The Enigma of Reason: A New Theory of Human Understanding
- Downloads：1164
- Type：Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
- Create Date：2021-07-11 09:55:24
- Update Date：2025-09-07
- Status：finish
- Author：Hugo Mercier
- ISBN：0241957850
- Environment：PC/Android/iPhone/iPad/Kindle
- Download
Summary
Reason， we are told， is what makes us human， the source of our knowledge and wisdom。 If reason is so useful， why didn't it also evolve in other animals？ If reason is that reliable， why do we produce so much thoroughly reasoned nonsense？ In their groundbreaking account of the evolution and workings of reason， Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber set out to solve this double enigma。 Reason， they argue with a compelling mix of real-life and experimental evidence， is not geared to solitary use， to arriving at better beliefs and decisions on our own。 What reason does， rather， is help us justify our beliefs and actions to others， convince them through argumentation， and evaluate the justifications and arguments that others address to us。
In other words， reason helps humans better exploit their uniquely rich social environment。 This interactionist interpretation explains why reason may have evolved and how it fits with other cognitive mechanisms。 It makes sense of strengths and weaknesses that have long puzzled philosophers and psychologists--why reason is biased in favor of what we already believe， why it may lead to terrible ideas and yet is indispensable to spreading good ones。
Ambitious， provocative， and entertaining， The Enigma of Reason will spark debate among psychologists and philosophers， and make many reasonable people rethink their own thinking。
In other words， reason helps humans better exploit their uniquely rich social environment。 This interactionist interpretation explains why reason may have evolved and how it fits with other cognitive mechanisms。 It makes sense of strengths and weaknesses that have long puzzled philosophers and psychologists--why reason is biased in favor of what we already believe， why it may lead to terrible ideas and yet is indispensable to spreading good ones。
Ambitious， provocative， and entertaining， The Enigma of Reason will spark debate among psychologists and philosophers， and make many reasonable people rethink their own thinking。
Reviews
Muhammad Fadel
，
This is one tough， yet at some time， extremely insightful。 The book itself discusses about reason。 Reason is praised as one feature of what differentiates human and animal。 The human ability to reason is what brings advanced civilization。 However， in many ways， the reason is also flawed。 We tend to bias to our own belief/judgment， and most of the case we're lazy。 We're using some heuristics to make decisions quickly。Behavioral science deemed this limitation， or weaknesses as a bias。 We， human， a This is one tough， yet at some time， extremely insightful。 The book itself discusses about reason。 Reason is praised as one feature of what differentiates human and animal。 The human ability to reason is what brings advanced civilization。 However， in many ways， the reason is also flawed。 We tend to bias to our own belief/judgment， and most of the case we're lazy。 We're using some heuristics to make decisions quickly。Behavioral science deemed this limitation， or weaknesses as a bias。 We， human， are not machine。 We're bound to cognitive limitations。 We're easily swayed by attempt of persuasions from others。 Context does set how we interpret things。 All of this phenomenon， help to explains the limitation of reason。However， does it mean that cognitive bias is bad？ To many， bias is bad。 It prevents us to achieve the best outcome。 Hence， there are lots of "help" or "nudge" that is offered to help us combat this biases。Interestingly， the authors think that cognitive bias not as a bug， but rather as a feature。 Reason， is developed the way they are， because it does fit how it should be used， and reason as supercomputing tools， is rather how we wish it to be。Reason， as author argues， serve two function: It provide us with tools to cooperate with each others， to convince others and It provide us with tools to give justification to what we do。 Looking at the two primary functions， it is then understandable why when we reason， we tend to be biased; for it helps us to settle our position in arguments with others。From intellectualist view， those who believe that reason help us to lead to better decision， find confirmation bias a problem， and therefore intuition is to blame。 However， this does not make evolutionary sense。 Intuition is helpful in guiding our decision， and should this not useful， it should be eliminated by the process of natural selection。 Intuition is helpful for gather most helpful information， while reasoning at confirming or explaining participants decision。Alas， confirmation bias is also said as *myside bias*。 Reason does not blindly confirm any believe， it will systematically assess the argument， and more often if it fits to what we believe， we will accept it and vice versa。 From evolutionary perspective， where we expect to survive， this make sense。 Myside bias help us to defend our point。 *Its a feature， not a bug*。 。。。more
