First, the way reasoning is defined and studied leads to narrow, incomplete findings
Mercier and Sperber cite research that ignores a great deal of reasoning behavior. For example, at the sociopolitical level humans use reason to design and change laws, constitutions, institutions, and visions such as the Declaration of Human Rights. Reasoning at the everyday level includes figuring out what course of action to take: for our ancestors, when to migrate to the next foraging ground; for us, how to balance the daily demands of work and family. Nor is there any reference to how people reason after a poor outcome: For our ancestors, why was the hunt unsuccessful today and what can we do differently tomorrow? For us, how did I lose my cool with my child and how can I avoid that in the future? The authors make no distinctions among types of goal-motivated reasoning, excluding pre-hoc (planning – what should my plans be today?), post-hoc (reflecting—how did things go?), and online executive reasoning (e.g., this plan is not working, what should I do?). Even children employ reasoning for action when they consider how to climb a tree, how it is going, and reflect on their failure or success.
The authors describe reasoning as a process more akin to rhetoric, completely leaving out practical reasoning. They claim that human reasoning evolved to competitively persuade others of one's viewpoint rather than for making the best decision. This astonished me – how adaptive would it be to follow a rhetorically gifted con man or inexperienced group member in the Pleistocene? The experience-based wisdom of the elders was much more advantageous.
The research tasks used and interpretations employed seem to presume that humans are primarily self-interested, a notoriously implausible view outside the West (Sahlins Reference Sahlins2008). Of course there can be situations that press individuals to be competitive rather than cooperative in decision making, but from anthropological accounts our ancestors were cooperators within their groups, not the ego-driven competitors described by the authors (Fry Reference Fry2006). It seems important to distinguish between self-interested cognition and cognition motivated by other concerns. For example, how do the authors explain the efforts of Warren Buffet and Bill Gates (givingpledge.org) to persuade wealthy individuals to contribute half of their wealth towards charity and the common good? Certainly they used rhetorical skills in their mission but whence the motivation? How would the authors explain the reasoning skills and motivations of the likes of Nelson Mandela and Abraham Lincoln in solving their society's challenges?
Second, the authors seem to assume that people don't develop in reasoning capacities and that the college student represents human capability
There seems to be an implicit biological determinism in the target article, a view that is empirically untenable (Lewontin et al. Reference Lewontin, Rose and Kamin1987).
The research findings are circumscribed by the population usually studied – college students – giving a false impression of human capabilities. Wisdom is found more typically in mature adults, not sophomores. Brain development after the teenage years is fundamental for mature reasoning capabilities. In the mid to late 20s humans acquire greater executive function capacities (Luna et al. Reference Luna, Thulborn, Munoz, Merriam, Garver, Minshew, Keshavan, Genovese, Eddy and Sweeney2001), which allow for the ability to move past the subcortical decision-making system, highly influenced by the situation, and use prefrontal capacities that facilitate perspective taking and empathy with greater awareness of consequences (Goldberg Reference Goldberg2001). In middle age, adult brains undergo further myelinization, peaking in inductive reasoning (Schaie & Willis Reference Schaie and Willis2010).
One cannot draw any firm conclusions about reasoning without examining mature adults in ecologically valid tasks. Researchers should study reasoning in adults as they perform their roles as experts: experienced parents, judges, ministers and counselors, shopkeepers and community leaders, umpires and zookeepers. These experts learn to merge self and moral interests or they falter in their roles. Experts develop in reasoning capabilities, tapping into intuitions, explicit knowledge, and domain-specific paradigms that novices lack (Hogarth Reference Hogarth2001). Instead, the focus in psychological studies seems to be on what underdeveloped minds and brains of a certain sort do well – make quick judgments and use words to manipulate others to get one's way. Elsewhere I criticize this shortsighted focus in moral judgment research (Narvaez Reference Narvaez2010).
Further, it's not at all clear that the researchers are studying optimal brains even at the college level. The prefrontal cortex, the seat of executive functions, apparently can be damaged prior to its maturation from addictive use of drugs (Bechara Reference Bechara2005) and activities that keep the more primitive parts of the brain active, such as violent video games (Mathews et al. Reference Mathews, Kronenberger, Wang, Lurito, Lowe and Dunn2005), suggesting that reasoning capacities may be diminished in those who engage deeply in such activities. Sociocultural factors also affect reasoning, such as deteriorating child-rearing practices (Narvaez Reference Narvaez2008), which may play a role in the lower rates of empathy (Konrath et al., in press) and moral reasoning (Thoma & Bebeau Reference Thoma and Bebeau2008), and in greater egocentrism if not the narcissism (Twenge & Campbell Reference Twenge and Campbell2009) reported in college students today.
Finally, it is highly questionable whether it is appropriate at all to generalize to human nature from the study of westerners or Americans. Henrich et al. (Reference Henrich, Heine and Norenzayan2010) point out how the vast majority of psychological studies and conclusions are based on Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) participants who represent less than 12% of the world population (college students, a subset of that).
The review leaves this reader unsatisfied with the work in the field. Reasoning needs to be defined more systematically and holistically by those who study it. In light of the narrow definition, the limited task set, and the population usually studied, it is not surprising that the findings are so pessimistic. Humans use reason in many more adaptive ways than described here. People and brains develop; experience and culture matter. Rather than a review of human capabilities, we have a glimpse into a narrow slice of reasoning by immature reasoners from an abnormal culture.
