rationality and AI.
- cdoxsey 8y ago
  > I think the reason for this is that our brains just generally don't operate on a rational basis because it's not practical for humans. Not meaning to pick on you, but this line of reasoning is ultimately self-refuting. If we're not capable of operating on a rational basis, then the belief that "we're not capable of operating on a rational basis" is itself irrational and therefore shouldn't be believed. Since this is self-refuting it must not be true and therefore we must be capable of operating rationally.
  - lemagedurage 8y ago
    I don't think you can equate "generally not doing X" to "not being capable of doing X" here
  - Vaskivo 8y ago
    Just because it's very hard and, ultimately, not useful for most situations it doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for it.
- SagelyGuru 8y ago
  These studies were conducted along political axis lines, "liberal versus conservative". However, most arguments that are being employed in politics are not hard to invalidate in the strict sense by application of formal logic and counter examples. That being the case, it seems an obvious conclusion that one picks holes preferably in the opposition's arguments. Politics is about vested self interest, not logic.
- posterboy 8y ago
  > I think the reason for this is that our brains just generally don't operate on a rational basis because it's not practical for humans. But that is an ideology! That isn't even wrong, what's wrong is to say that's the opposite of logic. > We have to rely on preformed perspectives when it comes to certain broad perspectives. That is generally true, but if the perspective is limited, we start speculating, making and testing assumptions. That's not an ideology per se. The thing with ideology is that long distance planning requires to stick with one theory to see it through. That's why discipline, form and idea are somewhat synonymous. Think about when somebody says someone had no clue. And corollary, different people might partially succeed with different attempts and reach different conclusions. These might be mutually exclusive, if leaning on probabilistic arguments, or just not evidently the same, if it's not obvious how to correlate the experiences. These are different meanings of ideology and the contradictory sense is rather euphemistic or derogatory. > Another reason is that it's almost necessary to adopt your group's perspectives in order to fit in That might be dogmatism and virtue signaling, which to a degree signals subordination. That's less than ideal, but the alternative fight to death is often farther from optimal.
- ataturk 8y ago
  My take on this is that some lessons are hard won and that while "reason" and "logic" all sound like excellent concepts, there is also an experiential factor that sets ideas in stone for generations. "Ideology" is an accusation more than it is anything else. I say this as someone who fervently supports our Bill of Rights in the face of a massive assault on it by those who use phrases like "common sense" and make appeals "for the children" when in fact those rights were delivered in blood and will probably have to be again. I watch repugnantly while the masses allow the ultra wealthy to turn them back into serfs.
fhfjgkvjvj 8y ago
Sure, ideology impacts formal reasoning, but if you look at the examples given the participants have good reason to reject the conclusions of formal logic that is based on terrible premises. Despite the result of a simple sequence of sentences divorced from reality, cigarettes really are bad for you and salads are good (depending on their contents). In study 1) participants might disagree with dangerous drugs being banned, and they disagree that marijuana is dangerous. In 2) premise 1 seems relatively straightforward, then premise 2 is a highly ideological belief (as is the point of the study). I don't think this is very revealing. When you add 1+2 and get 68445788, you are suprised by the conclusion and check your work. People responding to this aren't dumb, they just aren't playing along with what they regard as faulty reasoning. Basically, they are likely saying I know what the researcher wants me to say, but this is wrong and I won't go along with it.
- blakejustblake 8y ago
  What you're saying and the conclusions of the study are one in the same. Though I would disagree that their questions were like presenting 1+2=68445788. I would suggest they're more like 1 is 32119592 and 2 is 36326196 thus 1+2=68445788. 1 and 2 are not those numbers, but to be premised such a way formally the results of the logic check out. Regardless of whether it's revealing or not it's a good thing to work towards establishing these sorts of conclusions through studies so that someday we can hope to have fewer terrible premises.
- scythe 8y ago
  Sometimes I wonder if the general decrease in trust in society affects psychology research: http://www.niemanlab.org/2019/01/a-gloomy-vision-for-fake-news-in-2019-low-trust-societies-the-death-of-consensus-and-your-own-lying-eyes/ http://www.niemanlab.org/2019/01/a-gloomy-vision-for-fake-ne... The Milgram experiment is the most prominent example which might not be possible today because it depends on participants' willingness to obey scientists. The Milgram effect is still real, but it has become harder to measure. So in this case, when participants are asked to reason based on premises they don't agree with, they might, as you've suggested, refuse. They might interpret the researchers' intent as nefarious, e.g. "if I agree this syllogism is valid the researcher will report that I support the conclusion". This line of thinking is of course absurd, but it comes close to what I've observed that some people believe about scientists.
nerdponx 8y ago
I really really like the premise of this study, but I don't buy the results fully. The logic in the 2nd and 3rd prompts is subtle. In fact, I don't think the 2nd one is in fact a syllogism -- it's unclear if Judge Wilson believes if or if and only if. In the former case, the statement is in fact not a syllogism, but in the latter case it is a syllogism. I wouldn't expect your average study participant to pick up on the difference. I am afraid that the only conclusion here is that, in the absence of a clear logical argument to evaluate, (either due to ambiguity or complexity), people fall back on their beliefs.
- TomMckenny 8y ago
  Number 3 also requires the reader to infer iff. But it's not an unreasonable requirement because without inferring iff you get "Judge Wilson believes one has the right to end the life all living things" and "Doctor Simmi believes the surgery should proceed no matter what" Still, I imagine that's enough to throw of an unknown percent of people, alas. >I am afraid that the only conclusion here is that, in the absence of a clear logical argument to evaluate, (either due to ambiguity or complexity), people fall back on their beliefs. Still an interesting conclusion though.
- KingMachiavelli 8y ago
  For 2 & 3 neither use "if and only if" so I am interpreting those two as intentially unsound syllogisms. Do people commonly expand "if" to mean "if and only if" outside of a conversational setting where it's implied? I would think in a small body of text people would only refrane from doing so. I'd be interested in having the per syllogism results to see if this impacted the accuracy of the respondents.
