The Reasoning Test Psychologists Still Can't Explain

Hey, hello, and welcome to the Rest Is Science. I am Michael Stevens. And I am Anna Fry. And today, I really, really want to talk about a task, a test that basically everyone fails. I have a hunch that you won't fail this test, Hannah. - No, so sure. - Yeah, we'll see. We'll see. Let me give you some context first, which I shouldn't normally do, because in actual experiments where this task is given, people are just there to get their 10 bucks and go. And I think that if you hype it up and you tell people, oh, you gotta really think about it. Oh, it's so difficult. Oh, it's such a tricky one. Then people will probably spend more time and get it right. Okay, we can talk about all of that later, but let's just dive right into it. This is a reasoning test, a very simple single question that involves four cards that was devised in 1966 by Peter Cathcart Wassen. And it is basically the test when it comes to studying the psychology of reason. All right, if you look into the history of our scientific study of human reasoning, you basically only find this test. The test is called the Wassen Selection Task, and it was developed in 1966 by Peter Cathcart Wassen. Now, today it has been called the most intensely researched single problem in the history of reasoning. And my two favorite philosophers, researchers of reason, Mercy A and Spurber, they call it, what, actually they don't know what to call it. This is what they say. Is this selection task to psychology of reasoning, what the microscope has been to biology? Or is it rather as the Rubik's Cube has been to biology? Just kind of baffling and fun. Not adding anything really of any merit. So in Wassen's original test, only 10% of people got it right. If you look across all the studies that have replicated that since, you get a number closer to 4%. And that's not super surprising. There are difficult questions out there, but with some slight changes, we can make everyone get it right. And that is what is so strange. So let's begin with the original. (upbeat music) - This episode is brought to you by Cancer Research UK. - Here's something strange. Your DNA contains more ancient viral fragments than genes. The genes that build our cells make up only 2% of our DNA. And for years, that is what scientists focused on. They treated the rest, the ancient viruses and stuff as junk. But now we know that that hidden majority, sometimes called the dark genome, influences how our biology works and how disease-like cancer behave. It's a reminder that progress rarely comes as a single breakthrough. It builds gradually. Cancer Research UK plays a central role in that progress, supporting decades of research into over 200 types of cancer, work that's helped double survival in the UK over the past 50 years. - For more information about Cancer Research UK, their research breakthroughs and how you can support them, visit cancerresearchuk.org/therestescience. (upbeat music) - This isn't the most, I'd say the most famous version of it, but this is exactly what Wasin gave people back in 1966. Those of you who are watching, we can put up on the screen the actual original puzzle as it was shown to people. For those of you listening, no big deal. This is an easy one to do with audio. You just kind of have to keep four things in your mind. I'm gonna show you four cards. Just imagine they're like playing cards. Now on each, there is a letter on one side and a number on the other side. Two of the cards have their letter side up and two have their number side up. Now these are the cards that you see. You see a card with the letter A as an alpha, G as in giraffe. (laughing) - That famous phonetics, right? - Yeah. - Oh, it's gonna get worse, Hannah. The third card has a seven as in 724. And the last card has an eight as in 81. A, G, 7, 8. Okay, now what I need you to do is indicate for me which of these cards you would need to turn over to judge whether the following rule is true. If there is an A on one side, there is a seven on the other. To recap for those who are listening, you have four cards in front of you, letters on one side, numbers on the other, okay? That's true. But you can only see one side of a card at a time and what you're seeing is A, G, 7, 8. Which ones will you need to turn over to judge whether this rule is true? If there's an A on one side, there is a seven on the other side. - Okay. That is what this alpha set is about. I mean, I think let's just get into it. - Let's get into it. So, take some time. Also, actually, I wanna know how familiar you are with this, Hannah. Have you seen this before? - Okay. I have seen a version of this test before and what I should tell you is that initially, I think I got it wrong. - Yeah, me too. - I also vaguely remember the trap that I fell into but not completely and I haven't seen this version. And so I'm gonna have to think it through incredibly carefully. - Okay, think it through. - Okay, so right. You know that these four cards are left from one side and number on the other. - Sure. - Okay, which means that there is a number hiding behind the A, there's a number hiding behind the G. - That's right. - There's also a letter behind the seven and there's a letter behind the eight. The rule says, if there is, this is what I'm trying to test. Right, so turning over the eight doesn't tell me anything. I mean, I don't really care what's on the other side of the eight because even if it's an A, oh no way, that's not true. Oh, hold on, I've got it wrong already. - Yeah. - What I was immediately thinking was I want to turn over the A to see if there's a seven on the other side, right? - Okay. - Immediately. - So the first thing you wanna do is check whether there's a seven on the reverse of the A. - Okay, all right. So you're gonna turn over the A card, any others? To see if there's a seven. Turning over the G, I don't think tells me anything because I don't really care what's on the reverse of the G. The rule doesn't involve Gs. - Okay. - It says, if there is an A on one side, which there isn't, so don't care. So I can ignore the G card. The seven card, I'd be really tempted to turn over to see if there was an A on the other side because then that would be another instance of the rule. - Right. - The way the rule is phrased is that it says if there is an A on one side, there is a seven on the other. It doesn't say you can only have sevens where A's exist. - Correct. - So actually, you could have a J on the other side of the seven and it wouldn't violate the rule. - They'd be fine. - That would be fine. So even though my temptation is to say turn over A and seven, actually, I think you need to turn over A and eight because if you turn over eight and it's got an A on the other side, that would violate the