64. The Argumentative Theory of Human Reason | THUNK 

I agree. The content is interesting. The video and audio are very good, and the well-scripted, short, baritone delivery reminds me of other very popular science/education channels. I wonder if the name keeps it from being taken seriously?

Everything has its beginning.

Kpiozero "Better." ;)

I'll definitely try that, thanks!

somewony IKR! That's why Fermat _just wouldn't shut up_ about why his last theorem worked! :p . (but I lol'd at your Fermi paradox line...)

Madara uchiha Thank you so much!

jaocheu It's certainly a feasible idea, but I think there are many linguists & neurologists who'd disagree with you on that point. (There are several who think the two are intimately linked temporally, that complex reasoning was a posterior development to *facilitate* communication.) I don't know of any conclusive research either way.

I think the trouble is deciding when 'complex' reasoning began and when complex speech began. The Science Museum website suggests speech itself began 100,000 years ago, no date on 'complex speech' though. If this is so complex reasoning undoubtedly preceded it, can definitely be dated to at least 300,000 years ago and depending on the definition 'complex' back to 1.7 million years.Of course there are theories speech is a lot older.

Good luck, godspeed, & please be gentle on the earlier ones - I promise, they get better! ;)

thank u for giving me a thunkgasm

Hannah Elisabeth The Wason Selection Task! www.philosophyexperiments.com/wason/

THUNK Thanks! I ended up getting all of them wrong, but that's because I misunderstood the questions. I mean, all three were essentially the same question. So I understood the question incorrectly and then applied the rule to all three. That's really annoying. They should have worded the questions better.

Roshkin One of the points I was trying to make (explanation of this got cut, sorry!) was that, if the argumentative theory is true, it suggests certain methods to overcome the anomalies in our "rational" thought. One potential method is the practice of dissoi logoi (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissoi_logoi), where you engage in motivated thinking both for & against a particular idea in the hopes of generating all possible support for both sides & considering it impartially. Another is to recognize that confirmation bias is dragging you onto one side of any issue, & that the best theories don't just explain the evidence for that side, but *all* the evidence, both for & against it. Anyways, I'm not a psychologist, but those seem like decent practices for the individual. I also highly recommend checking out Less Wrong (link in the description) for volumes upon volumes of information on combating cognitive bias on your lonesome. :)

ThePeaceableKingdom These are great points! The authors of the paper actually address this theory explicitly, that type 2 (rational/logical) thinking exists to compensate for flaws in type 1 (intuitive/unconscious) thought: "It is sometimes claimed (e.g., by Kahneman 2003) that the meliorative function of system 2 reasoning is achieved by correcting mistakes in system 1 intuitions. However, reasoning itself is a potential source of new mistakes. Moreover, there is considerable evidence that when reasoning is applied to the conclusions of intuitive inference, it tends to rationalize them rather than to correct them (e.g., Evans & Wason 1976)." AFAIK, confirmation bias works on the type 2 level of thought, not type 1 - you don't find reasons to feel gut instincts about things, although you might rationalize those gut instincts after the fact. (It's also one of the major points of criticism for Jung's theory of synchronicity.) Also, the effects described in the video apply to introverts & extroverts equally - introverts aren't any less prone to slack off on justifying their intuitions until needing to defend them. They might be less happy about needing to interact with others, but I don't think they're free of the social pressures levied by evolution. Fantastic points for discussion! Thank you!

THUNK Thanks. I'm but a dilettante. I'm unfamiliar with Kahneman, Evans, and Watson so thanks for the reading list. I'll be looking for them now. But, of course, I was just trying to rationalize a good argument against the proposition at hand... Natch! (My late best friend use to say I was a natural "a-ginner"! Although being basically an 'introvert' who enjoys the process of reasoned conversation blows my whole theory! ) One may not find reasons for gut instincts, but you certainly only _overcome_ the promptings of your gut instincts when you employ your reason. Never, really, otherwise... Bear. Big, scary dangerous thing. Instinct says flee. But wait a minute, think about it... you can't outrun the bear. Defy your instinct and look big and scary yourself. Result is better - though not certain - chance of survival. (And no arguments involved...) . (I'll defend a lot of Jung's ideas, and I while I note the importance of synchronicity as an idea, he'll have to defend that one himself. It seems to me a bit like Saint Anselm's ontological proof: it can be made logically rigorous, but then doesn't prove anything very important; or it can be taken to prove something quite important but isn't logically convincing...)

ThePeaceableKingdom I'm pretty much a dilettante as well. I have no formal education in psychology, so all I can do is point at citations & hope they help. :) Sometimes overcoming the promptings of gut instincts leads to erroneous views. (See the Evans/Wason paper.) It's certainly easy to invent scenarios where reason nets you a more advantageous response than intuition (especially because we value it so much culturally), but I find it very hard to explain why it sucks in such pervasive & reliable ways if that's the actual purpose of its evolutionary origins - if you're going to die if you're wrong about something, it doesn't make sense to have a mechanism to make you more firmly entrenched in being wrong. As stated, it's all conjecture, but hey, it's fun to think about! (And I have a physicist's prejudice against the pioneer psychologists, so don't be too put off by my being spikey about 'em. ;) )

"I have a physicist's prejudice against the pioneer psychologists" No worries. My father was an engineer. My grandfather was an engineer, too. (One science-y, one train...) I, also, have a low tolerance for 'woo'. (But I'm also a Doctor Who fan, and the Doctor said "Keep an open mind. That's the secret!" It may be silly - I know it's silly! - but I still think it's true...) "if you're going to die if you're wrong about something, it doesn't make sense to have a mechanism to make you more firmly entrenched in being wrong." Unless... the mechanism is right more often than (or for that matter even as often as) it's wrong. Then the mechanism is explained. and the need for an override in exceptional circumstances would be explained as well...

"Better" doesn't mean "faultless." ;)