- Recent moral psychology suggests that we often simply rationalize our snap moral judgments. (Or worse: we actually undercut our snap judgments to defend whatever we want to do.)
- The great public radio show Radio Lab devoted an entire show to the psychology of our moral decision-making:
- Humans' judge-first, rationalize-later approach stems in part from the two competing decision-making styles inside our heads.
- For more on the dual aspects of our minds, I strongly recommend reading one of the best philosophy papers of 2008: "Alief and Belief" by Tamar Gendler.
- Here's a video dialogue between Gendler and her colleague (psychologist Paul Bloom) on her work:
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Rationalizing Away from the Truth
A big worry that the confirmation and disconfirmation biases raise is the difficulty of figuring out what counts as successful, open-minded reasoning, versus what amounts to after-the-fact rationalization of preexisting beliefs. Here are some links on our tendency to rationalize rather than reason:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment