What causes rationality?

Some people are more rational than others. For example, studies have shown that men are more rational than women, by about half a standard deviation.

What does this mean? What does rational really mean?

Being rational is believing something according to logic. I see it as being objective. The studies showing that men are more rational than women, showed that women believe in things that are generally regarded as not based on logic.

This includes horoscope stuff, ghosts etc. But beyond this, and more importantly, studies have shown that women are more vulnerable to cognitive biases. This is important, because cognitive biases can be proven to be false beliefs. We can’t prove that ghosts aren’t real.

Another group that has shown different levels of rationality is people with autism spectrum disorder. They are less vulnerable to peer pressure because they are less concerned with reputation management. See my article Autism The Extreme Male profile.

A third group that has shown different levels of rationality, is intelligent people. More intelligent people are more rational.

Normie meme

Why is this? What is the common factor between men, smart people, and autistic people?

The common factor is spatial ability. All these groups have higher than average spatial ability.

Why does spatial ability lead to rationalism?

For the answer, we can explore my recent article The Hunter-Gatherer Fitness Model, which explains the psychology behind political ideology. It is worth quoting both relevant chapters. The most important bits are in bold.

Socialising as a liberal tactic

Simon Baron Cohen developed the Empathising-Systemising (E-S) spectrum as a tool to study autism and explore people's tendencies towards for trait. The concept can be improved by studying different environmental adaptations. Individuals can be categorised somewhere along the E-S spectrum, but the labels of systemizing and empathizing are actually reflective of a deeper, more fundamental aspect of human nature.

Humans exhibit life strategies that rely on their strengths and compensate for their weaknesses. The HG fitness model suggests that stronger individuals rely more on exploiting their natural environment, while weaker individuals rely more on exploiting their social environment.

Those who lean towards exploiting the physical environment tend to have a high hunter-gatherer fitness level, focusing on individual skills and self-sufficiency. To extract resources from their natural surroundings they rely on physical prowess, logical thinking, systemising and truth-seeking.

Conversely, those who lean towards the socialising side have low hunter-gatherer fitness; prioritising status, reputation and social cognition. Relying on the social environment requires forming alliances, espousing collectivist principles, and attracting high-quality mates to provide food (Vigil, 2010).

Furthermore, those who have a low fitness level are more likely to possess traits that make them psychologically formidable (Kozlowska, 2023). This includes the ability to deceive, read emotions, and excel in verbal communications. Those with low fitness who did not possess these traits would have died out.

Females tend towards a socialising strategy, while males tend towards an externally-directed exploitation strategy. The HG fitness model suggests that liberals tend toward socialising, while conservatives tend toward physical exploitation. This pattern is reflected in many traits related to the hunter-gatherer fitness model.

Self-deception as a liberal tactic

Robert Trivers' theory of deception suggests that self-deception can be adaptive in certain social situations because it helps individuals deceive others more effectively. By convincing oneself of a false belief, one can more effectively convince others of that false belief, which can be advantageous in social interactions (Trivers, 2011).

Under the same principle, cognitive biases can serve an adaptive function by boosting one's self-esteem (Humberg et al., 2019). This is evident in biases such as confirmation bias, self-serving bias, false consensus effect, bias blind spot, optimism bias, positive memory effect, hindsight bias, tall poppy syndrome and illusory superiority.

The HGFM article alludes to this connection between spatial ability and rationalism, but it wasn’t the main takeaway. I am emphasising the point now. The point is that, when it comes to rationalism, there are two types of people.

People with high spatial ability who lean more towards the truth-seeking strategy, and people with low spatial ability who lean more towards the socialising strategy, necessarily.

Truth-seeking is critical for exploiting the natural environment. Knowing where to be at what time, what technique to use when growing potatoes, or throwing a spear, or making a fire. Inventing tools. How mechanisms work according to cause and effect.

Truth-seeking is not critical for exploiting the social environment. In fact, it is probably harmful. Being able to lie effectively whenever one wants, can greatly assist in manipulating people. Having plausible deniability is important. Acting nice when necessary is important. Reading the emotional state of other people is important.

Discovering the truth and the real cause behind something is not important. It is not helpful at all. The strategy is to be liked by other people. Confidence is important. Thus, self-deception is also important, because how else to gain confidence when you don’t know the truth?

Women and unintelligent people adopt this strategy more than others. In anonymous surveys, 80% of people describe themselves as above average intelligence. Obviously, 30% of people are deceiving themselves. Why?

Because they will be more popular if others think they are smart. The fact that the survey is anonymous is irrelevant. It is an inbuilt self-deception. They actually believe they are above average intelligence. They do not go through the thought process of justifying that belief, for several reasons.

The HGFM links conservatism and HG fitness. So are conservatives more rational? Yes, but not totally. Spatial ability and HG fitness are closely linked, but not totally. There are some very strong, fit people, and some people with very good immune systems. They have high HG fitness level, but not necessarily high spatial ability. Thus you get some irrational conservatives, and some rational (intelligent) liberals.

Can’t be bothered listing all the sources this time.