4 ms·

A{rt,I} imitating life I believe that's why humans reason too. We make snap judgements and then use reason to try to convince others of our beliefs. Can't rec

by snthpy 2y ago

A{rt,I} imitating life I believe that's why humans reason too. We make snap judgements and then use reason to try to convince others of our beliefs. Can't recall the reference right now but they argued that it's really a tool for social influence. That also explains why people who are good at it find it hard to admit when they are wrong - they're not used to having to do it because they can usually out argue others. Prominent examples are easy to find - X marks de spot.

briffid 2y ago
Jonathan Haidt's The Righteous Mind describes this ín details.
- snthpy 2y ago
  Thanks
omgwtfbyobbq 2y ago
I think Robert Sapolsky's lectures on yt cover this to some degree around 115. https://youtu.be/wLE71i4JJiM?feature=shared https://youtu.be/wLE71i4JJiM?feature=shared Sometimes our cortex is in charge, sometimes other parts of our brain are, and we can't tell the difference. Regardless, if we try to justify it later, that justification isn't always coherent because we're not always using the part of our brain we consider to be rational.
- snthpy 2y ago
  Yes that was probably it because I rewatched that recently. Thanks!
shshshshs 2y ago
People who are good at reasoning find it hard to admit that they were wrong? That’s not my experience. People with reason are.. reasonable. You mention X and that’s not where the reasoners are. That’s where the (wanna be) politicians are. Rhetoric is not all of reasoning. I can agree that rationalizing snap judgements is one of our capabilities but I am totally unconvinced that it is the totality of our reasoning capabilities. Perhaps I misunderstood.
- Hedepig 2y ago
  This is not totally my experience, I've debated a successful engineer who by all accounts has good reasoning skills, but he will absolutely double down on unreasonable ideas he's made on the fly he if can find what he considers a coherent argument behind them. Sometimes if I absolutely can prove him wrong he'll change his mind. But I think this is ego getting in the way, and our reluctance to change our minds. We like to point to artificial intelligence and explain how it works differently and then say therefore it's not "true reasoning". I'm not sure that's a good conclusion. We should look at the output and decide. As flawed as it is, I think it's rather impressive
  - mdp2021 2y ago
    > ego getting in the way That thing which was in fact identified thousands of years ago as the evil to ditch. > reluctance to change our minds That is clumsiness in a general drive that makes sense and is recognized part of the Belief Change Theory: epistemic change is conservative. I.e., when you revise a body of knowledge you do not want to lose valid notions. But conversely, you do not want to be unable to see change or errors, so there is a balance. > it's not "true reasoning" If it shows not to explicitly check its "spontaneous" ideas, then it is a correct formula to say 'it's not "true reasoning"'.
    - Hedepig 2y ago
      > then it is a correct formula to say 'it's not "true reasoning"' why is that point fundamental?
      - mdp2021 2y ago
        Because the same way you do not want a human interlocutor to speak out of its dreams, uttering the first ideas that come to mind unvetted, and you want him to instead have thought hard and long and properly and diligently and well, equally you'll want the same from an automation.
        2y ago
mdp2021 2y ago
Already before Galileo we had experiments to determine whether ideas represented reality or not. And in crucial cases, long before that, it meant life or death. This will be clear to engineers. «Reason» is part of that mechanism of vetting ideas. You experience massive failures without it. So, no, trained judgement is a real thing, and the presence of innumerable incompetent do not prove an alleged absence of the competent.
jamesemmott 2y ago
I wonder if the reference you are reaching for, if it's not the Jonathan Haidt book suggested by a sibling comment, is The Enigma of Reason by the cognitive psychologists Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber (2017). In that book (quoting here from the abstract), Mercier and Sperber argue that reason 'is not geared to solitary use, to arriving at better beliefs and decisions on our own', but rather to 'help us justify our beliefs and actions to others, convince them through argumentation, and evaluate the justifications and arguments that others address to us'. Reason, they suggest, 'helps humans better exploit their uniquely rich social environment'. They resist the idea (popularized by Daniel Kahneman) that there is 'a contrast between intuition and reasoning as if these were two quite different forms of inference', proposing instead that 'reasoning is itself a kind of intuitive inference'. For them, reason as a cognitive mechanism is 'much more opportunistic and eclectic' than is implied by the common association with formal systems like logic. 'The main role of logic in reasoning, we suggest, may well be a rhetorical one: logic helps simplify and schematize intuitive arguments, highlighting and often exaggerating their force.' Their 'interactionist' perspective helps explain how illogical rhetoric can be so socially powerful; it is reason, 'a cognitive mechanism aimed at justifying oneself and convincing others', fulfilling its evolutionary social function. Highly recommended, if you're not already familiar.
- snthpy 2y ago
  Thank you. That's exactly the idea and described much more eloquently. I probably heard it through the Sapolsky lecture from a sibling comment but that captures it exactly. Bookmarked.

