Human reasoning evolved mainly to win arguments, not find truth
In short: Psychologists Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber argue that human reasoning functions primarily to construct and evaluate persuasive arguments, rather than to uncover objective truth. Drawing on existing evidence from reasoning and decision-making research, they propose that this argumentative function makes sense of our strong reliance on communication and vulnerability to being misled.
This argumentative-function theory reinterprets well-known patterns such as confirmation bias: skilled arguers seek support for their own views rather than the truth, which can distort evaluations and let false beliefs persist. The theory also explains why people often perform poorly on abstract reasoning tasks but reason skillfully when defending opinions in a real argumentative exchange.
This is a theoretical paper that reinterprets existing psychological evidence rather than reporting a new experiment, so it does not establish the hypothesis with new data of its own.
Why it matters: This theory suggests our reasoning is built for winning arguments, which helps explain persistent biases like motivated reasoning and confirmation bias.
Opens the Intellect+ feed with this card first. Swipe up for the next one.
Sources
- Summary by Intellect · source: Research: Mercier and Sperber (2011). Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences.
To cite this card, link to https://intellectplus.co.uk/app/ideas-research-human-reasoning-may-be-designed-for-persuasion-rather-than-f.
How we source, check and correct cards: Editorial standards.
General information, not professional advice. Spotted an error? Flag the card or see corrections and complaints.
Intellect Plus is a visual educational discovery platform for exploring fascinating facts and ideas. Brain Food, Not Brain Rot. What is Intellect Plus?
Related
More in Psychology · More in Ideas & Philosophy · Latest · A–Z · All topics