David
，
Some of the build up to the core ideas felt a little dense and drawn out， but I have a feeling I'll be processing this book for a long time to come。 Mercier and Sperber layout a case for our "reasoning" not being so rational， that it relies ultimate on instinct and emotion。 The bits about reason being primarily for social consumption and a module within our larger mental landscape I found particularly compelling。 Some of the build up to the core ideas felt a little dense and drawn out， but I have a feeling I'll be processing this book for a long time to come。 Mercier and Sperber layout a case for our "reasoning" not being so rational， that it relies ultimate on instinct and emotion。 The bits about reason being primarily for social consumption and a module within our larger mental landscape I found particularly compelling。 。。。more
Hemen Kalita
，
Not another anti-rationalist book。 It neither supports intuition nor reason。 They both are ，as authors think， part of the same process。 Reasoning is grounded in intuition。 Hence， the book rejects the dual process theory， popularly known as system 1 and system 2。 Reasoning is after the fact rationalization and is a social construct and has nothing to do with logic。Instead， the authors argue that it is actually the interactive discussions that foster intellectual， social and moral growth。 It is ar Not another anti-rationalist book。 It neither supports intuition nor reason。 They both are ，as authors think， part of the same process。 Reasoning is grounded in intuition。 Hence， the book rejects the dual process theory， popularly known as system 1 and system 2。 Reasoning is after the fact rationalization and is a social construct and has nothing to do with logic。Instead， the authors argue that it is actually the interactive discussions that foster intellectual， social and moral growth。 It is argumentation and not solitary reasoning that leads to conclusion。 。。。more
Kevin
，
As usual， Sperber （and Mercier） leave my view of the world altered。 Like his "epidemiology of representations" （1985， 1996）， it's difficult not to see these ideas playing out constantly in the world around me。 A compelling extension of his/their previous work to cover new， and central， territory and confront a lot of untethered， but influential， theory & common sense about reason's "proper function。" I consider Sperber one of the least known， most important， thinkers of the last half-decade。 As usual， Sperber （and Mercier） leave my view of the world altered。 Like his "epidemiology of representations" （1985， 1996）， it's difficult not to see these ideas playing out constantly in the world around me。 A compelling extension of his/their previous work to cover new， and central， territory and confront a lot of untethered， but influential， theory & common sense about reason's "proper function。" I consider Sperber one of the least known， most important， thinkers of the last half-decade。 。。。more
Joaquin Rodriguez
，
Muy interesante lo que plantea el libro， da otra percepción de lo que es y para qué sirve la razón。 El motivo de las 4 estrellas es que el capítulo 2 y 3 se hacían muy tediosos de leer （casi 150 páginas）， pero ya los últimos capítulos eran esclarecedores y cautivadores。
Juda Kaleta
，
Sice mi trvalo strašlivě dlouho dostat se přes první půlku （vážně jsem to četl skoro rok a půl？）， ale druhá byla fascinující。 Vlastně ani ne tak překvapující — že byl člověk stvořen pro vztah， to je nakonec jedno ze základních křesťanských východisek （a je vtipné， že se to prokazuje z pohledu evolučních vědců）。 Každopádně by mohlo mít interakcionalistické pojetí rozumu zajímavé důsledku — už jen v tom， že se tím potvrzuje， že ve škole je lepší diskutovat， než dělat větné rozbory a mastit vzorečk Sice mi trvalo strašlivě dlouho dostat se přes první půlku （vážně jsem to četl skoro rok a půl？）， ale druhá byla fascinující。 Vlastně ani ne tak překvapující — že byl člověk stvořen pro vztah， to je nakonec jedno ze základních křesťanských východisek （a je vtipné， že se to prokazuje z pohledu evolučních vědců）。 Každopádně by mohlo mít interakcionalistické pojetí rozumu zajímavé důsledku — už jen v tom， že se tím potvrzuje， že ve škole je lepší diskutovat， než dělat větné rozbory a mastit vzorečky。 。。。more
Auke Hunneman
，