tlb 8y ago
Before this research, did a lot of people assume the null hypothesis that ideology doesn’t impair sound reasoning? Psychology seems to be responding to the replication crisis by studying some really obvious truisms.
- shard972 8y ago
  Before I die, ill be reading an academic article explaining how the sky is in fact, not blue.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
indigochill 8y ago
I would counter that reasoning doesn't stand by itself. Reasoning is a method of getting from A to B, but you need an A (your axioms) to reason from. It's easy to disparage people whose axioms are different from yours (Jehovah is God/Allah is God/There is no god), but sometimes that's all there is to it. Though once emotions get involved (such as by challenging the political/religious framework on which they've built their life), pretty much everyone will also fail to adhere to strict reason.
tabtab 8y ago
Often it comes down to trust, whether that's rational or not. Take climate change. The topic is too involved for most non-scientists to absorb enough to come to an informed decision on their own. Therefore, unless one invests boatloads of time, they must rely on expert opinion for much of their conclusion. Therefore, climate-change deniers ask if one should trust scientists over their favorite political pundits or favorite CEO's. There are enough incidents of scientists being biased based on funding source to have some skepticism. When I reply, "Don't pundits and CEO's have similar financial biases"? Deniers typically respond something like, "Sure, so I have to rely on my gut, and my gut gives them more credit than it gives to scientists. Most scientists come from liberal-leaning universities."
- parsnips 8y ago
  At a way to fully illustrate the OP's point.
  - tabtab 8y ago
    The title is misleading then. Ultimately complex topics probably require trust regardless, unless one can spend a lot of time on them. I once debated about whether one can clearly determine the Earth is not flat without relying on experts. I found alternative models for just about every home-spun experiment. Maybe with really good weather and carefully crafted survey tools one could rule out the alternative models, but again that's a lot of time (at least for the middle-ages; which is where we set our thought experiment. No Amazon.com back then).
    - thethirdone 8y ago
      > I found alternative models for just about every home-spun experiment. I have put thought into how to prove a round earth and all the models of a flat earth I have seen cannot stand up to basic observations of the sun, moon and stars (over the course of one year from a single location). I would be very interested to in an alternative model that can account for astronomical phenomena that are easily perceived with the unaided eye.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
viburnum 8y ago
Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back.
xvilka 8y ago
The only hope for humanity is to find a way to fix this nature mistake in future generations by correcting the genetic code (or anything else important for this process), when it will be completely reverse engineered. All cognitive biases at once. It might take centuries though...
- pl1234 8y ago
  "humanity" wouldn't really be humanity anymore if it did that. biases are part of our nature. societies are always built on sacred fictions.
- dwaltrip 8y ago
  It's a noble program that can achieve meaningful things, but we should be aware that all information processing systems will have biases. The map is not the territory, e.g. the information processing system can never perfectly represent or model reality.
james_s_tayler 8y ago
A few good books I'm reading / have read on the subject The Righteous Mind The Elephant In The Brain In Defense of Troublemakers The deck is stacked very far against us cognitively. We are a walking, talking political nightmare unto ourselves and others. The worst part is it's excruciatingly difficult and extremely unlikely for you to find your own blind spots. So you need to hash things out with other people. As others mentioned the best thing you can do is hold defeasibility and corrigibility as some of your highest values and do your best to understand all the pitfalls in our thinking.
- clairity 8y ago
  yes, one of the reasons i believe we evolved to be social creatures is that we uncover better answers when we triangulate opinions and facts with others rather than solely relying on one’s own intuition or reasoning.
- acabal 8y ago
  I'm currently reading _The Righteous Mind_. While I haven't finished it yet, so far a major theme has been that reason's major job is merely to justify what the gut instinct has already decided. Taking that theory to its conclusion, that means that most people are approaching the question of rationality vs. emotion the wrong way by assuming that appeals to reason and logic are the way to convince the average person. Not so; one must convince their emotions first, and then they will reason together a logical framework to fit their emotion. It's a bit distressing to think about, but unsurprising when one reflects on the course of history that humanity has taken, and is taking.
  - james_s_tayler 8y ago
    His experiment in one of the early chapters where they come up with these little stories that are for some reason morally repugnant but on closer inspection don't appear to be hurting anyone and then they press people for their reasons on why they think it's wrong and they wind up inventing justifications that are sometimes pretty far fetched. That was pretty interesting. There's another great bit of research detailed like that detailed in The Elephant In The Brain. In the 60s and 70s Roger Sperry and Michael Gazzaniga did some research for which Sperry eventually won a Nobel Prize in 1981 where they showed images to patients who had undergone a corpus callostomy where the two halves of the brain can no longer communicate and asked them questions about what they saw. The results were really striking. They did it in such a way that they show the image to only the right side of the brain but then ask the left side of the brain to describe what they saw verbally. They just invent some kind of fantastical rationalization and they seem to fully believe that's what they think despite the fact that it can't be. I'm explaining it kind of badly but that part was jaw dropping. Seems to fit with Haidts research though.
ymgch 8y ago
Ideology or religion, don’t know what’s worse.
fzeroracer 8y ago
