The benefits of argumentation are cross-culturally robust: The case of Japan

Insight in the Conspiracist's Mind

ACADEMIC ABSTRACT

The motto of the conspiracist, "Do your own research," may seem ludicrous to scientists. Indeed, it is often dismissed as a mere rhetorical device that conspiracists use to give themselves the semblance of science. In this perspective paper, we explore the information-seeking activities ("research") that conspiracists do engage in. Drawing on the experimental psychology of aha experiences, we explain how these activities, as well as the epistemic experiences that precede (curiosity) or follow (insight or "aha" experiences) them, may play a crucial role in the appeal and development of conspiracy beliefs. Aha moments have properties that can be exploited by conspiracy theories, such as the potential for false but seemingly grounded conclusions. Finally, we hypothesize that the need for autonomous epistemic agency and discovery is universal but increases as people experience more uncertainty and/or feel epistemically excluded in society, hence linking it to existing literature on explaining conspiracy theories.

PUBLIC ABSTRACT

Recent events have made it painfully clear that conspiracy beliefs can tear deep rifts in society and that we still have not found an adequate, de-escalating response to this. To understand the appeal of conspiracy theories and find new, humanizing ways to talk about them, we propose in this perspective paper to start from the universal human need to autonomously make discoveries through personal knowledge-generating actions. Indeed, psychological research shows that the aha experiences that accompany subjective discoveries create confidence in and perceived ownership of ideas that may be exploited by conspiracy theories. We hypothesize that people experiencing more uncertainty and/or epistemic exclusion in society will especially feel the need to re-establish autonomous epistemic agency and discovery. While this explanation starts from shared human experiences and practices, it also illustrates the potential of those processes to lead to a narrowed world and ossified cognition.

Universality and Cultural Diversity in Moral Reasoning and Judgment

Many theories have shaped the concept of morality and its development by anchoring it in the realm of the social systems and values of each culture. This review discusses the current formulation of moral theories that attempt to explain cultural factors affecting moral judgment and reasoning. It aims to survey key criticisms that emerged in the past decades. In both cases, we highlight examples of cultural differences in morality, to show that there are cultural patterns of moral cognition in Westerners' individualistic culture and Easterners' collectivist culture. It suggests a paradigmatic change in this field by proposing pluralist "moralities" thought to be universal and rooted in the human evolutionary past. Notwithstanding, cultures vary substantially in their promotion and transmission of a multitude of moral reasonings and judgments. Depending on history, religious beliefs, social ecology, and institutional regulations (e.g., kinship structure and economic markets), each society develops a moral system emphasizing several moral orientations. This variability raises questions for normative theories of morality from a cross-cultural perspective. Consequently, we shed light on future descriptive work on morality to identify the cultural characteristics likely to impact the expression or development of reasoning, justification, argumentation, and moral judgment in Westerners' individualistic culture and Easterners' collectivist culture.

Due deference to denialism: explaining ordinary people's rejection of established scientific findings

There is a robust scientific consensus concerning climate change and evolution. But many people reject these expert views, in favour of beliefs that are strongly at variance with the evidence. It is tempting to try to explain these beliefs by reference to ignorance or irrationality, but those who reject the expert view seem often to be no worse informed or any less rational than the majority of those who accept it. It is also tempting to try to explain these beliefs by reference to epistemic overconfidence. However, this kind of overconfidence is apparently ubiquitous, so by itself it cannot explain the difference between those who accept and those who reject expert views. Instead, I will suggest that the difference is in important part explained by differential patterns of epistemic deference, and these patterns, in turn, are explained by the cues that we use to filter testimony. We rely on cues of benevolence and competence to distinguish reliable from unreliable testifiers, but when debates become deeply politicized, asserting a claim may itself constitute signalling lack of reliability.

Can Simple Transmission Chains Foster Collective Intelligence in Binary-Choice Tasks?

In many social systems, groups of individuals can find remarkably efficient solutions to complex cognitive problems, sometimes even outperforming a single expert. The success of the group, however, crucially depends on how the judgments of the group members are aggregated to produce the collective answer. A large variety of such aggregation methods have been described in the literature, such as averaging the independent judgments, relying on the majority or setting up a group discussion. In the present work, we introduce a novel approach for aggregating judgments—the transmission chain—which has not yet been consistently evaluated in the context of collective intelligence. In a transmission chain, all group members have access to a unique collective solution and can improve it sequentially. Over repeated improvements, the collective solution that emerges reflects the judgments of every group members. We address the question of whether such a transmission chain can foster collective intelligence for binary-choice problems. In a series of numerical simulations, we explore the impact of various factors on the performance of the transmission chain, such as the group size, the model parameters, and the structure of the population. The performance of this method is compared to those of the majority rule and the confidence-weighted majority. Finally, we rely on two existing datasets of individuals performing a series of binary decisions to evaluate the expected performances of the three methods empirically. We find that the parameter space where the transmission chain has the best performance rarely appears in real datasets. We conclude that the transmission chain is best suited for other types of problems, such as those that have cumulative properties.

The Argumentative Theory: Predictions and Empirical Evidence

The argumentative theory of reasoning suggests that the main function of reasoning is to exchange arguments with others. This theory explains key properties of reasoning. When reasoners produce arguments, they are biased and lazy, as can be expected if reasoning is a mechanism that aims at convincing others in interactive contexts. By contrast, reasoners are more objective and demanding when they evaluate arguments provided by others. This fundamental asymmetry between production and evaluation explains the effects of reasoning in different contexts: the more debate and conflict between opinions there is, the more argument evaluation prevails over argument production, resulting in better outcomes. Here I review how the argumentative theory of reasoning helps integrate a wide range of empirical findings in reasoning research.