rule, right? - Correct. You hasted it, Hannah. - I mean, I did, but I almost mocked up at the beginning there. Let's be honest. - Well, it's amazingly tough like that. Now, imagine that you weren't a professor of mathematics at Cambridge on a podcast called The Puzzle Almost Everyone Gets Wrong. - Yeah. Yeah, and having seen it before. - And having seen it before. - Yeah. - Wow. - You're right. - So I want to immediately jump to a different version. Okay, this is the exact same problem except this time instead of letters and numbers, the cards are about people in a bar or a pub for those of you across the Atlantic. - Thank you. - You're welcome. I'm sure you all were going, oh, what's he talking about? - A bar. - A bar. - A bar. - All right, look, the deal is that in this case, the cards are about people in a bar. And on one side of the card, you have the person's age. And on the other side, you have what it is they are currently drinking. Okay. Once again, you have four cards. And you are a police officer and it's your job to make sure that no one is drinking under age. On some of these cards, you can only see their age. You're going to have to turn them over to see what they're drinking on others. You only see what they're drinking. You'll have to turn them over to get their age. This is what you see in front of you. These four cards. The age 12, the age 35, the drink soda and the drink beer. Okay. Which ones do you need to turn over to determine whether or not the rule is being obeyed that you cannot drink under age? - Okay, well now, it's immediately obvious to me that the person who is thirsty, they can drink wherever they like. I don't care what they're drinking. And likewise, the person who's drinking soda, I mean, someone should speak to their parents about them being in a bar. But I don't care what they're, I don't care what their age is. It's not relevant. - Yes. - So immediately, it's like, well, what's the 12 year drinking and who's drinking the beer? - That's it. - That's it, right? I mean, that's it. It's the exact same answer as the one before, the first and the last card, except it's just so much faster to get to the answer. Like the original formulation of that is genuinely confusing, extremely difficult to logically work your way through. And even when you get there, you're, I don't know, I'm really like double checking myself, but that one is instinctive. - It's instinctive. - Yeah, no one needs an explanation for why you need to check the 12 year old and the beer drinker. It's almost just evident, prima facia, like I get it. Whereas when we replace the ages and the beverage with numbers and letters, it becomes very abstract. And of course, we see this reflect in people's performance. When it comes to letters and numbers, like I said, four, maybe 10% of people get it right, but when it comes to the beer and the ages, everyone gets it right. I mean, the people who get it wrong are the people who are like just trying to be goof offs. - You're serious, it's like, it's not even really a question. So why is it so much more difficult for us to solve the problem when it's abstract like this? Is that the key to explaining why this is so difficult? Well, as you can imagine, for the last, you know, gosh, 50, 60 years, 60 years now, actually, this year. Happy birthday, Watson Selection Task. - You are old enough to drink. - You're old enough to drink for sure. You're not quite old enough to collect social security in America though, but when that day comes, we will be here for you. Researchers have spent decades creating slightly different versions, including the drinking in a bar version. The question is, is this revealing something about an individual's abilities or is it revealing something even deeper just about humans in general? Because it doesn't necessarily seem to separate the smarty pants people from the dumb-dums. Even really smart people tend to perform about as badly. You can take, you know, a big Harvard graduating class and they'll struggle with it too. The things that we know help people, solve it, is making the puzzle be about a social rule or phrasing the question in a way that makes it extremely clear that they need to be looking for today's magic word. Counter examples. - Right, so can I ask some questions? - You can. - The 4% of people who do get it right, who are they then? In the original formulation of the test or some variant of? - I haven't actually found a lot of good breakdowns on who those people are. Like literally in the literature, they're often called exceptional people. (laughing) - I'll see you in exceptional. - I'll show you the papers. They're like, if you get it right, you're either an exceptional person or a lucky guesser. There was one paper that said like the best, the most, the most strong correlation is whether you have taken illogic classes. - Okay, so it's sort of mathematically minded people. - Exactly. It's people who go, "Ah-ha, yes, I am familiar with Modest Holens and denying the antecedent." And here we go. - Do you wanna give us a quick run down on Modest Holens? - Oh yeah, for sure. Okay, so I mean, look, the Watson selection task presents us with what's called a conditional statement. If, then, we use these all the time. Hey, if you don't call me back, then I'm gonna punch you in the nose, right? If, then, all right? Now, logicians, people who study the rules of reasoning, people who study logic, they have all kinds of fancy terminology and symbols for the parts of a conditional statement. The if part is called the antecedent. It comes before the end, which is called the consequent. An example would be, "If it rains tomorrow, I will stay indoors." If it rains tomorrow is the antecedent. I will stay inside as the consequent. So if this thing happens, the consequence will be this. If it rains tomorrow, I will stay indoors. - Okay, so if you can take that single state, that single sentence, if it rains tomorrow, I'll stay indoors. I'll sort of chop it in two. And then, it's almost like there's two logical chunks there, raining tomorrow, which it can or it can be or not, side of the raining or it's not. And then, you've also got you staying inside, which you could be or you could not be. - That's right. - So you could sort of imagine like a little grid, right? So it's like, whether it's raining or not is on one side, and whether you're staying in or not is on the other side, and you can kind of go through and go true, false, true, false, true, false, right, for the different combinations. - That's six times, though, just four. - Sorry. - Which is extremely important, though. I'm glad-- - I'm glad-- - I'm going back to the beginning. - You were so excited. - Yeah, you're living on that Pac-Man universe again. You went around. But yeah, there's only four combinations