I have to agree with some of other commentators that I don't think this study is particularly revealing, because there's a lot of nuance in the questions that doesn't directly follow logical thinking. I want to address the first two questions >All drugs that are dangerous should be illegal. Marijuana is a drug that is dangerous. Therefore, Marijuana should be illegal. The flaw with this question is that it's divorced completely from the cultural reality we live in. Cigarette smoking is legal, despite being dangerous. The final clause does not actually follow from the rest of the logic, because we have tangible examples of Drug A being Dangerous and Legal. People might think of this, and therefore disregard the conclusion. I don't think that would be the result of ideological impairment, but rather the result of people examining nuance. >Judge Wilson believes that if a living thing is not a person, then one has the right to end its life. She also believes that a fetus is a person. Therefore, Judge Wilson concludes that no one has the right to end the life of a fetus. This is just poorly worded. If something is not a person, then Wilson believes you have the right to terminate it. Since a fetus is a person, then no one has the right to terminate it. That logic does not necessarily follow from the initial statement; because the nuance there is that Wilson is expanding her personal logic into the logic of everyone else. Again, there's a bit of nuance in that people may personally not be for abortion, but believe that women still have the right to abortion despite their own personal beliefs. The logic is also initially biased right from the start, since it implies that Wilson would also believe killing animals, pets etc is OK. I don't think these two questions really resolve the issue of bias preventing sound reasoning, because it implies that the conclusion of the two questions was logical in the first place. They effectively managed to prove that two highly nuanced questions are, in fact, highly nuanced.
- rntz 8y ago
  > >All drugs that are dangerous should be illegal. Marijuana is a drug that is dangerous. Therefore, Marijuana should be illegal. > The final clause does not actually follow from the rest of the logic The final clause follows formally from the truth of the first two clauses. What you are complaining about is that the final clause is not true. But the question being asked of the study participants is not whether the argument is true, but whether the final clause follows if the first two are true. You are exhibiting exactly the behavior the study is testing: giving a wrong answer to a question of soundness by substituting for it a question of truth. There is, perhaps, an argument to be made that "logical reasoning" in the sense being tested - being able to tell valid from invalid syllogisms - isn't all that pertinent in the real world. Is that what you're saying, though? I find it hard to tell. > >Judge Wilson believes that if a living thing is not a person, then one has the right to end its life. She also believes that a fetus is a person. Therefore, Judge Wilson concludes that no one has the right to end the life of a fetus. There is a logical problem with this argument, independent of any of the issues you bring up. Consider it divorced of context: W believes: if an X is not Y, then it is a Z. W believes: this particular X is Y. W therefore believes: this particular X is not Z. (Key: W = Wilson, X = living thing, Y = a person, Z = may-end-life.) The problem is that just because (X & not Y --> Z), doesn't mean (X & Y --> not Z). In other words, thinking it's okay to end non-person's lives doesn't imply thinking it's _not_ okay to end person's lives. Concretely, for example, one might think killing in war is justified.
rntz 8y ago
As far as I can tell from skimming the paper, it fails to establish that ideology impairs reasoning more than any other kind of pre-existing belief. There is a well-established bias, called belief bias (which the paper mentions), against accepting the logical validity of arguments whose conclusions you disbelieve. The study tested examples of this where the conclusions were political (agreed with liberal or conservative viewpoints), but AFAICT did not use a control test where the conclusions were apolitical, but the participants still agreed or disagreed with them. A control could have established whether political arguments were more (or less, or equally) susceptible to belief bias. But they didn't use one. So the study only establishes that political arguments are susceptible to belief bias.
collyw 8y ago
It seems quite concerning then, that most political parties are ideologically driven. I would really like to see a political party focused on evidence based politics.
- barry-cotter 8y ago
  Politics isn’t mostly about values or beliefs, it’s mostly about winning, beating the other side. Insofar as it is about either we have a proposal to make values explicit and to incentivise teaching the goals that serve those values. http://mason.gmu.edu/~rhanson/futarchy.html http://mason.gmu.edu/~rhanson/futarchy.html > Futarchy: Vote Values, But Bet Beliefs > by Robin Hanson > This short "manifesto" describes a new form of government. In "futarchy," we would vote on values, but bet on beliefs. Elected representatives would formally define and manage an after-the-fact measurement of national welfare, while market speculators would say which policies they expect to raise national welfare. Democracy seems better than autocracy (i.e., kings and dictators), but it still has problems. There are today vast differences in wealth among nations, and we can not attribute most of these differences to either natural resources or human abilities. Instead, much of the difference seems to be that the poor nations (many of which are democracies) are those that more often adopted dumb policies, policies which hurt most everyone in the nation. And even rich nations frequently adopt such policies. These policies are not just dumb in retrospect; typically there were people who understood a lot about such policies and who had good reasons to disapprove of them beforehand. It seems hard to imagine such policies being adopted nearly as often if everyone knew what such "experts" knew about their consequences. Thus familiar forms of government seem to frequently fail by ignoring the advice of relevant experts (i.e., people who know relevant things).
  - collyw 8y ago
    That's true, which is probably worse than being ideology driven when I think about it.
    - eeZah7Ux 8y ago
      There's a typical moral dilemma involved - the political "trolley problem": Suppose you are leading a party that has an effective plan to address a lot of preventable deaths. If you lose, many people won't be saved. If you bend your values and engage in manipulating public opinion, making empty promises, lying and so on you are much more likely to win. What would you do?
tokai 8y ago
I intuitively understand the word ideology as denoting false consciousness, in the marxist sense of the word. So the title reads like a total tautology for me, a la Unsound Reasoning Impairs Sound Reasoning. Guess I'm experiencing ideology.
scandox 8y ago
Christopher Tyerman's body of work on the Crusades is really interesting in this regard. One of the key points he keeps pressing home, is that though we think of Medieval people as ignorant and superstitious, they were in fact highly rational. And they were as a culture committed to rational investigation of the world. But they had axiomatic beliefs that they were building upon. Which meant they were also committed to a rational investigation of the supernatural world. Which we generally view as non-rational. I'm very much paraphrasing and he would not express it so crudely.
the6threplicant 8y ago
But how do you become ideological in the first place. Either you're a conspiracy theorist and believe so many weird things that adding another believe won't top the cart. Or is it that we want to believe explanations that we understand (or think we do) and not believe what we don't understand (science).
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
mbrodersen 8y ago
Always ask the question: "What evidence would I/you need to change my/your opinion?"