My two critiques address the limited scope of the research and the neglect of human development. These undermine the generalizability of Mercier and Sperber's conclusions.
First, the way reasoning is defined and studied leads to narrow, incomplete findings
Mercier and Sperber cite research that ignores a great deal of reasoning behavior. For example, at the sociopolitical level humans use reason to design and change laws, constitutions, institutions, and visions such as the Declaration of Human Rights. Reasoning at the everyday level includes figuring out what course of action to take: for our ancestors, when to migrate to the next foraging ground; for us, how to balance the daily demands of work and family. Nor is there any reference to how people reason after a poor outcome: For our ancestors, why was the hunt unsuccessful today and what can we do differently tomorrow? For us, how did I lose my cool with my child and how can I avoid that in the future? The authors make no distinctions among types of goal-motivated reasoning, excluding pre-hoc (planning – what should my plans be today?), post-hoc (reflecting—how did things go?), and online executive reasoning (e.g., this plan is not working, what should I do?). Even children employ reasoning for action when they consider how to climb a tree, how it is going, and reflect on their failure or success.
The authors describe reasoning as a process more akin to rhetoric, completely leaving out practical reasoning. They claim that human reasoning evolved to competitively persuade others of one's viewpoint rather than for making the best decision. This astonished me – how adaptive would it be to follow a rhetorically gifted con man or inexperienced group member in the Pleistocene? The experience-based wisdom of the elders was much more advantageous.
The research tasks used and interpretations employed seem to presume that humans are primarily self-interested, a notoriously implausible view outside the West (Sahlins Reference Sahlins2008). Of course there can be situations that press individuals to be competitive rather than cooperative in decision making, but from anthropological accounts our ancestors were cooperators within their groups, not the ego-driven competitors described by the authors (Fry Reference Fry2006). It seems important to distinguish between self-interested cognition and cognition motivated by other concerns. For example, how do the authors explain the efforts of Warren Buffet and Bill Gates (givingpledge.org) to persuade wealthy individuals to contribute half of their wealth towards charity and the common good? Certainly they used rhetorical skills in their mission but whence the motivation? How would the authors explain the reasoning skills and motivations of the likes of Nelson Mandela and Abraham Lincoln in solving their society's challenges?
Second, the authors seem to assume that people don't develop in reasoning capacities and that the college student represents human capability
There seems to be an implicit biological determinism in the target article, a view that is empirically untenable (Lewontin et al. Reference Lewontin, Rose and Kamin1987).
The research findings are circumscribed by the population usually studied – college students – giving a false impression of human capabilities. Wisdom is found more typically in mature adults, not sophomores. Brain development after the teenage years is fundamental for mature reasoning capabilities. In the mid to late 20s humans acquire greater executive function capacities (Luna et al. Reference Luna, Thulborn, Munoz, Merriam, Garver, Minshew, Keshavan, Genovese, Eddy and Sweeney2001), which allow for the ability to move past the subcortical decision-making system, highly influenced by the situation, and use prefrontal capacities that facilitate perspective taking and empathy with greater awareness of consequences (Goldberg Reference Goldberg2001). In middle age, adult brains undergo further myelinization, peaking in inductive reasoning (Schaie & Willis Reference Schaie and Willis2010).
One cannot draw any firm conclusions about reasoning without examining mature adults in ecologically valid tasks. Researchers should study reasoning in adults as they perform their roles as experts: experienced parents, judges, ministers and counselors, shopkeepers and community leaders, umpires and zookeepers. These experts learn to merge self and moral interests or they falter in their roles. Experts develop in reasoning capabilities, tapping into intuitions, explicit knowledge, and domain-specific paradigms that novices lack (Hogarth Reference Hogarth2001). Instead, the focus in psychological studies seems to be on what underdeveloped minds and brains of a certain sort do well – make quick judgments and use words to manipulate others to get one's way. Elsewhere I criticize this shortsighted focus in moral judgment research (Narvaez Reference Narvaez2010).
Further, it's not at all clear that the researchers are studying optimal brains even at the college level. The prefrontal cortex, the seat of executive functions, apparently can be damaged prior to its maturation from addictive use of drugs (Bechara Reference Bechara2005) and activities that keep the more primitive parts of the brain active, such as violent video games (Mathews et al. Reference Mathews, Kronenberger, Wang, Lurito, Lowe and Dunn2005), suggesting that reasoning capacities may be diminished in those who engage deeply in such activities. Sociocultural factors also affect reasoning, such as deteriorating child-rearing practices (Narvaez Reference Narvaez2008), which may play a role in the lower rates of empathy (Konrath et al., in press) and moral reasoning (Thoma & Bebeau Reference Thoma and Bebeau2008), and in greater egocentrism if not the narcissism (Twenge & Campbell Reference Twenge and Campbell2009) reported in college students today.
Finally, it is highly questionable whether it is appropriate at all to generalize to human nature from the study of westerners or Americans. Henrich et al. (Reference Henrich, Heine and Norenzayan2010) point out how the vast majority of psychological studies and conclusions are based on Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) participants who represent less than 12% of the world population (college students, a subset of that).
The review leaves this reader unsatisfied with the work in the field. Reasoning needs to be defined more systematically and holistically by those who study it. In light of the narrow definition, the limited task set, and the population usually studied, it is not surprising that the findings are so pessimistic. Humans use reason in many more adaptive ways than described here. People and brains develop; experience and culture matter. Rather than a review of human capabilities, we have a glimpse into a narrow slice of reasoning by immature reasoners from an abnormal culture.