As teachers, we may hold an implicit assumption that people prefer to hold accurate views
about the world over inaccurate views. Though certainly there are situations in all of our
lives in which we act mindlessly or behave in ways that cannot be defended on logical
premises, those who work as educators may be forgiven for assuming that students would
rather learn what the best available evidence says, rather than clinging to erroneous beliefs
for their comfort value. The latter behavior is irrational and maladaptive in the classroom
and often in other areas of life as well. And yet it is common. Why (we might ask, in frus-
tration) would people prefer irrationality to rationality? What purpose would that serve?
One way that such behavior can be understood is through Tetlock’s (2002) social func-
tionalist frameworks. Tetlock’s conception of the “intuitive theologian” is particularly
useful. An intuitive theologian is a framework that exists to protect sacred values, which
are deeply held values endorsed by community consensus. For some people, freedom
may be a sacred value; for others, obeying God’s laws is one. Belief in these values—
which meet the criteria for morality specified earlier—creates a sense of shared identity for
the community. Defending the values against attacks supports the individual’s need for
accountability within the social system. It is important to note that the intuitive theolo-
gian is not concerned with the accuracy of the worldview, only that the members of the
community act in accordance with it.
As one would expect, given the qualities of moral values, violations are a serious matter
to the intuitive theologian. Affectively, the results of a violation are strong and negative
(anger, contempt). Behaviorally, violations result in the urge for symbolic acts to demon-
strate commitment to the value in question. One remarkable finding from Tetlock and
colleagues is that individuals need not act to violate the value; if they even think about
violating it, the affective and behavioral consequences are immediate and severe.
This work suggests that once a class discussion has invoked moral values, students will
find it almost impossible to consider evidence in a rational way, because they are attending
to what are experientially much more pressing demands from their larger social lives. The
need to act consistently with personal religious beliefs, for instance, is a central component
of identity for many American students. To ask them to entertain, even hypothetically, an
argument that they view as a violation of their religious views will leave them angry and
more committed than ever to the views you have challenged. If they live lives outside the
classroom with commitment to these values, they cannot check them at the door, and
would see no value in attempting to do so even if they could. Therefore, critical thinking
will not be in evidence.As teachers, we may hold an implicit assumption that people prefer to hold accurate views
about the world over inaccurate views. Though certainly there are situations in all of our
lives in which we act mindlessly or behave in ways that cannot be defended on logical
premises, those who work as educators may be forgiven for assuming that students would
rather learn what the best available evidence says, rather than clinging to erroneous beliefs
for their comfort value. The latter behavior is irrational and maladaptive in the classroom
and often in other areas of life as well. And yet it is common. Why (we might ask, in frus-
tration) would people prefer irrationality to rationality? What purpose would that serve?
One way that such behavior can be understood is through Tetlock’s (2002) social func-
tionalist frameworks. Tetlock’s conception of the “intuitive theologian” is particularly
useful. An intuitive theologian is a framework that exists to protect sacred values, which
are deeply held values endorsed by community consensus. For some people, freedom
may be a sacred value; for others, obeying God’s laws is one. Belief in these values—
which meet the criteria for morality specified earlier—creates a sense of shared identity for
the community. Defending the values against attacks supports the individual’s need for
accountability within the social system. It is important to note that the intuitive theolo-
gian is not concerned with the accuracy of the worldview, only that the members of the
community act in accordance with it.
As one would expect, given the qualities of moral values, violations are a serious matter
to the intuitive theologian. Affectively, the results of a violation are strong and negative
(anger, contempt). Behaviorally, violations result in the urge for symbolic acts to demon-
strate commitment to the value in question. One remarkable finding from Tetlock and
colleagues is that individuals need not act to violate the value; if they even think about
violating it, the affective and behavioral consequences are immediate and severe.
This work suggests that once a class discussion has invoked moral values, students will
find it almost impossible to consider evidence in a rational way, because they are attending
to what are experientially much more pressing demands from their larger social lives. The
need to act consistently with personal religious beliefs, for instance, is a central component
of identity for many American students. To ask them to entertain, even hypothetically, an
argument that they view as a violation of their religious views will leave them angry and
more committed than ever to the views you have challenged. If they live lives outside the
classroom with commitment to these values, they cannot check them at the door, and
would see no value in attempting to do so even if they could. Therefore, critical thinking
will not be in evidence.Taking all this research into account, we can see that students are set up for a difficult
situation—they believe that some questions should never be asked, because just imagining
the answer can be a moral violation. And once a moral violation is noted, students are
highly motivated to avoid the kind of thinking we are asking them to do, and to restore
themselves to their pre-existing state. They are also unable to recognize that any of this is
happening.
This process is antithetical to education, but is understandable in light of the multiple
goals students are trying to serve. The intuitive theologian framework is functional because
it maintains community ties and helps us to navigate social relationships. These goals are
important to students and cannot be dismissed just because they are inconvenient to a
classroom exercise. Tetlock’s research (2002) predicts behavior familiar in the classroom:
When faced with an unavoidable contradiction with pre-existing beliefs, an intuitive theo-
logian is motivated to accept facetious arguments or distractions in order to avoid con-
fronting the paradox, or chooses to attack the source of the forbidden cognition. This kind
of reasoning is certainly not critical thinking, but should not serve as an indicator that
students lack critical thinking skills in general or appropriate evidence on the topic at
hand. The intuitive theologian actively undermines skills that the student may be able to
demonstrate in other contexts.
You must be logged in to post a comment.