You have an important decision to make, but you are uncertain about some information, so you consult someone who might help. After they reply, first ask, “Why do you believe that?” Next, tactfully and respectfully present information that could challenge what they said. You are interested in their rationale, and also in the emotion with which they express it. Emotion may tell you something about their confidence and their ability to discuss the information dispassionately. You want to know whether you are dealing with someone who is genuinely trying to help you reach a sound decision, or someone so attached to a conclusion or agenda that contrary evidence becomes an unwelcome intrusion.
An important distinction: passion is not necessarily
evidence of irrationality, just as calmness is not necessarily evidence of
rationality. Some people become passionate because they care about getting
things right, while others remain composed while presenting misinformation. The
objective is not to judge someone’s thinking by their emotional temperature. It
is to examine the relationships among their reasoning, their emotions, their
willingness to consider alternatives, and the evidence for their conclusions.
This matters because we often rely on physicians, financial advisers,
officials, family, friends, and self-described experts whose knowledge and
motives we cannot verify. Their confidence does not establish their accuracy.
Asking “Why do you believe that?” requests the evidence,
assumptions, experiences, and interpretations behind a conclusion. “You should
do this” gives you a conclusion. An explanation lets you evaluate how the
conclusion was reached. If someone says a choice is obvious “because everybody
knows it is the best option,” you have learned very little, since that is a
declaration, not an explanation. Compare that with, “I recommend it because
three independent studies found these benefits, but they have limitations, and
I would want to assess costs and risks first.” That person has made their
reasoning available for scrutiny. They are not necessarily correct, but you can
examine their claims. This reflects a central principle of critical thinking:
conclusions should be evaluated by the quality of their evidence and reasoning,
not the confidence or status of the speaker.
Robert Kurzban and the problem of believing our own
explanations
People do not always have accurate access to the processes
that shape their judgments. In Why Everyone (Else) Is a Hypocrite: Evolution
and the Modular Mind, Robert Kurzban (2010) challenges the assumption that
the mind is a single, consistent system. He argues that it is better understood
as a collection of specialized systems that do not always operate in harmony.
Both the person you ask and the person you believe yourself to be may be less
consistent than you imagine. Someone may sincerely report their reasons while
personal interests, social relationships, reputational concerns, or emotional
reactions contribute without being recognized.
Kurzban and Aktipis (2007) examined how a modular view
applies to social cognition and self-presentation, noting that some processes
may manage the impressions others form of us without prioritizing accuracy or
consistency. Someone may want to appear knowledgeable, preserve a reputation
for being right, or persuade you toward a position that serves their interests.
These motives need not involve deliberate deception. So asking “Why do you
believe that?” is a useful beginning but not enough, because a sincere
explanation is not necessarily accurate and a confident one is not necessarily
well supported. Kurzban’s account is a theoretical framework, not proof that
every belief results from a hidden motive. Still, it is a reason for caution,
and we should apply that caution to ourselves as well.
The danger of motivated reasoning
Motivated reasoning refers to the ways our goals,
preferences, identities, and prior commitments influence how we process
information. We like to believe we examine evidence and then reach a
conclusion, but we may reach a conclusion for other reasons and then defend it
skillfully. When a cherished belief is challenged, we scrutinize the opposing
argument while overlooking weaknesses in our own, demanding strong evidence
from others while accepting weak evidence for what we already favor. Ziva Kunda
(1990) provided an influential analysis showing that people can be swayed by
desired conclusions while still needing to construct arguments that seem
reasonable. Motivation does not replace reasoning; it shapes which
considerations receive attention. This also explains why more information does
not always change minds: if the aim is to defend a conclusion, new information
becomes more material for the defense.
The same applies when evaluating advice. If you question a
recommendation and the person dismisses every contrary study, criticizes every
opposing expert, and repeats the recommendation with growing certainty, you may
have met someone whose commitment is distorting how they weigh evidence. Kahan
and colleagues (2013) studied cognitive reflection, ideological commitments,
and reasoning about empirical evidence, and their findings cautioned against
assuming that one ideological group is inherently more rational than another.
Motivated reasoning is not the exclusive property of people with whom we
disagree, so we should ask whether we apply the same standards to our own
beliefs.
What happens when you respectfully challenge someone’s
advice?
After asking why, introduce information that may challenge
their conclusion, not to embarrass them but to see whether the recommendation
withstands scrutiny. You might say: “I understand why you reached that
conclusion. However, I came across some information that seems to point in a
different direction. Would you be willing to examine it with me?” This shows
that you want to understand rather than win, gives the person a chance to show
how they handle conflicting evidence, and helps you distinguish someone
committed to a conclusion from someone committed to finding the best-supported
one.
A thoughtful person might say, “I wasn’t aware of that. Let
me reconsider,” or “That study is interesting, but there are reasons it may not
apply here. Let’s compare its methods with the other evidence.” Both are
constructive: the first acknowledges a possible need to revise, and the second
offers a reasoned disagreement that can itself be evaluated. By contrast,
someone who refuses to examine the information, attacks your intelligence, or
treats disagreement as an insult makes it harder for you to judge whether the
advice is trustworthy, though this does not prove their conclusion wrong. Even
well-intentioned challenges can threaten a person’s sense of competence, so
tact helps, though it cannot guarantee a productive response.