here and how many cards are there in the Watson selection task? There's four. Now, we don't need to make this like a full on, let's get into the weeds with logic thing, but let's do it anyway, because our viewers are special. And I'll give you another little-- - They have that full percent. - They have the exceptional paper. - They're the four percent. So the antecedent, I think maybe we could also just call it P, if you read a lot of logic papers, which I think we should. I'll send these to the producers. We should put the best papers about this down in the description. P, the letter P is often used to represent the antecedent. - The first bet. - If bet. - The if bet, if P. And you use a variable because now it can mean anything. If it rains tomorrow, or P could also mean, I eat a ham sandwich. If P, if I eat a ham sandwich, then what? I will smile. Okay? The consequent is often symbolized with the letter Q. So now we can start talking about the conditional statements like their math equations, if P, then Q, if P, then not Q, blah, blah, blah, blah, and we can talk about all the different ways we can work with this statement. So there are two valid ways you can use that statement to what draw a conclusion. - Could you draw these cards? Could you think of these cards then to give your example of if it rains tomorrow, Michael will stay indoors? Instead of this being A, G, seven, eight, could it be, Michael's indoors, Michael's outdoors, it's raining, it's not raining. - Exactly. That is exactly what each of the cards in this selection task do. They've got P, not P, Q, not Q. And so in order to answer this correctly, you need to show that you understand or have an innate ability to use a conditional statement in the two valid ways that an argument can be formed. And that's where we get to modus Tolens and modus ponens. I'm probably not pronouncing those right, but look, this is about logic, not pronunciation. So modus ponens is the really easy one where we say, here's a rule. If it rains tomorrow, Michael will stay indoors. It is now tomorrow and it is raining, where is Michael? And they go, well, he's indoors. That's, I can conclude that. Yes, that's valid. The other example would be your overage and your drinking and alcoholic drink, right? That would be the other, it's true, it's true. - It depends what the rule is about drinking. - Okay, the rule is everyone over 21, no, everyone drinking must be over 21. - I think so, yeah. - If you're drinking, you must be over 21. - Right. Or 18 or whatever. I didn't give a year, I just said. - You did, you smartly did that. - I smartly chose 12 and 35. - So that, look at that, I've anchored us to the wrong side of the Atlantic. - I know, look at that. And I did all the work to use the word pub. - I know, I really should have repaged you better, I apologize. - Okay, so the modus Poland's then is, if you're drinking, you're over 21. So it's the person with the beer say, who turns out to be the correct age. - Yeah, yeah. You know what, I think the sentence would be, if a person is drinking alcohol, they must be over like 21 or over. Therefore modus ponens would be, hey, they're drinking alcohol. Therefore, they must be over 21. - I understand, yeah. - So modus ponens is about affirming the antecedent. We know that the first, the if part is true, therefore we conclude the consequent, the q part. Now it is invalid, it is invalid to have the antecedent denied and then conclude something about the consequent. - Okay, you're gonna have to do that one again for me. - Okay, modus ponens is when you affirm the antecedent, you say, hey, the if part is true. Therefore, the then part must be true. If however, you are able to deny the antecedent, for example, in our raining example, you say, well, hey, it's not raining. You cannot conclude that I'm not indoors because the rule doesn't say anything about other reasons I might stay indoors tomorrow. Now let's talk about the consequent. A valid way to operate with what you know about the state of the consequent is that if it's denied, in our original case, Michael is not indoors, then you can conclude that it's not raining. - All right, let's do this with the drinking example because this is a very important thing. the one that I, that, like strangely I find most, I can understand most instinctively. Okay, so, so, to make it, to make it really easy, let's say that in this bar, it is true, the law is being followed. Everyone in drinking beer is over 21. If you're drinking alcohol, you were over 21 and that's true. If you're drinking alcohol, you are over the drinking age. So, if you get someone who is not over the drinking age, then you can conclude that they can't be drinking alcohol. Correct. That is modus tollins. Right. However, if you affirm the consequent, you cannot conclude anything validly. Meaning, if you run into a person there at the bar and they are over the drinking age, then you have no idea what they're drinking. It doesn't mean anything. You cannot conclude that they are drinking alcohol because they might not be. Got you. And that, so then, so then what's that? That's not modus tollins or modus tollins. No, that's called affirming the consequent and it is invalid. Okay. Hey, if all of this sounds really confusing or boring, just rewind, listen again, over and over again, we can get some really cool boosts for the algorithm. Just just remember that you are here to learn not to be entertained. Okay. That's right. That's right. I'm not going to just do a dance for you. I'm going to sit here and mispronounce Latin words for an hour. This is a very special episode of the podcast where at the end we give you a test and if you are in the 96% who fail, you'll not allowed listen again. You're oh my goodness. I didn't know that rule. Speaking of conditional statements, if you don't understand, then you will not listen again. The point of all of this is to say that the difficulty of the wass and selection task is that the human brain must just not have an innate modus tollins ability. Like we have since our evolution into modern humans developed and discovered all this stuff about logic, but we just aren't born with a logical table in our brain. But that can't be true because the because the bar example is so instinctive. It's so instinctive. Yeah. The words that we're using here and the language that you were using to describe this. I mean, it does sound super duper complicated. It sounds extremely mind boggling, even if the original sentence is quite simple. But then as soon as you put it in the bar example, it's like, "Oh, I don't even have to think about it." I know. That is so strange. That is weird. It's and it's got to be significant, right? So in the late 80s to researchers, leader, Cosmetic and John Toobie famously said, "Guys, this