169 points by Reedx 8y ago

So True!

This feels like evidence for motivated skepticism: https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Motivated_skepticism https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Motivated_skepticism

ilaksh 8y ago

My take on this is that people need to realize that they are not an exception to this. _Everyone_ has an ideology that overrides logic for many topics. I think the reason for this is that our brains just generally don't operate on a rational basis because it's not practical for humans. We have to rely on preformed perspectives when it comes to certain broad perspectives. Another reason is that it's almost necessary to adopt your group's perspectives in order to fit in socially. Or at least it's unlikely you will have a different perspective if much of your information comes from one group.

azeotropic 8y ago
Nonsense, my views are based on sound reasoning, unlike my opponents, who are blinded by their ideology!
tathougies 8y ago
On a fundamental level, the decision to stick with 'rationality' as the basis off of which to make decisions is its own kind of ideology.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  Rationality is just a tool, which can be used or misused. That said, it has a really impressive list of accomplishments when it is used well. The rationalist view and rationalist methods have created more wealth and alleviated more human suffering than most any mystic of the world pre-1800s would ever have imagined.
  - pl1234 8y ago
    "The rationalist view and rationalist methods have created more wealth and alleviated more human suffering than most any mystic of the world pre-1800s would ever have imagined." This is not the rational statement you seem to think it is. A lot of cultures/religions think they are the saviors of humanity, do you really think it is different this time? How do you even quantify the total "human suffering" pre and post-1800? You can't, dig into it and you will find it's a morally loaded term. There can be specific quantifications like measuring pain with a likert scale, but these are not the same as an overall "human suffering" factor, any attempt at measurement introduces subjectivity. What you have is a hardcore religious belief, not a rational one.
  - throwaway2048 8y ago
    People would do well to remember that the ideology of the Nazis had deep roots in rationalism and ideas about the enlightenment. Rationality is not an unmitigated good when not tempered with humanity and empathy for others. A decent discussion on this topic: https://old.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/6k2f7d/how_did_the_philosophy_of_the_enlightenment_led/ https://old.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/6k2f7d/how_d...
    - stcredzero 8y ago
      Rationality is not an unmitigated good when not tempered with humanity and empathy for others. No disagreement at all.
  - tathougies 8y ago
    > That said, it has a really impressive list of accomplishments when it is used well Of course it does. Almost every person in the history of mankind will have claimed to act rationally, including the scientist inventing better means of wheat production on fewer acres, as well as the voodoo witch doctor trying to do the same thing. By necessity, whatever works is going to claim to have been inspired by rationality.
    - stcredzero 8y ago
- weberc2 8y ago
  What do you mean, exactly? 1) Objectivity is a kind of ideology? This is objectively false ;) 2) Assigning desirability to that which we perceive as rational is a kind of ideology? In this case, can something so universal that it's surely biologically hard-coded be considered an 'ideology', esp in the context of the article? 3) Choosing to reason rationally instead of ideologically is an ideological choice (or perhaps even a choice motivated by the kind of ideological reasoning discussed in the article)? 4) Something else entirely?
  - throwawayjava 8y ago
    Rationality is not ideology, but epistemology and ideology are often closely related. Also, it's not as if rationality is "above the fray", so to speak. Differing relationships to rationality are at the core of major differences between schools of thought in both international relations and economics, for instance.
    - weberc2 8y ago
      I think of it as different errors in perspective about what is rational, but rationality is still the virtue regardless.
      - throwawayjava 8y ago
        You're redefining words; rationality means something much more specific than "not magical thinking".
  - throwaway2048 8y ago
    The mistake is to think you can reach a state of "objective" to begin with.
    - eeZah7Ux 8y ago
      Spot on. The word "rationality" is thrown around as it was possible (and desirable) to reach a objective view on every subject.
- p1necone 8y ago
  I think you need to justify this claim. I don't think that fundamentally rationality is just the same as any ideology, in fact it seems fundamentally wrong to me, the same way that claiming that opinions trump observable facts would be to me.
  - tathougies 8y ago
    Can you point me to a system of logic that is both able to make substantial claims and for which every statement in that system can be proven. Mathematics says you cannot (the incompleteness theorems), so there will always be a fundamental truth you will need to subscribe to. This indicates that those claiming 'rationality' almost certainly have a belief that is irrational even according to themselves (if they are honest enough to admit it). Here is an example. Suppose we are arguing about the need for a certain tax. The point of contention is whether the tax will majnly benefit the rich or the poor. You start out with an argument: even if the tax benefits those not in poverty, the effects will trickle down. Despite your opinions on trickle down economics, the argument was unsound at the very first words. 'Even if' is a form of argument via excluded middle. It presupposes that either tbe tax will help those in poverty or it will not. The law of excluded middle forms unsound logical systems. There are ways around it but i guarantee you you will not see this in 'rational' discourse In the context of these everyday absurdities and the fact most logical systems are -- by necessity -- incomplete, its almost inavariably more interesting to talk about the unproven statements (the ideology) than the system of logic surrounding it. In other words, the ideology is ultimately what matters, even to rational thinkers.
- james_s_tayler 8y ago
  Correct. This is what the Age of Reason and The Age of Enlightenment were all about. Philosophy underpins ideology to a large extent.
- trashtester 8y ago
  "Rationalism" is an ideology$. It elevates ideas arrived at by rational arguments to a special status. Other sources of knowledge, such as empirical knowledge, culture and tradition as well as biological instincts and gut feelings are often disregarded by rationalists which can potentially prevent the adherents from reaching their goals. "Rational" is also a word that can be used for rhetorical purposes. If one claims that something is "rational", it is often specifically because it is not obvious to the audience that it IS rational. The claim is an attempt to influence the listener to believe the truthfulness of the something. Similarly to when people say "trust me", such a claim may in itself be a reason to be a bit cautious. "Rationality" is a tool than can be wielded in many ways and for many purposes. Properly used, it is a good source to knowledge, but it needs to be combined with empirical knowledge as well as heuristical information stored in social groups and even our DNA, even when not fully understood. Edit: $ From the definition of "Ideology", epistemology is specifically excluded. Since Rationalism deals with epistemology, it is technically excluded from the definition, as long as the Rationalism is in good faith, and not driven by ulterior motives. This distinction does not make a difference for the rest of the argument.
  - tathougies 8y ago
    > From the definition of "Ideology", epistemology is specifically excluded Considering there are epistemologic ideologies, I'm not sure how you can claim this. For example, in the West (and now common throughout the world, since most of the world has adopted Western epistemology, whether they admit it or not), we believe in the scientific method -- that if we can observe, measure, and replicate an experiment, we have established 'empirical truth'. The idea that such a process can establish universal truth (rather than simply be individual measurements of how the universe acted at a certain point in time) is based on the Abrahamic notion of an unchanging God. It is certainly an ideology in and of itself. It may be a useful ideology, but claiming that it is not an ideology is just dishonest.
    - trashtester 8y ago
      You are right. I checked the definition on wikipedia after writing my comment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology But further reading shows that my correction was wrong, and my initial assumption was correct. Thanks for pointing this out :)
haberman 8y ago
I believe the best ways to buck this weakness are: 1. Invest more energy into trying to falsify your favored beliefs than into confirming them. 2. Embrace humility, since we're always wrong sometimes. Humility to me means: you can have convictions, but you should never assume that people who disagree with you are stupid or evil.
- toufiqbarhamov 8y ago