Emotional control, confidence, and intellectual humility
When you challenge a recommendation, notice whether the
person listens, becomes curious, acknowledges limits to their knowledge, and
separates disagreeing with an argument from disliking the person presenting it.
But do not confuse composure with competence: a calm speaker can rely on faulty
evidence, and an upset one can be right. The better question is whether emotion
prevents the person from examining the issue fairly.
A physician who patiently explains the research, identifies
uncertainties, and says what might change the recommendation is reassuring, not
because she shows no emotion but because she is willing to explain and qualify
her advice. A financial adviser who insists an investment is unquestionably
safe, dismisses concerns, and refuses to discuss possible loss presents a different
problem: unwarranted certainty, inadequate explanation, and resistance to
legitimate questions. We learn more by evaluating behavior and reasoning
together than by reading emotion alone.
Leary and colleagues (2017) examined individual differences
in intellectual humility and found that it is associated with how people
approach information and disagreement. Intellectual humility does not mean
lacking conviction; it means recognizing that conviction and certainty are not
substitutes for evidence. Someone can say, “Based on the evidence, I think this
is the best decision, but I could change my mind if we learn something
important.” That differs sharply from, “I know I am right, and nothing you say
will change my mind,” which places the conclusion beyond examination.
Do not confuse confidence with competence
Kruger and Dunning (1999) examined how people’s actual
competence relates to their assessments of their own performance, suggesting
that those with limited skill may also lack the knowledge needed to recognize
their shortcomings. This should not be exaggerated. It does not show that
confident people are generally incompetent or that uncertainty proves
expertise; it shows that self-assessment alone is an unreliable measure of
ability. When someone says they are certain, ask what supports that certainty: their
experience, the evidence they have examined, whether their claims match
reliable independent sources, whether they separate what they know from what
they assume, and whether they can explain the limits of their recommendation.
The same applies to credentials, which matter in specialized fields but do not
eliminate error, outdated knowledge, conflicts of interest, or bias. The goal
is not suspicion of everyone but discernment about why we trust someone.
A practical method
For your next important decision, begin by asking for the
recommendation: “Why do you believe this is the best option?” Ask about
evidence: “What information most strongly supports your conclusion?” Explore
uncertainty: “What are the principal weaknesses in this argument, and what
might change your mind?” Introduce a contrary finding: “I have seen evidence
that points in a different direction. How would you account for it?” Then
observe whether the person considers the evidence, distinguishes facts from interpretations,
acknowledges what they do not know, and can explain why they still favor their
recommendation. You are not looking for someone who agrees with you, but for
someone who can explain a position and evaluate alternatives without making
agreement a condition of the conversation.
Apply the method to yourself too. Before rejecting a
challenge, ask whether you would accept the same evidence if it supported the
opposite conclusion. Before defending your position, ask what evidence would
persuade you that you are mistaken. These questions may be uncomfortable, but
discomfort is sometimes a signal that you are examining a belief that matters.
Trust is earned through the quality of the reasoning
After asking why, respectfully introducing a challenge, and
watching the response, you have learned something about the person’s knowledge,
reasoning, openness to alternatives, handling of uncertainty, and emotional
investment. But you have not established that the recommendation is correct.
That requires examining the evidence, consulting reliable sources, and
considering whether the advice fits your circumstances. An open-minded person
may be wrong, and a defensive one may be right about a particular fact.
Interpersonal behavior can inform your assessment of a source but cannot
replace independent evaluation of the claim.
Kurzban reminds us that thought and behavior are less
consistent than we imagine, research on motivated reasoning shows how goals and
commitments shape our evaluation of information, and research on intellectual
humility shows how acknowledging our limits can improve how we handle
disagreement. Together these support a principle: do not judge advice solely by
the confidence of its delivery, the credentials of the speaker, or the
emotional force behind it. Examine the reasoning, investigate the evidence, and
observe how the person responds to a reasonable challenge, remembering that
this standard applies to everyone, including the person in the mirror. We
cannot eliminate bias by wanting to be objective, but we can build habits that
make it harder for bias to go unexamined.
So instead of asking only “Who should I believe?” ask, “What
are the reasons for this belief, how strong is the evidence, what might
contradict it, and how willing are we to reconsider?” That is more demanding,
and also more defensible. The purpose of a good conversation is not necessarily
to keep the opinions we brought to it, but to leave with a better understanding
of what we know, what we do not, and what we still need to discover. That is
the difference between seeking confirmation and seeking understanding.
References
Kahan, D. M., Peters, E., Dawson, E. C., & Slovic, P.
(2013). Motivated numeracy and enlightened self-government. Behavioural Public
Policy, 1(1), 54–86. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500005271
Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware
of it: How difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated
self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6),
1121–1134. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1121
Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning.
Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480–498. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480
Kurzban, R. (2010). Why everyone (else) is a hypocrite:
Evolution and the modular mind. Princeton University Press.
Kurzban, R., & Aktipis, C. A. (2007). Modularity and the
social mind: Are psychologists too self-ish? Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 11(2), 131–149. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868306294906
Leary, M. R., Diebels, K. J., Davisson, E. K.,
Jongman-Sereno, K. P., Isherwood, J. C., Raimi, K. T., Deffler, S. A., &
Hoyle, R. H. (2017). Cognitive and interpersonal features of intellectual
humility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(6), 793–813. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672
No comments:
Post a Comment