This is one of the best nonfiction books that I have read。 It is very well written and it discusses a “controversial” new theory on the origins of reasoning。 It starts out defending， in my view successfully， the thesis that reasoning is an adaptation for social interaction。 Following this evolutionary perspective， reason is not for making better decisions but for earning status and trust in a social context。 As a consequence， reason can be biased in the sense that it not necessarily results in t This is one of the best nonfiction books that I have read。 It is very well written and it discusses a “controversial” new theory on the origins of reasoning。 It starts out defending， in my view successfully， the thesis that reasoning is an adaptation for social interaction。 Following this evolutionary perspective， reason is not for making better decisions but for earning status and trust in a social context。 As a consequence， reason can be biased in the sense that it not necessarily results in the best decisions。 Rather， it is lazy when used for solitary use and therefore it exactly explains biases in our logical reasoning abilities。 However， in a social setting， it works much better， thereby forcing people constantly to justify their own decisions better and -at the same time- evaluating the motivations of others。Obviously， whether this view of reasoning is true， the future will tell。 In line with their thesis， the authors make an excellent case for their theory。 Highly recommended！ 。。。more
Chris Brady
，
For lovers of Thinking Fast and Slow comes this wonderful assessment of reason and Reason。Full of terrific puzzles of which I failed at every turn。 Where I succeeded at being logical， I failed at being rational。Where I presented rationale I failed at justification。Ultimately though， I love that the Enigma of Reason supported myside bias that argumentation is fundamental and cooperation trumps solitary thinking。A very reasonable five stars。
Harish Naik
，
A brilliant and an important book！
Jonathan
，
The first parts of this book were quite dense and difficult to follow at times， specially because I was not familiar with the psychology of reason lingo。That said， it is a fascinating book。 We like to think of ourselves as perfectly rational animals as if our logic could never be flawed。 We commit a logical mistake it was just because we were misinformed， right？ So we tell ourselves。 This book reminded me that this is not the case。 Our human logic is very often misguided。So， what is the point of The first parts of this book were quite dense and difficult to follow at times， specially because I was not familiar with the psychology of reason lingo。That said， it is a fascinating book。 We like to think of ourselves as perfectly rational animals as if our logic could never be flawed。 We commit a logical mistake it was just because we were misinformed， right？ So we tell ourselves。 This book reminded me that this is not the case。 Our human logic is very often misguided。So， what is the point of the mind's reason faculty if it cannot objectively assess arguments or produce mathematically accurate evidence-based opinions about things？The authors argue that reason is an evolutionary modular aspect of the mind， one that evolved because of our social environments。 We don't use reason to find the most logical explanation to something， **we use reason to explain - to others - things we already believe in or to justify actions we have taken or will take。** Even when we are talking to ourselves， we use reason in the same way。 Also， we humans are lazy。 When we need to explain/justify something， we look for reasons that are cognitively easier to reach - not the ones that make the most sense objectively speaking。It's a nice read， it's a book I will be thinking about a lot。 If you find the first few parts of the book dull， hang in there。 The final two parts are more akin to popular science books and provide a more fluid read and very enjoyable， and specially rewarding if you understand their main point made at the beginning of the book。 。。。more
مُهنا
，
I will begin by saying that I probably only understood 60% of what was written。 Our misunderstanding of the nature of reason is very astounding， I did not expect how easy it is for us to be reasonably unreasonable。 The book discussed the many theories about reason and how our brain functions when we try to think and other aspects of what we unconsciously do when we try to reason。 It also discusses some fallacies we use in our lives that we may not even notice。 Overall， it’s a good book that I sh I will begin by saying that I probably only understood 60% of what was written。 Our misunderstanding of the nature of reason is very astounding， I did not expect how easy it is for us to be reasonably unreasonable。 The book discussed the many theories about reason and how our brain functions when we try to think and other aspects of what we unconsciously do when we try to reason。 It also discusses some fallacies we use in our lives that we may not even notice。 Overall， it’s a good book that I should return too when I’m smarter or more knowledgeable。 。。。more
Nancie Lafferty
，
Throughly reasoned nonsense using lame comparisons， analogies and examples。 Fifty cent words in ten dollar sentences where simple nickel words in a straightforward five dollar sentence would make more sense。 A tedious listen with very little reward。
Mario
，