  I believe the best ways to buck this weakness are: 1. Invest more energy into trying to falsify your favored beliefs than into confirming them. 2. Embrace humility, since we're always wrong sometimes. Humility to me means: you can have convictions, but you should never assume that people who disagree with you are stupid or evil. I’d add two other ideas that I try to adhere to, continuing your list. 3. Try to adopt the perspectives of those you disagree with, especially when you’re finding yourself ascribing malice, stupidity, moral failing, or just find yourself baffled by someone. Such feelings are often a sign that you don’t understand where someone is coming from, and though you may still disagree with them, you’ll have a better platform to discuss matters. 4. Try to see yourself and your time through the same lens you use to look back on history. We’re not special or unique, we’re goinf to be seen as primitives eventually, and it can be helpful to imagine in which ways that perception might be levied. Both of these help to broaden perspective and depend empathy, while also divorcing yourself from a strict “first person view” or tribal view. It’s also a couple of concrete steps to gain some distance from your feelings in the present, which makes your steps easier to achieve. You’ll also find that the people you end up despising form a much smaller pool than most.
  - logicchains 8y ago
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    - stcredzero 8y ago
      Then what kind of mind not only refuses to entertain novel thoughts, but will condemn anything that even contains a whiff of what seems to be different thinking? It's easy to see the answer in history.
stcredzero 8y ago
_Everyone_ has an ideology that overrides logic for many topics. Indeed. Both sides of the political spectrum have this! As a person who values truth and knowledge, let me warn my fellow people: Beware of jingoistic and tribalistic claims that reality has a [political-descriptor-here] bias. No human being is free of the need for a little self doubt and introspection. No ideology can act as an oracle, and ideologies which have made that claim throughout history have acted against the truth and even given rise to tragedy and atrocity. If you have reached the point where you believe your opponents are somehow lesser than you are, and that you no longer need to convince but instead must coerce their cooperation, you need to take a step back and beware. No belief system, philosophy, or intellectual movement is so clued into ultimate truth, that its adherents can afford to cease questioning themselves. It's precisely those groups of people who cease questioning themselves and suppress the questions from others who are most at risk of becoming history's villains. (One of my most disilusioned days was when I saw fellow atheists wearing their atheism like an arm band, using it as a pretext to declare their superiority over fellow human beings, and intoning it like some sort of religious creed. Everyone was wasting time preaching to the choir, and as I was at a musical gathering and just wanted to play music, I called it out. Then I watched them turn on me.) (Both sides of the political spectrum deny science for ideology. They just deny different parts of science. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkdIB03RdBg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkdIB03RdBg )
- weberc2 8y ago
  You're getting downvoted, but I can't tell why. Maybe you've offended both sides by contending that their side is as guilty as the other of ideological reasoning?! :) EDIT: Wow, someone downvoted me literally ~2 seconds after I posted. Good work, Quickdraw!
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    You're getting downvoted, but I can't tell why. Maybe you've offended both sides by contending that their side is as guilty as the other of ideological reasoning?! :) There is a big part of online society for whom such jingoistic tribalism is thought of as some sort of virtuous, intellectually worthy exercise. I find this highly disturbing. If one is interested in finding the truth, then self doubt and the willingness to ask questions is paramount! It's precisely that "you're either with us, or against us" mentality which is a hallmark of the tyrants and the enemies of reason. It's precisely that mindset that burned witches and imprisoned Galileo. It's precisely that mindset that gives rise to ideological reasoning. EDIT: Wow, someone downvoted me literally ~2 seconds after I posted. Good work, Quickdraw! It seems like some group of activists has tried to come in to Hacker News and use it to push their agenda. I, for one, do not appreciate their attempts to push their agenda by creating fear of being labeled an "-ist."
weberc2 8y ago
> My take on this is that people need to realize that they are not an exception to this. _Everyone_ has an ideology that overrides logic for many topics. Agreed, but it's also worth pointing out that not everyone indulges in ideological reasoning to the same degree in general. I've heard people make related arguments that because everyone reasons ideologically at points, there can be no objective position on <topic>; of course this argument holds little water, and it seems designed to rationalize the conversant's belief to himself rather than to persuade his audience.
s17n 8y ago
> My take on this is that people need to realize that they are not an exception to this. _Everyone_ has an ideology that overrides logic for many topics. Is that what the paper actually says? Based on my personal experience I would think there's a lot of variance but I would be interested to see actual data.
- perfmode 8y ago
  Do you believe it is possible to be ideology-free?
maxerickson 8y ago
I think it's often even simpler, where ideology just provides false premises. So people are acting in a mostly rational manner but starting from bad information. (I get that acting on false information is not rational, I'm arguing that it is frequently the core of the irrationallity)
- ilaksh 8y ago
  My point is that everyone has a set of premises. Logically speaking, I think we should be aware we are making a leap when we assume that all of our own premises are correct and the other person's premises are incorrect. I mean there is no logical basis for the premises, they are just assumed by both parties. Even in the case where one set of premises is supposed to be based on science or rationality. They are still just broad assumptions.
burtonator 8y ago
> _Everyone_ has an ideology that overrides logic for many topics. Yes. However, my ideology is that logic, evidence, and reason, and reality are far more important than ideology. All I care about is evidence and if I hold a position that is faulty I abandon it the moment there is evidence that I'm incorrect.
- ilaksh 8y ago
  See I believe even people who (like me) have a scientific or rational worldview are biased by their existing pre-conceived premises. You have to start from some perspective. So effectively this idea that your worldview is totally evidence-based just acts as a blanket and automatic (non-rational) reinforcement for you existing views.
- perfmode 8y ago
  Do you believe there are things that cannot be understood through reason alone? Are there things that lie beyond understanding? That cannot be understood or discussed rationally?
- mbrock 8y ago
  In political issues, what kind of evidence do you require? For example, what evidence can settle the question of whether the state ought to use taxes to provide healthcare?
  - draugadrotten 8y ago
    Remember time. One way to think about this dilemma is that evidence is a result of observing reality. Evidence are about the present and the past. Politics on the other hand is a way to change reality, which will change the future observations to give different evidence as a result. Politics is about making changes now to change the future. Evidence and politics are connected but separated by time.
    - mbrock 8y ago
      Indeed. But questions of how to evaluate results are always answered by way of some kind of preference, desire, or ideology, right? Different ethical principles can be in conflict; there's no objective measurement of the good.
mc32 8y ago
I see at work at work. There is someone who is bound by ideology and tries to manage by that (managerial) ideology. It has lead this person to make decisions which do not fit the characteristics of their current company. They have taken the experience from other industries and from companies with other characteristics and have tried to apply them and shoehorn them. It has lead to some poor decisions, execution as well as inferior relationships with other key players in the company. Superficially something like Mr. Johnson when he went from Apple to JCPenney.
analog31 8y ago
I'm certainly not an exception. I wouldn't say that I let ideology override reason, but I let it override argumentation and persuasion, which can easily masquerade as reason. I think that a certain level of stubbornness may actually be a survival trait, because it protects a highly social animal from manipulation and deception. In modern society, we are deluged with information with a very poor signal-to-noise ratio and many false leads. My approach is to let my short term decisions, such as voting, be influenced to a certain degree by ideology, but let my ideology be influenced over the long term by a preponderance of evidence. This allows me to function without being jerked back and forth by the best debater or hottest news du jour.
tj-teej 8y ago