by snthpy 2y ago

briffid 2y ago

Jonathan Haidt's The Righteous Mind describes this ín details.

snthpy 2y ago
Thanks

omgwtfbyobbq 2y ago

I think Robert Sapolsky's lectures on yt cover this to some degree around 115. https://youtu.be/wLE71i4JJiM?feature=shared https://youtu.be/wLE71i4JJiM?feature=shared Sometimes our cortex is in charge, sometimes other parts of our brain are, and we can't tell the difference. Regardless, if we try to justify it later, that justification isn't always coherent because we're not always using the part of our brain we consider to be rational.

snthpy 2y ago
Yes that was probably it because I rewatched that recently. Thanks!

shshshshs 2y ago

People who are good at reasoning find it hard to admit that they were wrong? That’s not my experience. People with reason are.. reasonable. You mention X and that’s not where the reasoners are. That’s where the (wanna be) politicians are. Rhetoric is not all of reasoning. I can agree that rationalizing snap judgements is one of our capabilities but I am totally unconvinced that it is the totality of our reasoning capabilities. Perhaps I misunderstood.

Hedepig 2y ago
This is not totally my experience, I've debated a successful engineer who by all accounts has good reasoning skills, but he will absolutely double down on unreasonable ideas he's made on the fly he if can find what he considers a coherent argument behind them. Sometimes if I absolutely can prove him wrong he'll change his mind. But I think this is ego getting in the way, and our reluctance to change our minds. We like to point to artificial intelligence and explain how it works differently and then say therefore it's not "true reasoning". I'm not sure that's a good conclusion. We should look at the output and decide. As flawed as it is, I think it's rather impressive
- mdp2021 2y ago
  > ego getting in the way That thing which was in fact identified thousands of years ago as the evil to ditch. > reluctance to change our minds That is clumsiness in a general drive that makes sense and is recognized part of the Belief Change Theory: epistemic change is conservative. I.e., when you revise a body of knowledge you do not want to lose valid notions. But conversely, you do not want to be unable to see change or errors, so there is a balance. > it's not "true reasoning" If it shows not to explicitly check its "spontaneous" ideas, then it is a correct formula to say 'it's not "true reasoning"'.
  - Hedepig 2y ago
    > then it is a correct formula to say 'it's not "true reasoning"' why is that point fundamental?
    - mdp2021 2y ago
      Because the same way you do not want a human interlocutor to speak out of its dreams, uttering the first ideas that come to mind unvetted, and you want him to instead have thought hard and long and properly and diligently and well, equally you'll want the same from an automation.
      - 2y ago

mdp2021 2y ago

Already before Galileo we had experiments to determine whether ideas represented reality or not. And in crucial cases, long before that, it meant life or death. This will be clear to engineers. «Reason» is part of that mechanism of vetting ideas. You experience massive failures without it. So, no, trained judgement is a real thing, and the presence of innumerable incompetent do not prove an alleged absence of the competent.

jamesemmott 2y ago

I wonder if the reference you are reaching for, if it's not the Jonathan Haidt book suggested by a sibling comment, is The Enigma of Reason by the cognitive psychologists Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber (2017). In that book (quoting here from the abstract), Mercier and Sperber argue that reason 'is not geared to solitary use, to arriving at better beliefs and decisions on our own', but rather to 'help us justify our beliefs and actions to others, convince them through argumentation, and evaluate the justifications and arguments that others address to us'. Reason, they suggest, 'helps humans better exploit their uniquely rich social environment'. They resist the idea (popularized by Daniel Kahneman) that there is 'a contrast between intuition and reasoning as if these were two quite different forms of inference', proposing instead that 'reasoning is itself a kind of intuitive inference'. For them, reason as a cognitive mechanism is 'much more opportunistic and eclectic' than is implied by the common association with formal systems like logic. 'The main role of logic in reasoning, we suggest, may well be a rhetorical one: logic helps simplify and schematize intuitive arguments, highlighting and often exaggerating their force.' Their 'interactionist' perspective helps explain how illogical rhetoric can be so socially powerful; it is reason, 'a cognitive mechanism aimed at justifying oneself and convincing others', fulfilling its evolutionary social function. Highly recommended, if you're not already familiar.

snthpy 2y ago
Thank you. That's exactly the idea and described much more eloquently. I probably heard it through the Sapolsky lecture from a sibling comment but that captures it exactly. Bookmarked.