Dense at first， this is a convincing argument that we reason in order to justify our actions to others， and to evaluate others’ justifications （‘reasons’） to us。 From this arises the ability to evaluate any argument semi-objectively， and to make keen deductions。 Like ‘Elephant in the Brain’， this book reminds us that we see ourselves through indelibly rose-tinted glasses。
Jose Sierra
，
AMAZING READ。I think I rarely can say this but this one not only changed completely the way I understand the subject， it made me feel extremely excited throughout the whole thing。 Also worth saying it's beautifully written。On the content， besides the superb argumentation for the interactionist theory of reason， if read with the proper lenses， it offers a profound opportunity to reflect on why we share our cultural/moral goods richness with others and why it is relevant。 Again amazing book， insta AMAZING READ。I think I rarely can say this but this one not only changed completely the way I understand the subject， it made me feel extremely excited throughout the whole thing。 Also worth saying it's beautifully written。On the content， besides the superb argumentation for the interactionist theory of reason， if read with the proper lenses， it offers a profound opportunity to reflect on why we share our cultural/moral goods richness with others and why it is relevant。 Again amazing book， instantly one of my favs in a really long time。 。。。more
Maher Razouk
，
أهمية الجدل 。。。。。في بداية فيلم 12 Angry Men ، يتهم شاب بطعن والده حتى الموت。 حياته في وضع حرج: في غرفة المحلفين ، تتراكم الحجج من أجل الإدانة。شاهد أحدهم الصبي يفعل ذلك。 وسمع آخر الشجار ورأى المتهم يفر من الشقة ؛ عذر الصبي لا يصمد。 لديه دافع ، ولديه سجل طويل من العنف。 هناك استقطاب جماعي كامن ، وعلى استعداد لإقناع المحلفين بوجوب إرسال الصبي إلى الكرسي الكهربائي。 لكن أحد المحلفين أقل ثقة من الآخرين。 في حين أن هذا المحلف غير مقتنع ببراءة المدعى عليه ، إلا أنه ليس متأكدًا تمامًا من ذنبه أيضًا。 إنه "ي أهمية الجدل 。。。。。في بداية فيلم 12 Angry Men ، يتهم شاب بطعن والده حتى الموت。 حياته في وضع حرج: في غرفة المحلفين ، تتراكم الحجج من أجل الإدانة。شاهد أحدهم الصبي يفعل ذلك。 وسمع آخر الشجار ورأى المتهم يفر من الشقة ؛ عذر الصبي لا يصمد。 لديه دافع ، ولديه سجل طويل من العنف。 هناك استقطاب جماعي كامن ، وعلى استعداد لإقناع المحلفين بوجوب إرسال الصبي إلى الكرسي الكهربائي。 لكن أحد المحلفين أقل ثقة من الآخرين。 في حين أن هذا المحلف غير مقتنع ببراءة المدعى عليه ، إلا أنه ليس متأكدًا تمامًا من ذنبه أيضًا。 إنه "يريد التحدث فقط"。 عندما يتم حثه على تقديم الحجج ، يبدأ بحجج ضعيفة: الأدلة ضد الصبي جيدة جدًا ؛ إنها جيدة بشكل مريب。ليس من المستغرب أن هذا لا يؤثر على أي من المحلفين الآخرين。 ومع ذلك ، يقوم هذا المحلف بعمل أفضل في إحداث ثغرات في قضية الادعاء。يكشف التناقضات في الحجج التي تجرم الصبي 。 يزعم أحد الشهود أنه شاهد جريمة القتل من الجانب الآخر من الشارع ، عبر نوافذ قطار عابر في مترو الأنفاق المرتفع。 يدعي شاهد آخر أنه سمع الصبي يهدد والده - "سأقتلك！" - ثم سقط والده ميتاً بعد ذلك ببضع ثوان。 ولكن كيف سمع الشاهد الثاني أي شيء بالرغم من صوت القطار الذي يصم الآذان؟تظهر المزيد من التناقضات في حجج المحلفين الآخرين。 لا يمكن العثور على بصمات الصبي على السكين。 ليست مشكلة للمحلف الرابع: الصبي قاتل بدم بارد يمسح السكين ، حيث لا يزال ملوثًا بدماء والده。 تم القبض على المتهم من قبل الشرطة عائدا إلى منزله ثلاثة ساعات من الجريمة。 لماذا العودة إلى مسرح الجريمة؟ لدى المحلف الرابع إجابة: "أصيب بالذعر بعد أن قتل والده ، وبعد ذلك ، عندما هدأ أخيرًا ، أدرك أنه ترك السكين هناك。" ولكن بعد ذلك ، يشير المحلف الأكثر تشككًا ، كيف يمكنك ضبط ذلك مع حقيقة أنه "كان هادئًا بما يكفي ليرى أنه لم تكن هناك بصمات على السكين؟"يمكن أن تتخذ التناقضات شكل معايير مزدوجة。 الصبي من الأحياء الفقيرة ، والمحلف العاشر يعلم أن الناس هناك "كذابين بالفطرة" ؛ "لا يمكنك تصديق كلمة مما يقولون"。 ومع ذلك ، ليس لديه أي مشاكل في قبول شهادة الشاهدة التي تدعي أنها رأت الصبي يرتكب جريمة القتل ، على الرغم من أنها "واحدة منهم أيضًا" ، كما يشير المحلف المتشكك。في بعض الأحيان ، يظهر التناقض بشكل صارخ لدرجة أنه لا يحتاج حتى إلى الإشارة إليه。 دافع المحلف الثالث بشدة عن حكم الإدانة ، معتمدا في جزء كبير منه على شهادة الرجل الذي قال إنه سمع الشجار ورأى الصبي يغادر الشقة بعد ذلك مباشرة。 مع ذلك ، يدعي الشاهد أنه نهض وتجاوز طول المبنى بأكمله في خمس عشرة ثانية - وهو أمر مستحيل بالنسبة لرجل عجوز يعرج。 لكن هذه ليست قضية للمحلف الثالث: لابد أن الشاهد قد أخطأ في تقديره - بعد كل شيء ، "كان رجلاً عجوزًا ، نصف الوقت كان مرتبكًا。 كيف يمكن أن يكون إيجابيا بشأن أي شيء؟ "هذه التناقضات تدفع ببطء معظم المحلفين نحو الشك المعقول ، ولكن ليس كلهم 。 ومع ذلك ، فإن معظم العمل يتم عن طريق الجدل。 إن الجدل هو الذي يسمح للثغرات في قضية الادعاء بالظهور。 إن الجدل هو الذي يبرز المعايير المزدوجة。 إن الجدل هو الذي يكشف التناقضات。 إن الجدل هو الذي يثير الشك في أذهان المحلفين。 في فيلم 12 Angry Men ، ينقذ الجدل حياة الصبي！！。المصدر : كتاب The enigma of reasonترجمة ماهر رزوق 。。。more
Dennis Nehrenheim
，
