The linked study compares people based on "numeracy," i.e. a facility with numerical data. It finds that people who score higher on this are better able to draw causal inferences from data when faced with a difficult question.
The problem, though, is that this advantage went out the window when it was something political. Once it become a hot-button topic (in this case evaluating a measure on gun control):
- such polarization did not abate among subjects highest in numeracy; instead, it increased.
The authors conclude that their findings support the Identity-Protective Cognition Thesis, which says that cultural conflict overrides our reasoning abilities.
Our mental faculties evolved under conditions that selected for fitness. Apprehending reality in some sort of "objective" way is not necessarily a better adaptation. But this is a well written paper. It's a nice alternative to the poorly written social science I've been subject to so far this semester.Evolution has shaped us with perceptions that allow us to survive. They guide adaptive behaviors. But part of that involves hiding from us the stuff we don’t need to know. And that’s pretty much all of reality, whatever reality might be. If you had to spend all that time figuring it out, the tiger would eat you.
Interview
That's a reasonable conclusion IMO, but then of course the question becomes: now what?
Sometimes it feels like our consciousness/rational mind is just there to sit on our shoulder and tell us when things are fucked.
Not that we listen to our own (presumably sound) rationale when it conflicts with our sense of self. I'll be the first to admit that emotion and ego have derailed my judgement too many times to count. I'm not even sure I'm terribly adept at knowing when it is happening. If we were in meatspace, this is when I'd probably start grunting, smelling my armpits, and pretending to pick bugs out of your hair. Ok, maybe not that last one
Well, that's disappointing.Ok, maybe not that last one