The enduring enigma of reason
Open accessAbstract
In The Enigma of Reason, Mercier and Sperber (M&S) present and defend their interactionist account of reason. In this piece, I discuss briefly the points of agreement between M&S and myself and, more extensively, the points of disagreement, most of which pertain to details of the evolutionary components of their account. I discuss in particular the purported modular nature of reason; their account of myside bias as an optimum/adaptation; and the claim that reason thus construed must be an individual‐level and not a group‐level adaptation. In the final section, I offer brief considerations on an alternative account of reasoning, where the focus is on how sociocultural environments may tune the social production and evaluation of arguments.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Since individuals within their social groups depend on their reputation to find collaborators, anticipating one's audience's responses should be and have been more adaptive than having a confirmation bias.
“Since individuals within their social groups depend on their reputation so as to find collaborators, anticipating one's audience's responses should be and have been more adaptive than having a confirmation bias (ibid).”
From What Is the Function of Confirmation Bias? (2022) · cites this paper as Dutilh Novaes 2018
Section 3.2 argues that anticipating an audience’s objections seems plausibly more adaptive than myside bias, and connects the issue to reputation. It does not establish that this was historically more adaptive or say that reputation matters specifically for finding collaborators; the claim states those points more firmly and specifically than the paper does. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredConfirmation bias makes people less able to anticipate and adequately respond to their interlocutor's point of view.
“In fueling one-sided information processing to support one's own view, the bias makes people less able to anticipate and adequately respond to their interlocutor's point of view (Dutilh Novaes 2018: 520).”
From What Is the Function of Confirmation Bias? (2022) · cites this paper as Dutilh Novaes 2018
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Henrich, J. (2016) · doi:10.1515/9781400873296 · Cited by 1,002 · see citing works
Godfrey-Smith, P. (2001) · Adaptationism and Optimality · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511609084.012 · Cited by 259 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 10
- Brandom, R. (1994). Making it explicit: Reasoning, representing, and discursive commitment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- Dutilh Novaes, C. (2013). A dialogical account of deductive reasoning as a case study for how culture shapes cognition. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 13, 459-482.
- Dutilh Novaes, C. (2015). A dialogical, multi-agent account of the normativity of logic, 69(4), 587-609.
- Henrich, J. (2015). The secret of our success. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
- Henrich, J., Heine, S. J. & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2-3), 61-83.
- Heyes, C. (2012). Grist and mills: on the cultural origins of cultural learning. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 367 (1599), 2181-2191.
- Levine, T. R. (2010). A few transparent liars: Explaining 54% accuracy in deception detection experiments. In C. Salmon (Ed.), Com- munication yearbook (Vol. 34, pp. 40-61). New York: Sage.
- Levine, T. (2014). Truth-default theory (TDT): A theory of human deception and deception detection. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 33, 378-392.
- Tomasello, M. (2014). A natural history of human thinking. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- Vygotsky, L. (1931). History of the development of the higher mental functions. In The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky (Vol. 4, pp. 1-251). New York: Plenum Press.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
What Is the Function of Confirmation Bias?
Peters, U. (2022) · Erkenntnis · doi:10.1007/s10670-020-00252-1 · Cited by 163 · see citing works
- Authors
- Dutilh Novaes, C.
- Affiliations
- Faculty of Philosophy University of Groningen Groningen Netherlands
- Venue
- Mind & Language
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2018-08-22
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 513-524
- ISSN
- 0268-1064 (ISSN-L)
- 1468-0017
- OpenAlex
- W2888327848
- Cited by
- 36
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 1
- FWCI
- 3.27
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Mind & Language (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Evolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Philosophy and History of Science
- Keywords
- myside bias, sociocultural context, argumentation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
