Motivated Reasoning

Society is a large concept that is often hard to grasp and relate to, but it’s really just a group of people, and we all are members of many groups: the billing department at work, an extended family, a sports club, the south side of town, Jimmy’s birthday party, etc. And within each of those groups decisions always need to be made: what software should we use, which restaurant are we going to, where should we hold the family reunion this year. In these environments we all know how to spot motivated reasoning: someone makes an argument for a choice that clearly is in their self-interest, but they claim it’s actually the best for the group. But we’re immediately suspicious and look deeper – they tend to leave out facts that don’t support their cause, they over exaggerate the benefits of their choice, and don’t seem to realize other people might want something different than they do. Sure, uncle Bob suggests we hold the reunion in Kansas City because it’s the middle of the country so equal distance from everyone, but he happens to live there, most of the family is on the East Coast, and who really wants to go to Kansas City? Even if someone’s choice seems altruistic, we question their motivations until we’re satisfied their argument is not based on ulterior motives. Cousin Sue suggests Boston even though she lives in San Diego. But being the clever people that we are, we ask a few questions and find out that Sue’s company wants to send her to Boston for a conference so they’ll pay for her trip. Maybe Boston would work but maybe there’s a more neutral location that really serves the group as a whole better. It’s not that everyone is a selfish bastard, but it’s human nature to seek your own self-interest, and from there it’s only too easy to find some bit of logic to hang an argument on where what’s best for you is also best for all. The problem isn’t that motivated reasoning is completely unsound – it has enough logic to make it seem plausible – but it isn’t complete or accurate and rarely arrives at the best answer.

In these situations the thing to do is try to separate your reasoning from your personal gain. Imagine you were not a part of the group – what would a disinterested party recommend as the fair and equitable answer? Having the reunion on the East Coast is best for the greatest number, but perpetually disadvantages the West Coast minority, so maybe every third year it should move around the country, even to Kansas City once in a while. When we work in groups we need to reach consensus and we all should want the best solution for the group as a whole, but differences of opinion are inevitable, and while the strength of the argument should win it’s more often that the strength of the arguer is the deciding factor. We all challenge self-motivated reasoning in others and we should look for it in ourselves. We need to be more reasonable about our reasoning and willing to advocate for what’s right and fair even if it isn’t in our own self-interest. We need to be better than human nature.

Draw your analogies where you wish.