Why I read this bookThis was my second read of 2021 and part of my challenging 52-book challenge that complements my slogan for this year: "A Year of Ratio & Will"。While my motivation to read this book was to think， become， and act more "rational" it turned out to make me question the function and utility of "reasoning" in the first place。What the book is aboutIn this highly thought-provoking book the authors put forth a new theory of rationality which they have been developing for over a decade Why I read this bookThis was my second read of 2021 and part of my challenging 52-book challenge that complements my slogan for this year: "A Year of Ratio & Will"。While my motivation to read this book was to think， become， and act more "rational" it turned out to make me question the function and utility of "reasoning" in the first place。What the book is aboutIn this highly thought-provoking book the authors put forth a new theory of rationality which they have been developing for over a decade。 They argue， that reason， counter to classical thoughts， has two main purposes:（1） to produce justifications for protecting one's social reputation （2） to produce arguments to convince others of one's own views。 With this， they reject classical philosophies on rationality and argue， that biases and laziness are actually no flaws of the human mind， but a highly valuable feature to support human communication and coordination。 One lesson I am taking from itThis is not an easy read and a highly theoretical book。 Still， I want to take one practical lesson with me。 Namely， that in order to improve my "rationality" I should try to reduce solitary reasoning and instead more often engage in argumentative reasoning with other people。 Reading Recommendation / Who should read this？I cannot recommend this book enough; especially if you bought into / are convinced by the prominent work of Daniel Kahneman （Thinking， Fast and Slow）。 The author's theory may then represent quite a paradigm shift for you。 I am a layman， but wouldn't be surprised to see this treatise have a huge impact in scientific circles。 。。。more
Roberto Pieraccini
，
If you are truly philosophically inclined and with a passion for logic， this is a great book。An exploration on why human reasining is fallacious。 Unfortunately it often gets too technical for the casual non-philosopher reader。
Andrew
，
A taught， accessoble theory of reasoning that argues effectively against the long held view that Reason sits on a throne but is fatally flawed in its utility。 Once considered in an evolutionary context， I found it difficult to provide cpunterarguments to the author's views。 A taught， accessoble theory of reasoning that argues effectively against the long held view that Reason sits on a throne but is fatally flawed in its utility。 Once considered in an evolutionary context， I found it difficult to provide cpunterarguments to the author's views。 。。。more
Mendoza
，
Outstanding。 It's dense and a fairly slow read （it was for me at least）， but it is clearly argued， accessible and does not require any particular background in philosophy or psychology。 The central thesis and the structure of the argument are well in evidence throughout， and while this generates some repetition， it means that the reader is never lost in the weeds of the evidence。 It's still hardly a casual read， and some interest in the subject matter is required。 Sperber and Mercier's analysis Outstanding。 It's dense and a fairly slow read （it was for me at least）， but it is clearly argued， accessible and does not require any particular background in philosophy or psychology。 The central thesis and the structure of the argument are well in evidence throughout， and while this generates some repetition， it means that the reader is never lost in the weeds of the evidence。 It's still hardly a casual read， and some interest in the subject matter is required。 Sperber and Mercier's analysis of the nature and characteristics of reasoning is rather more profound than is usually found in pop-psychology literature， and their ideas make the fashionable explanations in terms of "fast and slow systems" and mysterious， anti-adaptive "biases" look a little bit naïve in comparison。Some of the examples and details are eminently quibblable with， but this is only part of the fun （and the authors have clearly anticipated some skepticism on the part of the reader）。 Digressions outside of the authors' field of expertise -such as nuclear safety regulation in Japan- are also not always judicious。 。。。more
Lorenzo Scarafia
，
A great book where reason as a cognitive and mental ability is dissected and discovered on a totally new and different way。 This book is a masterpiece for whoever loves understanding more about this powerful ability that makes us human。
Alex
，
This book influenced the way I think about reason， agency， and the implications of liberalism。
Iris Wynants
，
You need to stay focussed reading the first chapters， where it gets quiet technical discussing logic。 The authors never loose their clarity， though， as they set up sound foundations for their arguments about how reason works。 Plenty of experiments and day life examples are used to make a strong case in this new view on reasoning。 A view so surprisingly simple it feels like I've had it for whole my life。 Praise for the authors and their creative thinking。 You need to stay focussed reading the first chapters， where it gets quiet technical discussing logic。 The authors never loose their clarity， though， as they set up sound foundations for their arguments about how reason works。 Plenty of experiments and day life examples are used to make a strong case in this new view on reasoning。 A view so surprisingly simple it feels like I've had it for whole my life。 Praise for the authors and their creative thinking。 。。。more
