[MUSIC, Title: "Why Critical Thinking Isn't Easy"] [Barb] Beth, I told you, I walked you step-by-step through why this reasoning is true. [Beth] Barb, your reasoning just doesn't apply here. This is a completely different situation. [Barb] No, it's not! [Beth] Is to! [Barb] Not even! [Terry] What's really going on here? Why can two friends have such completely different views on something based on factual information? Here's what's happening. Barb found the single perfect example of something she felt proved that Beth was wrong in her thinking. So she laid out her reasoning, step-by-logical step, using her declarative pathway. But Beth is evaluating what Barb is saying through the value function of her PROCEDURAL system. Beth is not in any way conscious of her procedural system's influence on her. Beth's thoughts are being shaped by the thousands of past experiences she has had related to the topic. Yes, Barb THINKS she's arguing with Beth about a single objective, with a step-by-step example. But Barb is actually arguing against all the thousands of previously related examples, issues, problems, concerns, and data points that have previously trained Beth's procedural system. This is why Beth can respond in a way that rejects Barb's point, no matter how logical and factual or true that point may actually be. The value function of Beth's procedural system shapes Beth's response. And when Barb refutes Beth's rebuttal, Beth can come back with yet a different response to rebut Barb's point. Depending on the training that Beth's procedural system has previously received, she may never be able to be receptive to the point that Barb is trying to make. And because of her inflexibility, Beth can find it difficult to change her mind. But despite the lack of logic, Beth's intuition, based on multiple factors, may have merit. Complex problems are multifaceted, and by bringing up some of those issues, Beth can contribute insights that go beyond a single fact. Both learning systems have their strengths and weaknesses, which are complimentary. And when in balance, they can help guide us to good decisions. [Barb] And of course I have my OWN procedural system, with its own value function that has developed through all the data that has been input over the years into MY procedural system. My declarative system is ALSO subconsciously influenced by the training that my procedural system has received over the years. If I've trained my procedural system by inputting data into it that has little to nothing to do with the data that Beth has trained her own procedural system with, we can both be arguing at cross-purposes with one another. No matter what one of us might say, the other is motivated to find reasoning to rebut the other's point because of the value functions that have been trained into our respective procedural systems. In fact, our priorities and choices often arise without us even being aware of why we're doing what we're doing. Even when we THINK we know why we're doing something, we are, surprisingly often, simply making up stories which help us make sense of our lives by connecting events with causes that sound good to us and to others, but may be oversimplified, or skirt the real reasons. This is called "narrative bias." When our narrative bias is untrue, which can be surprisingly often, it's called a "narrative fallacy." [Beth] But what about Myg, the amygdala? Does he play a role on this? [MUSIC, Title: "The Role of the Amygdala in Learning"] [Terry] Beth, as usual, you're ahead of us. Yes, indeed, if either the declarative or procedural system begins to associate the source of an idea or approach with something bad, it can mean that you can end up blocking out input from those sources. In other words, if Myg, our amygdala —as well as other areas of the brain associated with feelings of disgust and fear— is connected to certain ideas or approaches, a person can find themselves refusing to even look at, much less take into consideration, those other approaches. A person can even trick themselves into believing that they are inputting the full spectrum of data into their procedural learning system when actually they can be inputting only cherry-picked information that completely misrepresents the position of opposing perspectives. Sometimes it seems the resolution to two warring research factions must be some happy middle position. But in research, that's not necessarily the case. Leading researchers can have [such] a vested interest—up to and including the efforts of of their entire careers— in retaining their position, that they can aggressively go on the personal attack against a researcher that threatens their position. As famed American legal scholar Cass Sunstein has written in his thought-provoking book "Going to Extremes," the view of these sometimes top leaders can come to seem so obviously correct to them, in their closed world, that they can justify any tactic. Is there a way out of this puzzle? Follow us on to the next video, as the plot thickens. [Beth] I'm Beth Rogowsky. [Barb] I'm Barb Oakley. [Terry] I'm Terry Sejnowski. [All] Learn it, link it, let's do it!