whole task and the fact that the social ones are so much easier is clearly evidence that our reasoning ability evolved for social reasons, not for truth-finding reasons." So when it comes to creating different versions of the wass and selection task, the versions that involve really abstract stuff and facts are called descriptive. It's just the way it is. If there's an A on one side, there's a seven on the other. Now, if it instead involves a rule, an obligation, a duty, something that humans made up, it's called deontic. I love these words because they're both like called rules or laws, and yet one is about can and the others about may. I don't travel at the speed of light, not because I'm not allowed to, but because I can't. That kind of a restriction is called a descriptive restriction. But when it comes to our people breaking the rule, we need to make sure people are complying with the rules. That's called a deontic rule. Why did that not work? I don't know. Deontic etymology. Because what other words use it? It means being needed or necessary from ancient Greek, pertaining to necessity, duty, or obligation. So, cause meetings and to be famously are like guys. This is just human nature. We evolved to focus on duties and obligations that we invented ourselves and not on universal, timeless laws of impossibility. We care more about may I do this than can I do this? I also sort of wonder a little bit about that point about truth finding. Because the example of people in a bar, it's partly about social rules and social norms. But isn't it also a little bit about truth finding? Isn't it also a little bit about who should you be suspicious of? Yes. Yes, it is. But it's just a truth that is human focused. It's a truth in the domain of deontic principles, obligations, duties, and rules, and obedience as opposed to one of an abstract wall. If it has an A, it must have a seven. Yeah, of course. Here's the typical responses people give to the selection task. 46% of people pick A and seven. Okay. Okay. So almost half of people do that. A third, 33% choose just A. Right. Seven percent of people choose A, seven, and eight. So almost everybody is picking A. Yes. And then only four percent of people choose the correct cards, A and eight. The other 10% of people choose other combinations. Some people choose all of them. Some, I mean, at that point, I think it's kind of believed that they just either didn't understand or didn't care. Or just want to want to finish. They're either the anarchists or they're like, get me out of here. Or maybe they understand something we don't. I mean, I'm not going to dismiss them. Maybe they're the ones with modular solens in their own heads. Yeah. The thing that makes me feel a tiny bit uncomfortable about this, this idea that humans are not innately good at truth finding. Even though I'm sure that these researchers have thought about this much more extensively than I ever have, is that science really is based on the hunt for truth. And okay. Admittedly, we have come up with really strict methods like hypothesis testing in order to do that. But does that sort of mean that I don't know, science isn't in in eight? I'm not sure. That's a really good question. And I'm starting to feel like it's not that innate that we, from tests like this, we found that we are focused more on our own social lives and ourselves and not on what is the best way to test a hypothesis. Now, the Watson selection task makes it pretty clear that we're bad at finding counter-examples or even being motivated to find them. Pretty much everyone chooses the first card A. I need to see if this is an example of a thing that follows the rule. But very few people go, but I should also look for a case where the rule is not true. It's broken. Even though you find a counter-example, you're done. If the rule is that there's an A, there's a seven on the back and you can find an A that doesn't have a seven on the back, you're done. You can walk away and say the rules not true. I've proved it wrong. Now, there's a great study. I was actually cracking up last night reading about this. I don't think it's going to seem that funny today when I tell it. But there was a study that was done by Johnson Layered and Watson in 1970 where they had two boxes of shapes. In one box, all the shapes were painted black and in the other box, they were all painted white. And they told people, the people couldn't look in the boxes. The researcher sat there with these two masked boxes and was like, okay, here's this rule. I want you to test whether it's true, whether this hypothesis is true. All the triangles are white. Now, tell me what to do and I'll do it for you. And people would say, oh, the first thing almost everyone says is, okay, I'd like to see a white shape. So he reaches in there and he pulls out a shape. And it's a white triangle, low and whole, because literally the only thing in the white bin are white triangles. He pulls it out. And people tend to just keep asking for white shapes over and over again. All right. And they keep getting a white triangle. And they're like, I don't know. It's feeling like it's pretty proven. And then after a while, they start to go, maybe I should see a black one, because they start to realize, oh, shoot, all it takes is one black triangle, blow the whole thing to smithereens. But basically no one starts with the black shapes. That is so fascinating. I think you've seen this in science as well, right? I just wrote this chapter of the book that I'm doing at the moment. I wrote this whole thing about popper, about Karl Popper, and about how he said that the key point about science is essentially trying to find things that break your own theorem. You should be hunting for the counter examples, not for the evidence that supports it. The thing is that it was really, really hard for people to do this. It's not instinctive at all. For almost all of scientific history, people were just like, let's gather more evidence, let's gather more evidence. And actually Einstein, one of the reasons why Einstein is considered so phenomenal is that when he came up with his theory of general relativity, As part of the story. part of his theory, he said, "Here is the way you can prove me wrong. This is my idea, this is what I think it is, there's going to be a solar eclipse in a couple of years, and if I am right, the light will bend around the sun in this way, you'll be able to see the stars that are normally blinded by the sun's glare off you go. Here is how to find the counter example." And that was a really bold, brave, unusual, crazy thing for him to do. It's the same as your black shapes, right? People do not go hunting for the black shapes, but Einstein was someone who knew that you had to. He did. And I think back to your original