48 | New Scientist | 11 December 2021
shows that both the left and the right are
susceptible. A given set of data – say on
the efficacy of gun control – will be seen to
support or not support a position depending
on whether the reasoner belongs to a side
that believes it in the first place.And then we get to the third and most potent M,
which is mythological belief.
I think this a powerful explanation for why
people apparently believe so much nonsense.
There are real beliefs like “I believe there is
a beer in the fridge”. But then there’s a whole
family of beliefs that are more like stories
that capture a deeper truth: what our
enemies are capable of and how dreadful
they are; how noble our side is, how wise
and pure and good. Whether these things
are true is almost beside the point. These
are mythological beliefs.New Scientist video
Watch video accompanying this feature and
many other articles at youtube.com/newscientistRational thinking requires mental
tools that don’t come naturally.
We have an intuitive sense of them,
says psychologist Steven Pinker,
but to improve our grasp, schools
should teach logic and critical
thinking, and replace outdated
subjects like trigonometry with
probability and statistics.People should also be made
aware of the many cognitive biases
that influence our thinking. “We
are all victims of bias,” says Pinker.
“But self-awareness of that means
that we can interrogate our own
unexamined biases.”We should seek to belong
to communities in which theoverarching goal is objective truth.
The aim here is to submit to the
pains of peer review, of having your
ideas challenged and of having to
defend your beliefs.Resisting irrationality isn’t simply
down to individuals, it also rests on
social institutions with norms and
rules that allow us to be collectively
more rational. Functioning
democracy, rigorous journalism
and depoliticised universities are
three cornerstones.Our legislatures are often
dominated by lawyers whose
professional goal is victory rather
than truth. If there were more
scientists in politics, they couldtry to spread the value of evidence-
based problem-solving among their
colleagues, says Pinker.“But there’s a danger of scientists
presenting themselves as a kind of
priesthood,” he adds. When debates
are shut down and holders of
unpopular beliefs cancelled, that
sends the wrong message. Science
must show that it is an arena where
truths can emerge.Finally, we can all help make
rationality a social norm. By deriding
irrational thinking and championing
behaviours such as acknowledging
uncertainty, questioning dogmas and
changing our minds when the facts
change, rationality becomes cool.Seven ways to build
a more rational world
does not make you immune to it. And it’s
rather hard to unlearn.
There is a variety of ways in which we
comfort ourselves in thinking that beliefs
of our side are valid and wise. We muster
our ingenuity, we take advantage of
ambiguities in the evidence, we feed
ourselves evidence that supports our
position and try to ignore sources that
might contradict our preferred beliefs.
We think more like lawyers than scientists.What are some real-world manifestations
of myside bias?
With politicised issues in science such as
anthropogenic climate change, scientists
are often surprised that there is so much
denial. They sometimes attribute it to
scientific ignorance or illiteracy. But that
is a less-than-rational belief because it’s notbased on empirical studies of why people
deny climate change. What those studies
show is that the deniers are actually no
more ignorant of science than the believers.
In fact, a lot of people who endorse the
scientific consensus are really out to lunch
when it comes to the science of climate
change. They think it has something to do
with the ozone hole, toxic waste dumps,
plastic straws in the ocean. What does
predict people’s belief in climate change
is their politics. The farther you are to the
right, the more denial there is.
That’s a case in which the scientifically
respectable conclusion is aligned with the
left. But there are also cases where the left
is out of touch with the scientific facts.
My claim that left and right are equally
biased is not just an attempt to be even-
handed. Research on the myside bias