August 3, 2021

I'm  curious person interested in learning both new skills such as piano playing and new information that enhances my knowledge and allows me to see and comprehend more about myself, others, groups, social issues, and even cosmology and basic science. My chosen vocation of psychiatry has been a great journey into these realms though this journey has had its very boring times and frustrations with bureaucracy and ethical lapses of colleagues (which maybe one day I'll write about). Understanding and reasoning has always been a search of mine sometimes with clarity but also sometimes leading into murky nether worlds of confusion and doubt. For example, I tried to understand Kurt Godel who is famous for proving that in mathematics though its a very logical science can never be a complete discipline with full understanding of theorems and functions that all come together it will always be incomplete. Though this sentence seems to provide a conclusion of understanding I tried but failed in understanding his proof. Throughout my life pursuits into these issues I have relied on reasons and reasoning and science with hypothesis, experiment design, data collection and analysis to come to clearer conclusions and understanding. In previous posts, I have shown how science can have quirky hypotheses, data can be falsified, and information and new understanding can be suppressed if it threatens some truths that now are falsified (i.e. prime example Galileo and the Pope). The Enigma of Reason by Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber was a great read though some parts were not easy reading. They take an interactionist viewpoint as the avenue to understand how and why we reason as we do. My description of Kahneman and Twersky in a previous post for example is included in their analysis. My description of understanding and learning that being wrong helps our growth of knowledge comes to the fore while reading this book which has very interesting examples of people whose reputations as clear and outstanding reasoners did not help them make some very foolish and disastrous errors in reasoning. Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber book includes the interactional aspects of reasoning. We humans are evolved and subject to the principles and understanding of Darwinian science. We reason for social purposes and interactions with others. When we reason in our heads we may project some other as I'm doing here but it's solipsistic in nature and our biases are many. We have a myside bias accepting our conclusions and reasoning processes as very valid and true. We make conclusions through intuitional preferences so wishful thinking and favoritism is at play. Our attempts to reason alone is often in error. At times we make conclusions due to our prejudices and even with new information we hold onto our pet conclusions.   Alphone Bertillon at the end of the nineteenth century was considered top in his category of detective and policeman. He was given the case from the French army where a letter was analyzed to discover the spy for the Germans who was in the French army. Prior to this case Bertillon was precise, meticulous, and very thorough in investigating crimes and solving them through forensic science. Captain Albert Dreyfus became his main suspect. Bertillon was anti-Semitic as were many others of that time. He analyzed two letters made outlandish conclusions from handwriting and phrasing and persisted in his conclusions despite new evidence naming the true spy. In another example, the genius Newton sheltered away mostly by himself came up with laws of physics that still are used and accepted (with modifications due to quantum physics and Einstein theories ). His reasoning in his laws of physics are impeccable. His writings also include his conclusions and reasoning concerning astrology and alchemy.  In this realm of speculation and folklore he was out to lunch. Linus Pauling won two nobel awards and was considered a giant in his field. He became interested in vitamin C to help with his family and person health issues he made some very incorrect claims and used his influence to perpetuate false information for years. In The Enigma of Reason the authors write about errors of reasoning both as individuals and in group and social settings. The dynamics involved in making reasons that are valid and unbiased require argumentation, group discussions, and and open feedback loops such as what can happen in jury deliberations. 

In the Darwinian period of development of our human species life was difficult with survival of the fittest and natural selection at play. For example, a hunter who was good had to take risks but then the game was shared at the village with the elder, children, and caregivers providing the needed clothing and shelter. Information was shared with fast thinking there to assist. What to do with he slackers? The hunters who held back so they were not in danger and cheated taking a share of the food and clothing? Gossip was a method to find these slackers, shaming and sanctions could follow. Errors in reasoning occurred but progress also evolved with inventions recognized and copied. Envy, competition, and greed were controlled through evolving leadership systems often brutal and arbitrary. From these Hobbesian times we evolved to populate this planet and thrive so well that the evolutionary system of interactional reasoning now can lead us into great misunderstanding and catastrophes. The Fukushima nuclear plant was regulated by the government. The regulators were hired on retirement into lucrative nuclear corporation positions so if you're a regulator do you do your job and point out the problems of safety or do you hedge and then hope for your retirement? 

Group dynamics and discussions over issues has its problems but the authors point out how group dynamics can lead others to overcome their myside biases, overcome our institutional biases and come to more clear and real reasoning. 

Our history up to the present has shown us that we can have large groups in our population hold onto some very outlandish and dangerous opinions and conclusions that go counter to reality. ie Trump won the election; laser somehow connected with Jews started fires out west; Hillary Clinton and others including again some Jews were involved through some D.C. Pizza restaurant in pedophilia; at the January 6, 2021 insurrection at the capital Antifa left wing agitators were  delinquent; Bill Gates at the time recommending COVID vaccine has inserted a chip which somehow influences you; this vaccine is killing many more people than actual reported (very low); The CIA or some shadow government agency wanted the twin towers destroyed on 9/11 so that secret documents exposing government corruption would be destroyed, etc.  If we open these theories to group discussion with open feedback many of the biases and errors in reasoning and conclusions could be corrected but open up means having the dialogue, having those with these views available to dialogue, and interacting over time. Our social media and news outlets want to capture their audience and some of the very powerful outlets do not want us to have this dialogue but want us to be fed their version of reality strongly indicating they can not trust those who want the dialogue. 

Enough for now of my describing my interests in our reasoning systems and our errors in reasoning. It's very difficult to pinpoint with clarity the group dynamic issues since my egocentric musing is at work. We all have family relationships that delight and nurture us but some of us have family relationships that are problematic. In these instances we can be clearer on where we are and some of us make attempts at times to alter the dynamics maybe with success. Our family personal roadblocks can be emotionally draining or we come to accept them as they are with some emotional detachment. We can have our own Fukushima or 9/11 disasters, we can become so biased and obsessed with being right we miss the errors in our thinking. Hopefully we can share with others, listen to feedback and decide what is valid with greater understanding and reasoning. 

Leonard