question, I think that that meant he was a little bit less human than most people. He was willing to look for counter examples and was not just looking for confirmation of the one kind of thing he believed in and wanted to find more of, and finding more of them would make him feel more and more confident. He was willing to say, "Guys, we got to find a counter example. We've got to find something that shows that I'm wrong. Here's one way we could do it. Here's another way." The creator of the Watson selection task became obsessed with our terrible, terrible laziness when it came to finding counter examples. Okay, well, look, we need to take a break, but when we come back Hannah, I want to show you an even earlier game that Watson came up with that brings us to I think the same surprising conclusion about humanity. Imagine if he was your dad. He'd constantly be tricking you, wouldn't he? I know, but like dads are always tricky, but this dad is tricking you. This is the trickiest tricks for science. I got your nose. Why do you think I got your nose? Have you not developed body permanence yet? Dad, leave me alone. Yeah. Yeah. Hey, what's that on your shirt? Oh, gotcha. What's wrong with your perceptual apparatus? Let's try that again. And you're like, "Dad, just prank me to embarrass me not to learn." All right, but we're going to do some of that after the break. Okay. Welcome back. All right. So Hannah, here we go. I'm going to give you some numbers. Again, because of who you are, Hannah, you might do really well at this. That's more fresh on me. That fits more fresh on me. Go on. Good. Good. I want this to be uncomfortable. Look, what I'm going to do is I'm going to name a triples of numbers. I'm going to name three numbers. Yeah. That fit my rule. It's a secret rule I have up here. And then I'm going to just give you one example. And then I want you to start naming triples. And I will tell you, yes or no, whether it fits the rule. Eventually, I want you to be able to tell me what you think the rule is. Okay. Go. Okay. So here is a triple that fits my rule. Two, four, six. Okay. All right. Now I want you to start producing triples. And I will tell you if they fit the rule or not until you can guess the rule. All right. Six, eight, ten. Correct. That fits. Okay. Seven, eight, ten. That fits. Six, six, six. Nope. Six, seven, eight. Yes. I think I've got it. What do you think it is? I think hang on. Let me try one. Okay. Seven, six, five. No. It doesn't fit. Seven, seven, eight, six. No. Is it just going up? It's just going up. Hannah, you're brilliant. That's the first time this game was played on me. I never, I mean, I'm still playing that game, by the way. I just walked away. And it wasn't until last night when I read about the history of Watson that I was like, Oh, that's it. The answers that they just have to go up. No. All right. To be fair, though, you primed me because I, because you said find counter examples. I did. I did. Okay. Well, how about this? Editors edit this around. So it looks like that's the very first thing we did. The point is, all right. Yeah. I'm still a bit impressed. You did a good job of, of at least making it look like you didn't know exactly what to do. The counter examples you asked for is what unlocks the whole thing. Of course. They give you there's so much more information contained within a counter example than there is in something that confirms it. That's right. Whereas if you play this, if you're listening, please go try this with your friends and family today. They will thank you. It's so fun. But you'll find that what they tend to do is that people tend to think of what the rule might be and then they think of other things that might fit that rule and they ask them again and again and again. And they rarely go, I think the rule is this. So let me think of something that wouldn't fit that rule and test it. Now, why don't we do this so much? Obviously, we don't know, right? This is, it's all very speculative. But I think that comedies is really onto something with this idea that reasoning didn't evolve to help us solve mathematical puzzles. It originally evolved to help us work together and explain ourselves to each other because humans are just too weak. We need each other. We need to cooperate. And that's the only way we're going to be able to build and collect and hunt. So we have to be able to communicate what's going on in our heads. We don't have to do it well. We just have to make sure that people trust us and feel like we're playing the game. Okay. So on that topic, I would highly recommend Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber, the enigma of reason. This goes really deep into their social theory of reasoning, which is that, look, we, we don't use reasons to come to conclusions. We use conclusions to come to reasons. We just intuitively feel and want to do things. And then when we're asked to defend it, we confabulate in our own heads all the reasons we had for it. And we believe them. I think, I think what I'm, like, is calling to mind about this is that actually when there are situations where people do see counter examples where, which puncture their theories, it's not like we are lately very happily, you know, get on board. And just like go along with it, you know, we look for reasons why the counter example doesn't exist. I mean, I'm thinking here about, I don't know, biology and the sort of 17, 1800s, where they spend absolutely years like merrily shooting things and pinning butterflies to boards and putting birds in sacks and stuff and deciding that, you know, birds are one branch of the tree of life and mammals or another. And they had it all perfectly neatly categorized these rules. And then someone comes along with a platypus body and they have no idea what to do. And rather than saying, okay, hang on actually, this is a really clear counter example of the ways in which I wrote is wrong. They cut it up looking for stitches. They thought it was a fake, you know, they spent maybe 100 years being like, well, this is just to can't, can't be possible. Rather than the way you say the platypus is real. I think they were Frankenstein together by some pranksters like Jackalope. I mean, that's what they thought too. I've never seen one in the wild, have you? So I've never been one in the wild. Basically, I'm taking someone's word for it. So, you know, no, that's, that's exactly it. And when a whole group of people refuse to accept counter examples, that's when things can get pretty dangerous. Because the conclusion that I think all of this is pointing at and this is my opinion is that we truly reason that is we give reasons for things and we extract knowledge from knowledge we already have, which is what reasoning is, to get along and be social. And I think