Human reasoning evolved to win arguments, not seek truth. Don't believe it? Read on.

 From Patricia Cohen of the New York Times, “For centuries thinkers have assumed that the uniquely human capacity for reasoning has existed to let people reach beyond mere perception and reflex in the search for truth. Rationality allowed a solitary thinker to blaze a path to philosophical, moral and scientific enlightenment.  Hugo Mercier is among the researchers now asserting that reason evolved to win arguments, not seek truth.

‘Reasoning doesn’t have this function of helping us to get better beliefs and make better decisions,’ said Hugo Mercier, who is a co-author of the journal article, with Dan Sperber. ‘It was a purely social phenomenon. It evolved to help us convince others and to be careful when others try to convince us. Truth and accuracy were beside the point.’”

So there you have it.  The explanation for our inability to reach reasonable political solutions.  We are not rational animals, we are rationalizing animals.  We can even rationalize our rationalizing.  We can say that we are trying to find the best solutions, when we are actually just trying to win an argument.

We’ve all experienced this phenomenon with our friends from the other side of the political aisle.  This explains why we can point to Mr. Obama’s birth certificate on public display and be refuted with the comment, “but when will be show his real certificate.”  Or we can show that the economic stimulus was a success by saving us from a depression and is virtually paid back and still listen to people accuse this president of being an American-hating socialist because he did it.  Or Mr. Ryan can be touted as the man of sound economic principles even though when he was asked specific questions about his budget proposition, he answered, “not sure because we’ve never really run the numbers.”  Or the Republican party using Mr. Obama’s misstatement as counter-catch phrase, “we did build it” when the president’s comments were taken completely out of context.  Or Mr. Romney can accuse Mr. Obama of being completely out of touch when he said that the private sector is doing fine and then Mr. Romney makes the same comment several days later.  Or Mr. Romney can run on that promise that he will get rid of the Affordable Care Act that was based on the very same plan that he put into place as governor of Massachusetts.  Or that the Republican party can be against the individual mandate in the ACA that was their idea to begin with. 

But the best of all examples is that the Republicans are now saying they’re tired of hearing that our economic problems were caused by Bush 2 and that Mr. Obama is blaming him for his own failed economic policies.  This is about as rational as saying Al Qaeda is tired of being blamed for the 911 attacks and because it occurred several years ago, we’ve had plenty of time to enhance our security against it. 

The economic collapse was already happening the year that Mr. Obama was inaugurated.  That very month 598,000 jobs were lost.  It was the was the worst one-month plunge in 35 years.  No rational person could hold him responsible for this job loss.  But if we carefully read the theory above we realize that we’re not talking about rational people.  We’re talking about winning arguments.          

All this said, I still enjoy a good political argument.  Sadly, I can’t seem to find one lately.  Oh I can get plenty of rationalizing another’s point of view in the face of facts to the contrary.  But to find one that uses facts, logic and clear-thinking with a desired end result that brings about better answers – nope!  Today, it’s all about winning the argument regardless of its validity.

I’m afraid that if the Republicans win this argument, their economic plans amount to burning down the village to save it.  And the village is us.

Robert DeFilippis