BlackOxford
，
The First Rule of Rationality: There are No Rules of RationalityReason is one of those terms， like time or God， which seems obvious until it’s taken seriously。 It then dissipates into a semantic haze with no solid meaning whatsoever。 No one can find it outside the language which postulates and defines it。 Reason， that is， is a purely linguistic phenomenon。 And even within language its content is elusive。Think about it。 Reason cannot be logical deduction because deduction requires premises that a The First Rule of Rationality: There are No Rules of RationalityReason is one of those terms， like time or God， which seems obvious until it’s taken seriously。 It then dissipates into a semantic haze with no solid meaning whatsoever。 No one can find it outside the language which postulates and defines it。 Reason， that is， is a purely linguistic phenomenon。 And even within language its content is elusive。Think about it。 Reason cannot be logical deduction because deduction requires premises that are postulated without reference to logic。 Reason cannot be induction from empirical data because there is no limit to the amount of opposing data which might be supplied。 Scientific method， however that is conceived， can’t be reason。 What is deemed acceptable by scientists， however they are identified historically， is subject to continuously changing criteria of evidence and technique。Philosophy can’t be reason since it always starts with a presumption of what is important in life。 Or for that matter after life。 And the choice of what is important for many philosophers seems arbitrary if not downright unreasonable。Yet despite our inability to define what we mean by reason， we tend to treat it as a kind of species-specific superpower。 Isn’t reason what distinguishes us from brute animals？ Doesn’t reason allow us to transcend the limitations of physical force in resolving our conflicts？ Isn’t it reason which allows us to achieve such heights of achievement as space travel and the internet？There are good reasons to answer all these questions negatively。 And in an admirably self-referential way， this is exactly what the authors do: “Reason， we will argue， is a mechanism for intuitive inferences about one kind of representations， namely， reasons。” Reason is about giving and comparing the worth of reasons， often in a most unreasonable manner。Reason is an interactive process which cannot be reduced to a method or a formula: “We produce reasons in order to justify our thoughts and actions to others and to produce arguments to convince others to think and act as we suggest。 We also use reason to evaluate not so much our own thought as the reasons others produce to justify themselves or to convince us。” Anyone who doubts this proposition has never been married， or certainly not been married for long。In other words， reason is the way human beings communicate。 Reason is uniquely human to the extent that human language is unique。 Reason is an inherent element of language not something that is applied to language。 Reason is how language is employed - to influence others。The implications of this insight are profoundly important。 Reason is not scientific， or rational， or objective; it is political; it is meant to justify and convince。 Those who try to fix the meaning of reason are merely employing reason unreasonably for their own ends。 Reason is the profound strength and the equally profound flaw of language。 It is the strength of an immeasurably strong linguistic technology that allows complex communal efforts; and it is the flaw of that technology that we are unable to escape from it。 Language becomes an imperative which must be used。 Argument is superior to violence， we say。 But only for the winners of the argument。 Every political system， which is of course defined in language， has a means of keeping the losers of arguments from violence - the potential for even greater violence。 Language’s claim to superiority is therefore fatuous。 As the authors say， the purpose of reason is always the same - to justify and convince。 And failing that， to compel。 。。。more
Chris Branch
，
