You said Kunda’s original piece divided into reasoning with and without motivation. I’m sure you’re right but I didn’t remember that. As usual, I’d say putting this into categories isn’t as correct or useful as thinking about it on a spectrum: how much do we want to reach the truth and how much are we motivated toward one outcome. It’s tough to think of a topic on which we’ll remain neutral on our desired conclusion for more than the most brief and casual discussion.
I agree that putting this into categories isn’t as correct or useful as thinking about it on a spectrum. At the same time, we should keep in mind that there is no reason to believe that both categories of reasoning (endpoints of the spectrum) involve the same kinds of mechanism
Yes. I think this is real and underappreciated in its influence on even rationalist thinking. We’ve all got motivations. See my quick piece on the topic Motivated reasoning/confirmation bias as the most important cognitive bias.
You said Kunda’s original piece divided into reasoning with and without motivation. I’m sure you’re right but I didn’t remember that. As usual, I’d say putting this into categories isn’t as correct or useful as thinking about it on a spectrum: how much do we want to reach the truth and how much are we motivated toward one outcome. It’s tough to think of a topic on which we’ll remain neutral on our desired conclusion for more than the most brief and casual discussion.
I agree that putting this into categories isn’t as correct or useful as thinking about it on a spectrum. At the same time, we should keep in mind that there is no reason to believe that both categories of reasoning (endpoints of the spectrum) involve the same kinds of mechanism