Reasoning: Fooling You to Get What I Want

This article is part of the "Beyond Common Sense" series.

The quote I probably throw around most frequently comes from the philosopher David Hume: “Truth springs from argument amongst friends.” I believe it to be true in spirit, that the best way to get to an understanding of something is to throw out ideas and rigorously challenge them, preferably with other people; but I’m not sure Hume’s statement is true in practice. Does argument—the act of reasoning with and against others—typically lead to truth?

As I write this, the US is in the midst of a seemingly endless presidential election process—the nominees have not yet been identified but it already seems like the campaign has been going on for years. Soon, candidates for each party will be chosen and in the run up to the election we will be treated to endless hours of interviews with their proxies arguing with each other on news talk shows. As in the past, they will argue with great force and passion and they will make very compelling arguments, but no one will change their mind.

These proxy debates are part of the pageantry of an election, and those watching the discussions will hear what they want to hear and go away convinced of what they were already convinced of. Argument rarely changes anyone’s mind, let alone lead to truth; more frequently it ends up in a begrudging détente, an agreement to “agree to disagree.”

This doesn’t just happen in politics; it happens most times people debate or advocate for a point of view. We state our case clearly and expect the other person to say, “Hey, you are right and I was wrong,” but much to our ongoing surprise they almost never do. It rarely occurs to us that the other person may be correct and that we should change our minds.

Take a moment to consider this. How many times have you argued with someone about something as important as an overall business strategy or a social issue such as abortion or gun control, or about something relatively trivial such as who was the best quarterback or guitar player of all time? Have you ever truly changed your mind based on someone else’s argument? Have the people you argued with changed their minds based on your reasoning?

As much as we like to think we are rational and evidence-based, most of our arguments are actually attempts to rationalize something that we intuitively feel is true and convince others of the merit of our intuitions.

Cognitive scientists Dan Sperber and Hugo Mercier have an explanation for this phenomenon that they call “the argumentative theory of reasoning,” and we would do well to understand their ideas if we truly want to understand how our minds work.

At the root of this theory, which is gaining traction with other cognitive scientists, is the idea that the brain did not evolve as a tool for accurate understanding of our world; it evolved to equip us to survive more effectively. They believe that all the cognitive biases built into our minds are not glitches in the system, but features of the system that serve their purpose very effectively.

Survival requires getting the things we need and want from life, and we often do that more effectively when we can convince others to see the wisdom of our point of view (whether our point of view holds the actual truth or not…). Thus, our capacity to reason is not a tool for finding truth, or even for solving problems; our capacity to reason is a tool for convincing others of the rightness of our views so we can get what we want.

Further, Sperber and Mercier agree with cognitive scientists such as Robert Trivers, who makes the case in his book “The Folly of Fools,” that the most effective way to convince others is to first fool ourselves into believing whatever story will justify our initial emotion-based intuitions. In short, we easily fool ourselves into believing convenient falsehoods that serve our selfish purposes, and then we reason skillfully for what we have fooled ourselves into believing. The more skilled we are at reasoning, the more we convince ourselves that those intuitions are correct.

People who reason skillfully are often able to convince others of their “rightness,” frequently to the detriment of the one being convinced. Such people are what are commonly referred to as “influencers” and they often rise to leadership positions—with both positive and negative consequences.

Steve Jobs’ legendary “reality distortion field” was one example of the argumentative theory of reasoning at work. Jobs was so convinced of the rightness of his vision that he was able to inspire himself and others to accomplish things no one thought possible. Our iPads and iPhones and the incredible success of Apple in general are examples of the positive outcomes of someone’s ability to argue for his intuitions. Jobs’ early death was the result of the darker side of this ability—he was convinced he could ignore proper medical advice and be healed by “alternative” cures; his unwillingness or inability to listen to other points of view literally cost him his life.

The key implication of the argumentative theory of reasoning is that we can’t always trust our own reasoning and we need objective, external tools to help us uncover the ways we may be deceiving ourselves. Sperber and Mercier also point out that the group needs objective methods to protect its members from charismatic, but wrong, leaders and influencers.

Simply adhering to what the boss says or following the most charismatic person in the room can be a recipe for disaster. The same thing that the great physicist Richard Feynman said about science applies to business as well: “it is important that you don’t fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.”

This is where we return to Hume’s statement—the way to find truth is to collaborate with others and “argue,” but to do so deliberately, attentively, and with an open-mind. While we tend to think of arguing as the verbal combat that goes on nonstop on the news shows, Hume is actually calling for rational discourse—the joint pursuit of understanding rather than the competitive need for justification.

Other tools to protect the group from the compelling individual include the scientific method, social norms and mores, and institutions such as the church, schools, and government. While sometimes the individual is right and the group is wrong, we are well-served to have safeguards in check to protect ourselves from our ability to reason. 

What to do:

• Before we start to argue for our point of view we should take a deep breath, ask ourselves, “How do I know this to be true?” and argue against our own view.
• If you suspect you might be wrong, ask yourself, “What do I lose if find out I am wrong? Is it something small and ego-based? Or, is it something important, like a business deal or significant family matter?” If it’s the former, use the opportunity to demonstrate humility and open-mindedness and let go of the errors of your ways. If the goal is genuinely important and can be achieved without harming others, ask “How can I accomplish my ultimate goals while acknowledging what is true?”
• It is important for leaders to establish effective group mechanisms for evaluating arguments in open and objective ways. Install a Devil’s Advocate onto the team (this works best when the role is rotated so it doesn’t fall on one person to always be the one arguing against the group). Run small tests on a premise and objectively measure the results. Reward, rather than marginalize, contrary thinking.

About Mario Sikora

Mario Sikora is president of the consulting firm Awareness to Action International and ATAI’s senior executive coach. For nearly 20 years he has advised leaders in large organizations across the globe. He has worked with leaders in numerous multinational corporations, including Motorola, TE Connectivity, Dow Chemicals, Panasonic, Arris Inc., Rovi Corp., Pfizer, and Johnson & Johnson.

An internationally recognized speaker and author, Mario is co-author of “Awareness to Action: The Enneagram, Emotional Intelligence, and Change” and author of many articles on personality styles and leadership, performance improvement, and teambuilding. His writings have been translated into Italian, Spanish, French, Turkish, Portuguese, Arabic, Russian, Korean, and Danish.

Mario specializes in working with senior leaders in a number of areas, including:

• Performance turnaround—helping leaders overcome performance patterns that are undermining their success.
• Scaling up for broader assignments—helping high-potential leaders adjust to or prepare for the demands of a larger assignment.
• Global leadership—helping clients succeed in global roles that require multi-cultural skill, whether they are US leaders adjusting in an international assignment or non-US leaders adjusting to US corporate culture.