I didn't realize before starting this book that it would be a direct challenge to the "dual system" model of reason， which I found largely convincing when described by Daniel Kahneman。 However， even as I agreed with much of Kahneman's book， I had some issues with it; for example， when presenting the case of how System 1 （intuitive） thinking gets things wrong， Kahneman references a study in which irrelevant information is taken into account when it shouldn't be （Thinking， Fast and Slow， p。 153）。 I didn't realize before starting this book that it would be a direct challenge to the "dual system" model of reason， which I found largely convincing when described by Daniel Kahneman。 However， even as I agreed with much of Kahneman's book， I had some issues with it; for example， when presenting the case of how System 1 （intuitive） thinking gets things wrong， Kahneman references a study in which irrelevant information is taken into account when it shouldn't be （Thinking， Fast and Slow， p。 153）。 I commented at the time that "。。。the fact that the extra info is provided is interpreted as an unspoken request to take it into account。 If it's technically wrong to do this， then offering the info is more or less a deliberate deception。" In this book， Mercier and Sperber agree， pointing out that "Treating information that has been intentionally given to you as relevant isn't irrational - quite the contrary。" （p。 33）The authors consider reason， as understood in the traditional "intellectualist" approach， to be a "double enigma" （p。 4） in that it is often venerated as an evolutionarily provided superpower that separates humans from other animals， but at the same time it seems to be deeply flawed， in that we fail presumably simple tests of logic。 Mercier and Sperber resolve the enigma by explaining that reason is simply a module that evolved along with other mechanisms of inference， and has two specific purposes: to justify our beliefs to ourselves， and to defend them in arguments with others - an "interactionist" approach。 This approach is surprisingly powerful， explaining not only the clear benefits we get from the ability to reason， but also the apparent failures of this ability when we try to use for artificial tasks that it never evolved to address。 This book frames reason as a module contained within a larger set of mental functionality that can be considered "intuition"， which in turn is a subset of a yet larger group of modules evolved for the purpose of "inference"。 Mental modules make sense to me， even if the details are yet to be resolved， and I think there's probably still room for Kahneman's System 1 / System 2 model as a way of conceptualizing different ways the mind works， as long as we keep in mind Mercier and Sperber's view that reasoning evolved to serve a purpose for humans， and it must have been successful in that purpose， otherwise we wouldn't have it。 So rather than looking at System 1 as flawed because it allows logical errors and System 2 as flawed because it's slow， it's valuable to see both modes as aspects of a reason module that performs its function as it was evolved to do。The authors' argument is clear and insightful， with examples of flawed reasoning from history that I wasn't familiar with， such as Linus Pauling's stubborn promotion of vitamin C as a miracle cure， and expert witness Bertillon's clearly contrived handwriting testimony in the Dreyfus affair。 The authors use these examples and others to show not that reasoning is a flawed superpower， but that it fails predictably when applied in circumstances outside of those in which it evolved。 Although it might be seen as cynical to reduce reason to a mechanism that reinforces our biases and lends itself to lazy thinking - when used by a single person in isolation - the authors also present evidence that when used in the environment for which it evolved - in collaboration with others - it does lead to improved convergence on the truth， which is， in the end， exactly what we'd hope that reason can do for us。 There's plenty to think about here for anyone interested in how people actually think。 Highly recommended！ 。。。more
Robert
，
What I need。 Those who are faithful about the objectivity of logic and reasoning should go through a year of studying LSAT， Law School Admission Test for American law schools， and you'd literally feel that grinding process of being brainwashed by what 'the standard for the production of "Truth"/truthful conclusion。' And I assure you at least some level of unnatural-ness and some sort of mind-twisting。 And maybe， you'd see the reason why Laws and their use there has been reduced to what it is tod What I need。 Those who are faithful about the objectivity of logic and reasoning should go through a year of studying LSAT， Law School Admission Test for American law schools， and you'd literally feel that grinding process of being brainwashed by what 'the standard for the production of "Truth"/truthful conclusion。' And I assure you at least some level of unnatural-ness and some sort of mind-twisting。 And maybe， you'd see the reason why Laws and their use there has been reduced to what it is today。 。。。more
Lukasz
，
recommended: [EP59 Gregg Henriques on Unifying Psychology - The Jim Rutt Show]（https://jimruttshow。blubrry。net/gregg。。。） recommended: [EP59 Gregg Henriques on Unifying Psychology - The Jim Rutt Show]（https://jimruttshow。blubrry。net/gregg。。。） 。。。more
Piet
，
