How good is our reasoning? Jonah Lehrer writes an interesting essay in Wired that suggests we are more like radio talk show hosts than scientists when it comes to our thinking.
He cites a study in which students ranked 45 different kinds of strawberry jam. Then another group was asked to do the same but give reasons for their answers. The second group ended up with very different choices. Indeed, they chose brands which were rated as inferior by taste experts.
The psychologists of the study argue that “thinking too much” about strawberry jam causes us to focus on all sorts of variables that don’t actually matter. Instead of just listening to our instinctive preferences, we start searching for reasons to prefer one jam over another.
And it’s not just jam: they have since demonstrated that the same effect can interfere with our choice of posters, jelly beans, cars, IKEA couches and apartments. "We assume that more rational analysis leads to better choices but, in many instances, that assumption is exactly backwards."
"The larger moral is that our metaphors for reasoning are all wrong. We like to believe that the gift of human reason lets us think like scientists, so that our conscious thoughts lead us closer to the truth. But here’s the paradox: all that reasoning and confabulation can often lead us astray, so that we end up knowing less about what jams/cars/jelly beans we actually prefer. So here’s my new metaphor for human reason: our rational faculty isn’t a scientist – it’s a talk radio host. That voice in your head spewing out eloquent reasons to do this or do that doesn’t actually know what’s going on, and it’s not particularly adept..."
This perspective appears to echo Malcolm Gladwell:
"Truly successful decision-making relies on a balance between deliberate and instinctive thinking."
In the act of tearing something apart, you lose its meaning."
All this makes one wonder about how good we are at thinking.