All due respect I don't think the article proved or indicated that "everyone has an ideology which overrides logic on many topics." The study found that people are less successful at spotting logical fallacies when the conclusions are supported by their politics. This is itself an interesting finding, but (1) I don't think the "everyone has biases" argument is justified by this article and (2) that precise argument is often used by people to apologize for allying themselves with others who have abhorrent views but are otherwise inline with their political interests (e.g. White Evangelicals in Iowa who vote for Steve King). I'm 1000% not suggesting that you're doing this but I think it's an unfortunate conclusion many draw from your argument. Yes everyone has some level of irrationality but not everyone has a sound ideology, many people often waiver between conclusions and human judgement is real, important, and helpful.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- paulsutter 8y ago
  What’s a “sound ideology”?
  - kabouseng 8y ago
    The answer to that question is obviously : "My ideology"
- ilaksh 8y ago
  I wasn't trying to say that the article proved "everyone" has an ideology. What the article does say is that among two groups, both groups were influenced by ideology. And I realize that you and many others feel that you are an exception. It is my belief that you are not. I believe that no one is an exception and everyone has an ideology. I know that more often than not "ideoloy" is thought of as something some _other_ group of supposedly _less rational_ people have, but I think that is not the case. So anyway these are beliefs that I have, so they are not something we can discuss constructively. Due to the nature of belief.
baroffoos 8y ago
Is sound reasoning even needed all the time though. I have an environmental ideology that causes me to not use cars even when its much more convenient for me. Have I ignored logical reasoning and is that even a bad thing?
abecedarius 8y ago
> our brains just generally don't operate on a rational basis because it's not practical for humans. It goes way deeper than that. Reasoning being hard to do well would explain a high error rate, but not systematic biases. I think human reason mainly evolved for (as you said) getting ahead socially, and only secondarily for solving object-level problems. There's a good recent book, The elephant in the brain.
throwaway2048 8y ago
This hits the nail on the head, plenty of engineering and programming types think they are way too smart to fall prey to politics and ideology, and are all the more vulnerable due to it. There is a reason that the majority of educated political extremists come from STEM backgrounds. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2015/11/17/this-is-the-group-thats-surprisingly-prone-to-violent-extremism/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2015/11/1...
aaron695 8y ago
> My take on this is that people need to realize that they are not an exception to this. _Everyone_ has an ideology that overrides logic for many topics. This is mostly a meaningless statement. If it's everyone then there is no escape, so there is no point saying it. So we move onto a definition that has meaning, such as a person without ideology is one who can change beliefs relatively easily compared to an ideological person.
Pristina 8y ago
> _Everyone_ has an ideology that overrides logic for many topics. speak for youself i have yet to be proven the case while i have shown many others that they are.
- eeZah7Ux 8y ago
  Ironically, this in itself is a good example.
danmaz74 8y ago
> I think the reason for this is that our brains just generally don't operate on a rational basis because it's not practical for humans. We have to rely on preformed perspectives when it comes to certain broad perspectives. I think there is a more fundamental reason, ie, that there is no complete rational explanation of reality. What we do have is partial rational explanations which work well in some specific contexts, but are not absolute: they break down if you change context. See for example relativity/quantum mechanics; even the hardest of hard sciences doesn't have a unified, complete theory. That's why AI based on logical reasoning didn't work, and will never work IMHO. Rationality is a tool that intelligent creatures can use - the most advanced tool, probably - but it's not enough to live in the real world. Some of the cognitive shortcuts we use are "only" necessary to cut decision time, but many are fundamentally necessary for adaptation to our environment.
- sooheon 8y ago
  > that there is no complete rational explanation of reality ... that fits inside a current day human's brain. I see no reason to believe this is true fundamentally.
  - tomhoward 8y ago
    They were referring to present time, not a hypothetical future of more complete explanations of nature and more powerful human brains for conceiving and storing them. That said, there is a reason why it may not be possible: human consciousness can only exist at a higher level than the most fundamental level of nature, and on that basis, consciousness may never be able to perceive enough of the fundamentals of nature to be able to formulate a complete explanation of it. However it's not really relevant to the topic at hand. I'm sure humans will always use cognitive shortcuts like ideologies in order to navigate our daily experience, for reasons of speed and efficiency.
  - danmaz74 8y ago
    Of course we can't prove anything about possible future non-human brains, but try to think about it this way. Is there a limit to the number of consequences that a single action can have? If you think about all possible future consequences, then the answer is clearly no. Using an example from another comment, opening a closed door could bring you to your death, which has infinite consequences for your (potentially future) family. Therefore, if rationally analysing each possible consequence takes any non-zero amount of time, deciding any action rationally would take an infinite time. You could try to rationally decide what is the maximum amount of time you can spend on each choice, but deciding that amount rationally would require infinite time. This isn't a proof, but this consideration comes from spending a lot of time thinking about rationality and AI.
cdoxsey 8y ago
> I think the reason for this is that our brains just generally don't operate on a rational basis because it's not practical for humans. Not meaning to pick on you, but this line of reasoning is ultimately self-refuting. If we're not capable of operating on a rational basis, then the belief that "we're not capable of operating on a rational basis" is itself irrational and therefore shouldn't be believed. Since this is self-refuting it must not be true and therefore we must be capable of operating rationally.
- lemagedurage 8y ago
  I don't think you can equate "generally not doing X" to "not being capable of doing X" here
- Vaskivo 8y ago
  Just because it's very hard and, ultimately, not useful for most situations it doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for it.
SagelyGuru 8y ago
These studies were conducted along political axis lines, "liberal versus conservative". However, most arguments that are being employed in politics are not hard to invalidate in the strict sense by application of formal logic and counter examples. That being the case, it seems an obvious conclusion that one picks holes preferably in the opposition's arguments. Politics is about vested self interest, not logic.
posterboy 8y ago
> I think the reason for this is that our brains just generally don't operate on a rational basis because it's not practical for humans. But that is an ideology! That isn't even wrong, what's wrong is to say that's the opposite of logic. > We have to rely on preformed perspectives when it comes to certain broad perspectives. That is generally true, but if the perspective is limited, we start speculating, making and testing assumptions. That's not an ideology per se. The thing with ideology is that long distance planning requires to stick with one theory to see it through. That's why discipline, form and idea are somewhat synonymous. Think about when somebody says someone had no clue. And corollary, different people might partially succeed with different attempts and reach different conclusions. These might be mutually exclusive, if leaning on probabilistic arguments, or just not evidently the same, if it's not obvious how to correlate the experiences. These are different meanings of ideology and the contradictory sense is rather euphemistic or derogatory. > Another reason is that it's almost necessary to adopt your group's perspectives in order to fit in That might be dogmatism and virtue signaling, which to a degree signals subordination. That's less than ideal, but the alternative fight to death is often farther from optimal.
ataturk 8y ago
My take on this is that some lessons are hard won and that while "reason" and "logic" all sound like excellent concepts, there is also an experiential factor that sets ideas in stone for generations. "Ideology" is an accusation more than it is anything else. I say this as someone who fervently supports our Bill of Rights in the face of a massive assault on it by those who use phrases like "common sense" and make appeals "for the children" when in fact those rights were delivered in blood and will probably have to be again. I watch repugnantly while the masses allow the ultra wealthy to turn them back into serfs.