This to me gave a very convincing argument that reason is not some kind of logic machine but rather a module that has as its evolutionary function to infer reasons for interaction （arguments） with others。 It's quite philosophical， especially in the beginning， as the authors very clearly delimit what they are talking about and where the arguments of the opposition do not make sense。 Most striking I found an analogy with visual illusions: just because in some very non-standard situations our visua This to me gave a very convincing argument that reason is not some kind of logic machine but rather a module that has as its evolutionary function to infer reasons for interaction （arguments） with others。 It's quite philosophical， especially in the beginning， as the authors very clearly delimit what they are talking about and where the arguments of the opposition do not make sense。 Most striking I found an analogy with visual illusions: just because in some very non-standard situations our visual system makes the wrong inferences doesn't mean that it is not good at what it does。 The same goes for reason: just because it seems non-rational （all the famous biases） in some often quite artificial laboratory situations doesn't mean that reason has not been well-shaped by the evolutionary process for the situations that it is really for: convincing others in argumentation and evaluating other's arguments。 I did find it a little bit light on empiry， although there are still plenty empirical observations mentioned， but I am nonetheless convinced by the argument。 It could have been a bit less painstaking in its argumentation here and there - it was not quite a page-turner - but I'm happy I read it。 。。。more
Hális Alves
，
Gold， my dudes。
Marks54
，
。。。so two psychologists/cognitive scientists walk into a bar。 What will they talk about？ Who know？ 。。。but if you had to guess， it is likely a good idea that something about mind， reason， and even philosophy might soon be on the table。This general set-up has been generating books to inform the educated public more about what they know and don’t know （mostly don’t know） about popular topics with a mental bent。 It is not surprising that this is sometimes called “pop” psychology。Mercier and Sperber 。。。so two psychologists/cognitive scientists walk into a bar。 What will they talk about？ Who know？ 。。。but if you had to guess， it is likely a good idea that something about mind， reason， and even philosophy might soon be on the table。This general set-up has been generating books to inform the educated public more about what they know and don’t know （mostly don’t know） about popular topics with a mental bent。 It is not surprising that this is sometimes called “pop” psychology。Mercier and Sperber are doing much more here than is found in the typical （or even atypical） pop psychology book / research review。 They start with the idea that “reason” as is commonly understood has come to occupy a place of high standing in thinking about human capabilities - especially opposed to animal capabilities - but that upon examination， reason is frequently shown to be lacking in some way and undeserving of his position of privilege。 One of the most prominent lines in this direction has concerned human limitations and cognitive biases， especially as developed by Kahneman。So is human rationality a false promise？ Is it the case that we are less reasoned than we think and highly biased in how we use our heads - and that this is a bad thing？ Are we really going to turn over the evaluation of our proper place in the universe of capabilities to the psychologists？ Well no。 In two words - uh-uh！ In three words - yea， yea， yea！The problem is not the limitations of reason， but rather that reason’s role in our reality is poorly understood。 It is not the supreme mental capability but one capability among many - albeit an important one。 Its job is to generate and process reasons and arguments about our reasons and arguments - sort of an internal control mechanism。 Along the way， it is noted that reason is not solitary and individual but social。 Reason is not primarily intended to figure out the truth， but rather to justify individual choices and position ourselves relative to others going forward in a social world。 Oh - and if one has to think through what reason is and how it operates， it is better and more useful to adopt and interactionist perspective， often involving argument and discussion with others， than to think of reason primarily in terms of solitary and linear bouts of thinking things through。Get the idea？The book is full of references and short summaries of lots of cognitive psychology research and the authors position their work persuasively - as well as elegantly。 If one is unaware of the psychology / cognitive science literature on these topics， this is a good book to start with that is relatively recent and well aware of other researchers。 If one is more aware of this， but has other things to do than dive deep into the psychology journals， then this book provides a good opportunity for updating。 It is a well written， interdisciplinary， and insightful book that exceeded my expectations。 。。。more
Talha Gülmez
，