that if you really meditate on the consequences of that, suddenly a lot of stuff makes sense like confirmation bias, which is what we've been talking about this whole time. The pursuit of finding things that prove your hypothesis correct and ignoring or avoiding a search for things that might prove it wrong. Confirmation bias, I think, works really well when you consider the fact that we're supposed to all be working together. As a group activity, it actually saves time if each of us goes off and finds evidence for our own pet theory and then we come and combine them. If instead we didn't do that, if we didn't have a confirmation bias and we all went off and we did all the research and found everything and read all these different count, there'd be too much work for all of us to do. Let's each split the task up, many hands make light work, all go and find evidence for what I believe, you find evidence for what you believe and then we'll come together. And you've already done a bunch of work on topic A, I did topic B and we combine them. That seems to explain confirmation bias and so many of our other biases so well. I also love that it kind of pushes us to this conclusion that humans need to work together. We need to listen to people even if we really do not agree with them. I'm also thinking here about, I don't know, I have like a few years ago, I was doing quite a lot of work on vaccine skepticism. Oh yeah. I'm working with people who were hesitant about the COVID vaccine. Now, I have to be tiny bit careful about what I say about this because what I will say is they are a vocal community. Not afraid to tell me what they're quick. I'm just going to tread delicately and carefully. I also was made lots of mistakes in the way that the whole thing was approached. But the thing that I noticed is well twofold actually. One is that people, the only way that people make decisions is in an emotional way. It may be that you and I who are scientifically mind believe that we make decisions based on statistics. But ultimately for us that is still an emotional story. We have an emotional relationship to data and mathematics and science in a whole story of our lives that kind of builds up to that moment. And it's still an emotional decision. It's just a slightly different one. I think people are not persuaded by data and numbers. I think it is always fundamentally about the social aspect exactly as you described, right? Because if it was about data, then you could show somebody the right piece of data. You could show somebody the right combination of words and it would change their mind. People do not work like that. That's not how it works. It's not. It works. And the second thing that's called to mind here in what you're describing is there's something which is called the deficit model of public communication. I haven't heard about this. Okay. So when you work in an academic institution, there's a lot of talk about how do you get your, how do you get the scientific ideas out to the public? How do you talk to people about this? Especially when you look at situations where people are making choices that are maybe counter to their health or maybe counter to public health more generally, how do we, how do we get the information out there so that people make better choices, make choices that align more carefully with what's right for them and what's right overall. And for a long time, people thought that all you all you needed to do was just give them information, you know, that if you educated people to the correct level, that if you put information out there, then that would be enough. But the problem with that idea is that it's called the deficit model because it's essentially saying that the only problem is that the public have a deficit of knowledge, right? They just need the facts. They just need the facts and it is the most arrogant, insulting way to, I think, belittle people. And it's basically imagined that the only reason why somebody is not making the same decisions as you are is nothing to do with their worldviews, nothing to do with their own, their own version of reasoning, the things that are important to them. It's just because they don't know as much as you do, right? Right. And not only is it incredibly insulting, it also demonstratively does not work. You cannot argue or maths your way into changing people's minds or persuading them. It just doesn't work. And I think that the way that you've described all of this stuff, the way that people's logical brains are not not geared for statistics and data and abstract descriptions. And the way that our brains are geared towards the social aspect of aligning with other people and collaborating. I mean, just looking at the sort of anti-vax movement against that perspective, it just really, really, really resonates with me. Yeah. It's kind of frustrating, but it's almost a relief to realize, oh my gosh, you're right. It's not that with the right facts and reasons, we'll all agree on something because that's not what happens. My favorite demonstration of this was something we did on Mindfield where we had a magician come in and act like he was doing a study on appearance. He showed people two photographs at a time and said, which of these two people would you rather work with in an office? And he would put the people, the people that were chosen on one stack and the people that were not chosen in another stack. And he did this over and over again. And then he said, okay, now I want to go through everyone that you chose to work with. And I want you to tell me why you picked them. But he was a magician. So he used a slide of hand to actually slip in a bunch of the people that they had dismissed as I don't want to work with a person who looks like that. And he would then show them the cards and they gave reasons. And whenever, every time without exception, he would show a face that the person had rejected, they'd go, oh yeah. So I picked this person because I really liked the way their eyes kind of looked like that might they might have like good inside jokes. The point is that we use reasons to explain ourselves and express who we are at a deep level. We don't use them because of anything logical and timelessly true. It was so awkward to watch people defend and explain why they chose a person that did not choose. It was embarrassing for them, but yet it was it was enlightening for our species. Yeah. And we were just a mess, Michael. We're all just a big sloshy mess with our squirty water computers. That is true. And the only way to rise above that is for us to stay a big sloshy mess because the average of all of us winds up being better than one individual's opinion on their own. Yeah. I mean, this is the wisdom of the crowd stuff, right? That's right. And this is something that's