I thought this article (and probably the linked book) seemed to make sense - the idea that reasoning isn't used to arrive at a truthful proposition. It can proceed from an already biased position ('the higher an individual’s IQ, the better they are at coming up with reasons to support a position—but only a position that they agree with').
How common are the individuals who are just 'high in a trait called “scientific curiosity,” or who seek out scientific information for the pleasure of finding out novel things'?
This surely relates to something we've seen a lot of recently:"Other studies found that correcting false beliefs about Trump caused people to change their beliefs, but this did not change how much they supported Trump. In other words, while you can get people to understand the facts, the facts don’t always matter."
Where does our self identification place us in this? Do we flatter ourselves (personally, I'm motivated by scientific curiosity - but is everyone else as well?).
How common are the individuals who are just 'high in a trait called “scientific curiosity,” or who seek out scientific information for the pleasure of finding out novel things'?
This surely relates to something we've seen a lot of recently:"Other studies found that correcting false beliefs about Trump caused people to change their beliefs, but this did not change how much they supported Trump. In other words, while you can get people to understand the facts, the facts don’t always matter."
Where does our self identification place us in this? Do we flatter ourselves (personally, I'm motivated by scientific curiosity - but is everyone else as well?).
