Meta Value - 23

I never even dreamt that an academic paper would not only make it my value system. Plus, I think about this paper almost every time I interact with a human. 

Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory by Hugo Mercier & Dan Sperber have definitely reduced my probability of dying soon because of high blood pressure. 

Abstract 

Reasoning is generally seen as a means to improve knowledge and make better decisions. However, much evidence shows that reasoning often leads to epistemic distortions and poor decisions. This suggests that the function of reasoning should be rethought. 

Our hypothesis is that the function of reasoning is argumentative. It is to devise and evaluate arguments intended to persuade. Reasoning so conceived is adaptive given the exceptional dependence of humans on communication and their vulnerability to misinformation. A wide range of evidence in the psychology of reasoning and decision making can be reinterpreted and better explained in the light of this hypothesis. Poor performance in standard reasoning tasks is explained by the lack of argumentative context. When the same problems are placed in a proper argumentative setting, people turn out to be skilled arguers. Skilled arguers, however, are not after the truth but after arguments supporting their views. This explains the notorious confirmation bias. This bias is apparent not only when people are actually arguing, but also when they are reasoning proactively from the perspective of having to defend their opinions. 

Reasoning so motivated can distort evaluations and attitudes and allow erroneous beliefs to persist. Proactively used reasoning also favors decisions that are easy to justify but not necessarily better. In all these instances traditionally described as failures or flaws, reasoning does exactly what can be expected of an argumentative device: Look for arguments that support a given conclusion, and, ceteris paribus, favor conclusions for which arguments can be found.

Along the similar lines, Clay Christensen's wise words helped me understand humanity better: 

Questions are places in your mind where answers fit. If you haven’t asked the question, the answer has nowhere to go. It hits your mind and bounces right off. You have to ask the question – you have to want to know – in order to open up the space for the answer to fit.

The value is not to waste time arguing and reasoning with humans. 

For example, I don't talk to adults about eating non-human animal dead bodies for pleasure and causing immense pain and suffering. There is no way on earth they will change their mind. 

Instead, I focus on kids. They are more open minded, they have unanswered questions in their mind.  If they change their mind, then an entire generation to come via them can stop killing animals. 

As far as adults, they will not kill animals only after they die. Sad but that is the reality.