really important to me. I really believe in it. I did an episode about lethocracy and how I would really love a government run by random people. Like rather than electing people, let's literally just be like, look, there's a lottery every four years. And you'll just get asked to come and be a member of Congress or parliament or whatever. The House of Lords randomly. You'll do your term. You'll get paid. There's housing for you. And I think it would be amazing what would happen if you like took such a variety of views and had them all kind of average each other out as opposed to what we have now, which is like, hey, we're all kind of in this political class. Let's be leaders. We all kind of already feel the same way. Great. Great. Great. Great. Great. Great. Yeah. There's a superiority that comes with that. I think I remember reading something about this in Maurice Stewart's book. Roy Stewart, of course, of Restless Politics fame, the lesser known Go Hang on Foll guest. But he is extremely keen on the idea of town halls, but also of civilian panels, civilian assemblies. Because I mean, deliberation days. Yeah, deliberation. Exactly. Why not? I mean, this is what we do in the judicial system. I mean, it's not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but I also think that it's the best that we've got. And it does exactly what you're describing. It stops pretending that reason is some mathematically pure thing that we can march towards and instead accepts the messiness of human nature and that we are social creatures and social beings. And we are totally perfectly tuned through an astonishing evolution to really prioritize that. Right. Yeah. We evolved to be a group and work together. And so collectively, like all voting together, I just it's hard for me to find a solution that's better than that. That's it's better than asking any particular person or type of people to make all the decisions. We've got to all come in. And there are people who are have terrible ideas. And sometimes people have terrible ideas that are opposite to each other and they cancel each other out. And that's like our only hope is the hope that things cancel out. And what we're left with is the wisest way to go to what is your what is your t-shirt say to say my class will feel like somehow rather we've been oh, it's very reflective of kind of the mood that we've created here. Everything is terrible. With an atomic bomb going off in the background. It's not actually the scent. I'm not saying that I feel everything is terrible. This is a a troop of performers who collect found media footage and they do shows where they show it off and they call themselves everything is terrible. They're kind of like they really love this like terrible forgotten media. They're a great group. I don't actually haven't checked in on them in a while. But basically what we solved human nature today is that right? I think we probably did. We cracked it. We finally cracked it. When it comes to things that we do that are social, there's another really funny example that I've been wanting to do a longer video about. And it's the classic situation where you are at a restaurant and the waiter brings your food out and says all right enjoy your meal and you go oh you too. I mean thank you. Or you know you're at you're you're dropping off your bag at the airport and the gate attendant says all right have a nice flight and you go you too oh shoot no I mean thanks. Why do we do that? Well there's a name for those kinds of exchanges those kinds of words we say to each other. Back in the 30s a researcher named Bronislaw Malinowski called these kinds of exchanges faddock communion. Okay like you're breaking the bread together. That's right it's communion. It's breaking bread together. It's showing that I'm here. I acknowledge you were both humans. But it's communion done through faddock means which means pertaining to language. So when we say things to each other like oh hey how's it going? I'm not literally asking tell me how things are going. In fact a common response to hey what's up or hey how's it going? Is oh hey man you're nation on something at all. You're literally ignoring their question. An alien would find that really weird but we understand that I wasn't actually asking you what is up or how's it going? I'm just saying I acknowledge that you're here were two social beings who can communicate and we just need to say hi to each other we just need to give each other a bit of a nod that's it. A little bit of communion. A little bit of communion and that's what the waiter does when they say hey have a great meal you are you are you're automatically ready to to exchange these things without conscious thought And that's why we absent mind to the and I'm incredibly respond with you too. - I am, I have heard from an American who moved to London. He found it extremely confusing when he first got here and people were like, you're right, you're right. He was like, what'd you mean am I all right? - Am I all right? - I wasn't mean to told you that. - Oh my God. - Because this was one of my biggest struggles when I first moved to the UK every time I entered a room. People would be like, you're right. And I'd be like, what's wrong? Why do you think something's wrong with me? Am I acting weird? - I'm not saying it was you. - All right. But for them, just fancy communion. - It was fatic. It was just a beep, beep, I am human too, acknowledged. That's all they meant by it. - Absolutely. - And you see this between generations because what is and is not fatic changes over time. And so for younger people saying things like, oh, no problem, is very fatic. If someone says, hey thanks and I'll just say no problem. But to people in an older generation, they don't realize that it's fatic. They take it literally, they listen to those words. And they go, no problem. Well, I didn't say it was a problem. Why would it be a problem? Do you think I'm acting like this was a problem? And so I thoroughly believe that by the time I'm an old man, I'll be at the grocery store, they'll bag up my groceries, I'll say, hey thanks a lot. And they'll go, well don't freak out about it. And I'll be like, I wasn't. I'm why can't you just say no problem? And they'll be like, well, no dude, I didn't say you were freaking out. I just said, don't freak out. You didn't. So, right? There is one. There is one, okay, that young Londoners say to each other. What do they do? They go, say less. Say less. Yes, yes, yes. It's like, I can't take my words back. If I was going through time, I could. I was like, I don't think I was saying a lot, actually. I know. That's a great example of how fatic things are changing. I wonder what they were in really old times, though. I wonder what the fatic communication of 1865 was. Just