fhfjgkvjvj 8y ago

Sure, ideology impacts formal reasoning, but if you look at the examples given the participants have good reason to reject the conclusions of formal logic that is based on terrible premises. Despite the result of a simple sequence of sentences divorced from reality, cigarettes really are bad for you and salads are good (depending on their contents). In study 1) participants might disagree with dangerous drugs being banned, and they disagree that marijuana is dangerous. In 2) premise 1 seems relatively straightforward, then premise 2 is a highly ideological belief (as is the point of the study). I don't think this is very revealing. When you add 1+2 and get 68445788, you are suprised by the conclusion and check your work. People responding to this aren't dumb, they just aren't playing along with what they regard as faulty reasoning. Basically, they are likely saying I know what the researcher wants me to say, but this is wrong and I won't go along with it.

blakejustblake 8y ago
What you're saying and the conclusions of the study are one in the same. Though I would disagree that their questions were like presenting 1+2=68445788. I would suggest they're more like 1 is 32119592 and 2 is 36326196 thus 1+2=68445788. 1 and 2 are not those numbers, but to be premised such a way formally the results of the logic check out. Regardless of whether it's revealing or not it's a good thing to work towards establishing these sorts of conclusions through studies so that someday we can hope to have fewer terrible premises.
scythe 8y ago
Sometimes I wonder if the general decrease in trust in society affects psychology research: http://www.niemanlab.org/2019/01/a-gloomy-vision-for-fake-news-in-2019-low-trust-societies-the-death-of-consensus-and-your-own-lying-eyes/ http://www.niemanlab.org/2019/01/a-gloomy-vision-for-fake-ne... The Milgram experiment is the most prominent example which might not be possible today because it depends on participants' willingness to obey scientists. The Milgram effect is still real, but it has become harder to measure. So in this case, when participants are asked to reason based on premises they don't agree with, they might, as you've suggested, refuse. They might interpret the researchers' intent as nefarious, e.g. "if I agree this syllogism is valid the researcher will report that I support the conclusion". This line of thinking is of course absurd, but it comes close to what I've observed that some people believe about scientists.

nerdponx 8y ago

I really really like the premise of this study, but I don't buy the results fully. The logic in the 2nd and 3rd prompts is subtle. In fact, I don't think the 2nd one is in fact a syllogism -- it's unclear if Judge Wilson believes if or if and only if. In the former case, the statement is in fact not a syllogism, but in the latter case it is a syllogism. I wouldn't expect your average study participant to pick up on the difference. I am afraid that the only conclusion here is that, in the absence of a clear logical argument to evaluate, (either due to ambiguity or complexity), people fall back on their beliefs.

TomMckenny 8y ago
Number 3 also requires the reader to infer iff. But it's not an unreasonable requirement because without inferring iff you get "Judge Wilson believes one has the right to end the life all living things" and "Doctor Simmi believes the surgery should proceed no matter what" Still, I imagine that's enough to throw of an unknown percent of people, alas. >I am afraid that the only conclusion here is that, in the absence of a clear logical argument to evaluate, (either due to ambiguity or complexity), people fall back on their beliefs. Still an interesting conclusion though.
KingMachiavelli 8y ago
For 2 & 3 neither use "if and only if" so I am interpreting those two as intentially unsound syllogisms. Do people commonly expand "if" to mean "if and only if" outside of a conversational setting where it's implied? I would think in a small body of text people would only refrane from doing so. I'd be interested in having the per syllogism results to see if this impacted the accuracy of the respondents.

tlb 8y ago

Before this research, did a lot of people assume the null hypothesis that ideology doesn’t impair sound reasoning? Psychology seems to be responding to the replication crisis by studying some really obvious truisms.

shard972 8y ago
Before I die, ill be reading an academic article explaining how the sky is in fact, not blue.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

indigochill 8y ago

I would counter that reasoning doesn't stand by itself. Reasoning is a method of getting from A to B, but you need an A (your axioms) to reason from. It's easy to disparage people whose axioms are different from yours (Jehovah is God/Allah is God/There is no god), but sometimes that's all there is to it. Though once emotions get involved (such as by challenging the political/religious framework on which they've built their life), pretty much everyone will also fail to adhere to strict reason.

tabtab 8y ago

Often it comes down to trust, whether that's rational or not. Take climate change. The topic is too involved for most non-scientists to absorb enough to come to an informed decision on their own. Therefore, unless one invests boatloads of time, they must rely on expert opinion for much of their conclusion. Therefore, climate-change deniers ask if one should trust scientists over their favorite political pundits or favorite CEO's. There are enough incidents of scientists being biased based on funding source to have some skepticism. When I reply, "Don't pundits and CEO's have similar financial biases"? Deniers typically respond something like, "Sure, so I have to rely on my gut, and my gut gives them more credit than it gives to scientists. Most scientists come from liberal-leaning universities."

parsnips 8y ago
At a way to fully illustrate the OP's point.
- tabtab 8y ago
  The title is misleading then. Ultimately complex topics probably require trust regardless, unless one can spend a lot of time on them. I once debated about whether one can clearly determine the Earth is not flat without relying on experts. I found alternative models for just about every home-spun experiment. Maybe with really good weather and carefully crafted survey tools one could rule out the alternative models, but again that's a lot of time (at least for the middle-ages; which is where we set our thought experiment. No Amazon.com back then).
  - thethirdone 8y ago
    > I found alternative models for just about every home-spun experiment. I have put thought into how to prove a round earth and all the models of a flat earth I have seen cannot stand up to basic observations of the sun, moon and stars (over the course of one year from a single location). I would be very interested to in an alternative model that can account for astronomical phenomena that are easily perceived with the unaided eye.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

viburnum 8y ago

Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back.

xvilka 8y ago

The only hope for humanity is to find a way to fix this nature mistake in future generations by correcting the genetic code (or anything else important for this process), when it will be completely reverse engineered. All cognitive biases at once. It might take centuries though...

pl1234 8y ago
"humanity" wouldn't really be humanity anymore if it did that. biases are part of our nature. societies are always built on sacred fictions.
dwaltrip 8y ago
It's a noble program that can achieve meaningful things, but we should be aware that all information processing systems will have biases. The map is not the territory, e.g. the information processing system can never perfectly represent or model reality.

james_s_tayler 8y ago

A few good books I'm reading / have read on the subject The Righteous Mind The Elephant In The Brain In Defense of Troublemakers The deck is stacked very far against us cognitively. We are a walking, talking political nightmare unto ourselves and others. The worst part is it's excruciatingly difficult and extremely unlikely for you to find your own blind spots. So you need to hash things out with other people. As others mentioned the best thing you can do is hold defeasibility and corrigibility as some of your highest values and do your best to understand all the pitfalls in our thinking.

clairity 8y ago
yes, one of the reasons i believe we evolved to be social creatures is that we uncover better answers when we triangulate opinions and facts with others rather than solely relying on one’s own intuition or reasoning.
acabal 8y ago
I'm currently reading _The Righteous Mind_. While I haven't finished it yet, so far a major theme has been that reason's major job is merely to justify what the gut instinct has already decided. Taking that theory to its conclusion, that means that most people are approaching the question of rationality vs. emotion the wrong way by assuming that appeals to reason and logic are the way to convince the average person. Not so; one must convince their emotions first, and then they will reason together a logical framework to fit their emotion. It's a bit distressing to think about, but unsurprising when one reflects on the course of history that humanity has taken, and is taking.
- james_s_tayler 8y ago
  His experiment in one of the early chapters where they come up with these little stories that are for some reason morally repugnant but on closer inspection don't appear to be hurting anyone and then they press people for their reasons on why they think it's wrong and they wind up inventing justifications that are sometimes pretty far fetched. That was pretty interesting. There's another great bit of research detailed like that detailed in The Elephant In The Brain. In the 60s and 70s Roger Sperry and Michael Gazzaniga did some research for which Sperry eventually won a Nobel Prize in 1981 where they showed images to patients who had undergone a corpus callostomy where the two halves of the brain can no longer communicate and asked them questions about what they saw. The results were really striking. They did it in such a way that they show the image to only the right side of the brain but then ask the left side of the brain to describe what they saw verbally. They just invent some kind of fantastical rationalization and they seem to fully believe that's what they think despite the fact that it can't be. I'm explaining it kind of badly but that part was jaw dropping. Seems to fit with Haidts research though.

