Of course, intuitive or instinctive decision-making can be good in some situations, such as figuring out whether to marry someone or to date them. There is an evolutionary reason so many of us rely on "gut feeling" decisions - they probably served our ancestors well enough for thousands of years.
But emotions can also lead us astray on complex decisions, such as deciding whether to have our children vaccinated or whether to fly in the weeks following a major airline disaster.
The most rational thinkers, it seems, are able to check out their gut feeling, but then think it through in a more analytical fashion.
What don't you know? Reflective deliberation also depends on certain kinds of knowledge. Dysrationalia, Dr. Stanovich says, is also a content problem: What we don't know - about statistics, the principles of probability and rules of scientific thinking - can hinder our ability to come to rational decisions.
Understanding the role of a control group in a medical experiment, for example, is essential for evaluating whether a drug is effective.
Start in school
These kinds of concepts are teachable, Dr. Stanovich says - certainly in high school, if not earlier. Children may not understand control groups, but they can comprehend simple rules for scientific thinking, such as, "Would the same thing have happened if you hadn't done anything?"
So far, however, Dr. Stanovich says there are only a smattering of such critical-thinking programs in schools anywhere, and many of those are not systematically grounded in cognitive science.
In theory, both adults and kids can train their brains to be more rational and less miserly. It could lead to better decision-making - not to mention the satisfaction of coming up with the correct answers to brain teasers that demonstrate how instinctive reasoning can lead us astray.
Try this one, written by Hector Levesque, an expert in artificial intelligence at the University of Toronto:
There are three toy blocks stacked up. The top one is green and the bottom one is red. Is there a green block directly on top of a non-green one? The answer could be (a) yes, (b) no or (c) cannot be determined.
Think of all of the possibilities. Think of the opposite of your initial answer. The correct answer is (a) yes.
Anne McIlroy is The Globe and Mail's science reporter, specializing in learning and the brain.
*****
Tease your reason
Are you a cognitive miser? Try these problems.
1. A toy puck and a hockey stick cost $1.10 in total. The stick costs $1 more than the puck. How much does the puck cost?
2. If it takes five machines five minutes to make five widgets, how long would it take 100 machines to make 100 widgets?
3. In a lake, there is a patch of lily pads. Every day, the patch doubles in size. If it takes 48 days for the patch to cover the entire lake, how long would it take for the patch to cover half of it?
Answers
1. Five cents.
2. Five minutes.
3. 47 days
Source: Shane Frederick, now at the Yale School of Management, in an article published in the Journal of Economic Perspectives (2005).