a bunch of belching. I don't know. I don't know. Why did I just say something derogatory of each and 60s people? They didn't deserve it. We know that they were belching all over their place. They were just like, yo hey. Did you find anything? I did, I did. I've got a couple. Okay, tell me. I hope I see you well. Yeah. What say you on such days this? Hmm. On a day such as this. Sorry. How does all at home? That one, that one I wouldn't be too tripped up by. I'd be like, oh, it's fine. I hope you were. How would you respond? They say fine. Actually, how do you do? How do you do that? I feel like I've, you know, sort of feel like the memory of that one has lingered. Yes. Yes, I would not be confused if someone said, how do you do? I wouldn't go. How do I do what? The 1600s is the exact century when the passing blessing, God be with you. We're said so rapidly and often as a fatic communion that it permanently mashed together into God, Buree, and eventually, goodbye. Goodbye. I like that. You said the 1600s, certainly. Wow. Hello. Goodbye. Speaking of reasons. I think it's pretty interesting as I was fleshing out what I wanted to talk about today. I was like, wow, there's kind of three types of things we've talked about. We've talked about difficult questions. I think the Watson selection task is surprisingly difficult. But there are also questions that we don't answer, fatic questions. Hey, what's up? I don't actually look up and tell you, I don't really, well, you can because you've got to talk to me off that guy. I can't. Exactly. Just like everyone, when I'm asked, what's up, I go on, not much, or I'm doing well. But there are also answers we don't question. And I think we've kind of like been talking about this already. It's that a lot of the conclusions and things we believe, we just kind of don't want to question them. We don't feel motivated to find counter examples and falsify them. - Are you talking about like social norms, like social rules here? - That's right. I'm talking about social rules and taboos and I know that you are familiar with these because we've both read this book, Jonathon Hades' The Righteous Mind. - It's so good. - Which way do they're, it's so good? - It's so good. - It's so good. - It's spicy. - It's spicy. - It's spicy and we're not going to discuss it today but we are going to put a little worm in your brain. - You gotta be careful now, Michael, because if this section that you're, if you're going to the very first example, if this gets clipped up and does the rounds on the internet, you could, your reputation could be really in trouble. - I know. Look, I'm picking, I'm picking the safest one. I'm picking the least spicy one. And again, I think that Hannah, we should just bring this up. And then in a later episode, we'll talk about moral reasoning. - Good idea. - Which is not much different than reasoning about obligations or abstract mathematical things. It all kind of points in the same direction, but this is one where you really, you really wind up realizing that you had a conclusion before you had any reasons. - We should say actually just in general, this book, this book really interrogates in an extremely careful and logical way, a lot of the moral rules that we fully accept as a society. Things that we find apparent, things that we find disgusting, it really tries to understand what is it about that that we have decided is unacceptable. - That's exactly right. And it really looks into why we don't agree on what is acceptable and disgusting and good or bad, how complex our reasons are. - It's the right, just mind, by Jonathan Heyte. - That's right. And I think it's a very insightful book that's perfect for the way the world is today. But here's an example of a question and I want you to, I'm just gonna read from chapter one. I'm just gonna read it, because I said, "Okay, good idea." - I can't get it done. - I'm going to tell you a brief story, pause after you read it and decide whether the people in the story did anything morally wrong. A family's dog was killed by a car in front of their house. They had heard that dog meat was delicious. So they cut up the dog's body and cooked it and ate it for dinner. Nobody saw them do this. Okay, so no one saw them do it. The father, let's say, was a professional butcher and none of the dogs had sick. The dog passed away due to an accident. - Was already dead. - Already dead. And you know what, afterwards the family was really glad they did it. They felt that it was respectful and it made them feel closer to the dog. So did anyone do anything morally wrong? That's our question to you. Let us know in the comments below. And I don't know when we'll talk about this. There's a lot that I want to learn and that we both should talk about before we do it. We'll look into moral reason. - Yeah, I think that's a really good idea. We can read you more examples from that book as long as you promise audience not to clip it up and share it around. - As though it's things we actually think. 'Cause I mean, yeah, you test the bounds. But that is a really great example. A really great example of it definitely feels wrong but it's quite hard to say why. - Exactly. These are Jonathan Hades. What did he call them? He called them harmless taboo violations where he knows that there's a taboo and he believes that it's like this almost intuitive thing where we believe it and we provide reasons after the fact. So he constructed these questions where all the typical harms and reasons people give for the taboo have been canceled. They've been clipped. That's not in this case, not in this case. What, they didn't kill their dog. They just ate it after it accidentally died. Nope, no one got sick. No one saw them do it. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. And you're left going, but I still think it's wrong. But he's taken all the reasons away because you never needed the reasons in the first place to believe what you believe. - You were using the reasons in order to justify your instinctive reaction. - That's right. But we're saying too much. We're gonna leave it there. If you guys have any questions for us any despicable, disgusting, perverted moral quandaries, email them right over to us at the rest of science at gohanger.com. - Absolutely. And in the meantime, you can check out our newsletter which I really should have learned by now, but I think it's the rest is.com/science. And we will see you on our episode of field notes that's coming up later in the week. And yeah, send us in. I think you're like, put in the comments also whether you actually got the puzzle right at the very beginning. And all of those if you say that you didn't, I was joking, you can carry on this thing. (laughing) - All right, take care, everybody. - Bye. (upbeat music) [BLANK_AUDIO]