ymgch 8y ago

Ideology or religion, don’t know what’s worse.

fzeroracer 8y ago

I have to agree with some of other commentators that I don't think this study is particularly revealing, because there's a lot of nuance in the questions that doesn't directly follow logical thinking. I want to address the first two questions >All drugs that are dangerous should be illegal. Marijuana is a drug that is dangerous. Therefore, Marijuana should be illegal. The flaw with this question is that it's divorced completely from the cultural reality we live in. Cigarette smoking is legal, despite being dangerous. The final clause does not actually follow from the rest of the logic, because we have tangible examples of Drug A being Dangerous and Legal. People might think of this, and therefore disregard the conclusion. I don't think that would be the result of ideological impairment, but rather the result of people examining nuance. >Judge Wilson believes that if a living thing is not a person, then one has the right to end its life. She also believes that a fetus is a person. Therefore, Judge Wilson concludes that no one has the right to end the life of a fetus. This is just poorly worded. If something is not a person, then Wilson believes you have the right to terminate it. Since a fetus is a person, then no one has the right to terminate it. That logic does not necessarily follow from the initial statement; because the nuance there is that Wilson is expanding her personal logic into the logic of everyone else. Again, there's a bit of nuance in that people may personally not be for abortion, but believe that women still have the right to abortion despite their own personal beliefs. The logic is also initially biased right from the start, since it implies that Wilson would also believe killing animals, pets etc is OK. I don't think these two questions really resolve the issue of bias preventing sound reasoning, because it implies that the conclusion of the two questions was logical in the first place. They effectively managed to prove that two highly nuanced questions are, in fact, highly nuanced.

rntz 8y ago
> >All drugs that are dangerous should be illegal. Marijuana is a drug that is dangerous. Therefore, Marijuana should be illegal. > The final clause does not actually follow from the rest of the logic The final clause follows formally from the truth of the first two clauses. What you are complaining about is that the final clause is not true. But the question being asked of the study participants is not whether the argument is true, but whether the final clause follows if the first two are true. You are exhibiting exactly the behavior the study is testing: giving a wrong answer to a question of soundness by substituting for it a question of truth. There is, perhaps, an argument to be made that "logical reasoning" in the sense being tested - being able to tell valid from invalid syllogisms - isn't all that pertinent in the real world. Is that what you're saying, though? I find it hard to tell. > >Judge Wilson believes that if a living thing is not a person, then one has the right to end its life. She also believes that a fetus is a person. Therefore, Judge Wilson concludes that no one has the right to end the life of a fetus. There is a logical problem with this argument, independent of any of the issues you bring up. Consider it divorced of context: W believes: if an X is not Y, then it is a Z. W believes: this particular X is Y. W therefore believes: this particular X is not Z. (Key: W = Wilson, X = living thing, Y = a person, Z = may-end-life.) The problem is that just because (X & not Y --> Z), doesn't mean (X & Y --> not Z). In other words, thinking it's okay to end non-person's lives doesn't imply thinking it's _not_ okay to end person's lives. Concretely, for example, one might think killing in war is justified.

rntz 8y ago

As far as I can tell from skimming the paper, it fails to establish that ideology impairs reasoning more than any other kind of pre-existing belief. There is a well-established bias, called belief bias (which the paper mentions), against accepting the logical validity of arguments whose conclusions you disbelieve. The study tested examples of this where the conclusions were political (agreed with liberal or conservative viewpoints), but AFAICT did not use a control test where the conclusions were apolitical, but the participants still agreed or disagreed with them. A control could have established whether political arguments were more (or less, or equally) susceptible to belief bias. But they didn't use one. So the study only establishes that political arguments are susceptible to belief bias.

collyw 8y ago

It seems quite concerning then, that most political parties are ideologically driven. I would really like to see a political party focused on evidence based politics.

barry-cotter 8y ago
Politics isn’t mostly about values or beliefs, it’s mostly about winning, beating the other side. Insofar as it is about either we have a proposal to make values explicit and to incentivise teaching the goals that serve those values. http://mason.gmu.edu/~rhanson/futarchy.html http://mason.gmu.edu/~rhanson/futarchy.html > Futarchy: Vote Values, But Bet Beliefs > by Robin Hanson > This short "manifesto" describes a new form of government. In "futarchy," we would vote on values, but bet on beliefs. Elected representatives would formally define and manage an after-the-fact measurement of national welfare, while market speculators would say which policies they expect to raise national welfare. Democracy seems better than autocracy (i.e., kings and dictators), but it still has problems. There are today vast differences in wealth among nations, and we can not attribute most of these differences to either natural resources or human abilities. Instead, much of the difference seems to be that the poor nations (many of which are democracies) are those that more often adopted dumb policies, policies which hurt most everyone in the nation. And even rich nations frequently adopt such policies. These policies are not just dumb in retrospect; typically there were people who understood a lot about such policies and who had good reasons to disapprove of them beforehand. It seems hard to imagine such policies being adopted nearly as often if everyone knew what such "experts" knew about their consequences. Thus familiar forms of government seem to frequently fail by ignoring the advice of relevant experts (i.e., people who know relevant things).
- collyw 8y ago
  That's true, which is probably worse than being ideology driven when I think about it.
  - eeZah7Ux 8y ago
    There's a typical moral dilemma involved - the political "trolley problem": Suppose you are leading a party that has an effective plan to address a lot of preventable deaths. If you lose, many people won't be saved. If you bend your values and engage in manipulating public opinion, making empty promises, lying and so on you are much more likely to win. What would you do?

tokai 8y ago

I intuitively understand the word ideology as denoting false consciousness, in the marxist sense of the word. So the title reads like a total tautology for me, a la Unsound Reasoning Impairs Sound Reasoning. Guess I'm experiencing ideology.

scandox 8y ago

Christopher Tyerman's body of work on the Crusades is really interesting in this regard. One of the key points he keeps pressing home, is that though we think of Medieval people as ignorant and superstitious, they were in fact highly rational. And they were as a culture committed to rational investigation of the world. But they had axiomatic beliefs that they were building upon. Which meant they were also committed to a rational investigation of the supernatural world. Which we generally view as non-rational. I'm very much paraphrasing and he would not express it so crudely.

the6threplicant 8y ago

But how do you become ideological in the first place. Either you're a conspiracy theorist and believe so many weird things that adding another believe won't top the cart. Or is it that we want to believe explanations that we understand (or think we do) and not believe what we don't understand (science).

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

mbrodersen 8y ago

Always ask the question: "What evidence would I/you need to change my/your opinion?"