Re Rationality
by Howard Gardner
Many persons, including me, look forward to each new book by Steven Pinker. This was certainly the case with respect to his recently published Rationality. And the book does not disappoint. It is a thorough and careful discussion of what rationality is (and what it’s not)—and a ringing endorsement of the positive role of rationality throughout human history—and going forward.
I find myself in agreement with much of the book. Yet I also have significant reservations that the book will succeed in its aspiration—that by helping people to be more rational, the world will necessarily be a better place.
Let me explain why.
Steven Pinker (to his friends and colleagues, Steve; hereafter, Pinker) and I have much in common. Though I am more than a decade older, we are both white Jewish males from families that valued education (and that also valued families!). We both had excellent educations—college and graduate school—and we both teach at Harvard, a prestigious university. We both have advanced degrees in psychology (in fact, we shared the same wonderful doctoral adviser, the late Roger Brown). And while we have each made contributions to the research literature via peer-reviewed journal articles on specific topics, we have a predilection for taking on broad questions and writing about them in books—with each new book focusing on issues different from its predecessors. In George Packer’s typology (link), we are both members in good standing of ‘smart America;’ and we benefit from its resources, even as it may limit our perspective. Perhaps most important, as scholars and empirical scientists, we believe in research, reason, rationality. In a phrase, we are children of the Enlightenment.
Back to Rationality. Most of the book is a carefully laid out account of what human reason is, how it operates, where it falls short, what can be done to enhance it, and how such an enhancement can lead to a better life for individuals on this planet. In that sense, as has been the case in Pinker’s recent books, the message is a hopeful one—and I join with many others in hoping that the message is not only timely, but also on target. But we should not assume that it’s a world view that’s widely shared or even that it is the one most needed at this critical time.
Partly as a mnemonic, I titled this blog “Re Rationality.” Pinker highlights REason but I think that he underplays three other elements: REligion, RElationships, REspect.
Religion
While he is of Jewish lineage—even proudly so—Pinker is an atheist. Moreover, he is not fond of religion. He dwells on all of the problems that religions—along with magic, folklore, rituals, and the like—have caused throughout human history. If he could wave a wand, wield a broom of reason, he’d no doubt get rid of these human creations.
But religions are not going away, nor are the many other things that we humans do that are not particularly rational—gambling being a favorite example.
We believers in the Enlightenment need to accept that religions are here to stay. We should devote our efforts to increasing the likelihood that religions will be personal belief systems, and not used to cudgel, pressure, or—indeed—make war on others. The Enlightenment was on the right side of history, but when its critique of religion is taken literally, it all too often backfires. Indeed, this certainly happened in the late 18th and succeeding centuries—for example, in the rise of cultural nationalism in the 19th century.
Relationships
Except for hermits, all of us need and benefit from relationships to others. Indeed, religions are a long-established way of individuals gathering together. Example: as a nominal Jew living in a secular area, I do very little that announces my Jewish heritage. But many of my friends are Jewish. And if my family and I were suddenly transported to Kansas, Kentucky, or Kalamazoo, we would probably join a synagogue.
The challenge for us all is to have relationships that go beyond religion, beyond sect, beyond skin color, beyond our place in George Packer’s quartet of Americans, relationships that meaningfully involve a larger segment of the population. To be sure, nearly every pundit calls for this nowadays, and it’s not easy to bring about. But speaking bluntly, it’s much easier to broaden your circle of friendship than to master Bayes’ theorem or the logical calculus—and it would be much better for the species to follow the former course. Because, as Pinker readily admits, we can use the most powerful rules of reason for insidious ends—Hitler, Stalin, Mao and their accomplices were not bereft of reason: and they did not hesitate to use religion for their own destructive purposes.
Respect
Where such autocrat (and one can easily add contemporary political leaders to the list) fall short—is in their respect for their fellow human beings: recognizing that even if someone has different views, or looks different or has a lowly occupation, that person should be treated fairly. Indeed, in the trio of cited cases, it’s doubtful whether they actually respected anyone different from themselves—though of course, they monitored the power(s) wielded by others and made sure that they countered them as ruthlessly as possible.
Along with my colleague Michael Sandel, I lament that in our country and in our time, we do not distribute respect widely. We tend to respect those with whom we are close, in terms of background, ideas, location… and we are prone to ignore, or even disrespect others.
But, as is the case with my friend Steve Pinker, I have had a friend’s quarrel with Michael Sandel (link here). I believe that we should stretch to respect others, but not to do so uncritically. Any individual deserves my respect to start with; but individuals are not entitled to retain my respect if they behave in ways that are injurious to others and prove immune from changing that injurious behavior.
So, there’s the trio. Working backwards, let me try to put the pieces together.
We should recognize that we live on a single planet. And in the early decades of the 21st century there are weapons that can destroy the world’s population, as well as climate change that can make the planet uninhabitable.
At a minimum, we should grant the assumption of respect for others who live on the planet—and, if you like, that respect can be extended to animals or even to plants. Perhaps in future millennia, we (and notably I. because I eat meat) will be disdained because of the dis-respect for other forms of life.
Next step: While we should be free to spend voluntary time with those who resemble us in various ways, we should make efforts to broaden our circles —to have relationships with persons other than our kind. I won’t rate Steve Pinker or Michael Sandel on this dimension, but I regret that my circle is not broader—returning to George Packer’s typology of Americans, it would be better if I knew more ‘free,’ more real,’ and more ‘just’ Americans.
Finally, religion—or more broadly belief systems about the mysteries of life and death. With those in a broader circle, I’m happy to have friendly arguments about God, the devil, hell, angels, horoscopes, astrological signs, unidentified flying objects. And perhaps I’ll convince them or they’ll convince me. But so long as those (to me exotic) beliefs don’t translate into hostile actions, they are fine with me. Let 1000 eschatologies bloom!
I’m not certain that Pinker would disagree strongly with what I have written. Certainly, in this master work, he gives attention to the importance of our relations with others, and our sense of obligations to the broader planet. But, on my reading, these points get overwhelmed by the importance that he places on our faculty of rationality.
So how best to describe my aspirations? I’d like my friends, my students, my children, my grandchildren, my friends—indeed, all with whom I come into contact—to be as rational as possible. They should expect the same from me. But I won’t weep if they fail the Wason four card test (link here) or the Monty Hall Three Door Problem (link here). And not only will I not try to reason with them about the number of angels on the head of a pin; I’ll even attend rituals and ceremonies—as long as they don’t involve hostile thoughts or actions to others.
In my book Truth Beauty and Goodness Reframed, I proposed ‘two cheers for the Enlightenment’. I love the Enlightenment, but it’s important to remember that it was conceived of by a small group of men—yes, Men—coming chiefly from England, Scotland, France, and what would become Germany a century later. There are many other countries, many other societies and cultures—and many non-males!—in the world. In fact, during the Axial Age of 2500 years ago (link here) many of our contemporary norms were arrived at in China, India, Greece, and in the lands of the Israelites…and these involved religion, relationships, and respect, more than they entailed reason.
The best chance for our planet is for us to be able to intertwine these Axial strains of thought and feeling. As Pinker would presumably agree, they entail reason—but respect, relations, and religions as well… and I would place the emphasis more on the latter three.
Cheers for the four REs!
References
Gardner, H. (2011). Truth, beauty, and goodness reframed. Basic Books.
Pinker, S. (2021). Rationality: What it is, why it seems scarce, why it matters (1st Edition.). Viking.