We like to think of ourselves as rational beings. We believe our opinions are shaped by critical thinking, our decisions are based on facts, and that if someone disagrees with us, they simply don’t understand reality as we do. However, Jonathan Haidt, one of the leading researchers in moral psychology, argues otherwise: our brains are not designed to seek truth—they are designed to justify what we have already decided.
The Elephant and the Rider: Who Really Controls Our Decisions?
To explain the illusion of rationality, Haidt uses the metaphor of the elephant and the rider. The elephant represents our emotional intuitions—our immediate responses, moral inclinations, and strong feelings that guide our behavior. The rider, on the other hand, is the rational part of the brain, the one that provides reasoning and explanations. But the problem is that the rider doesn’t truly control the elephant—it merely rationalizes its direction after the fact.
We don’t change our minds because of logical arguments. Instead, we feel something intuitively—sympathy, rejection, identification, disgust—and then recruit logic to justify what we already felt. In other words, when we argue, we’re not actually searching for truth but defending our position, much like a lawyer defending a client—regardless of whether that client is actually right.
The Myth of Pure Reason
One troubling implication of this idea is that we tend to believe we see the world objectively, while others are blinded by biases and illusions. This phenomenon is known as The Myth of Pure Reason.
For example, when we hear an opposing political stance, we don’t genuinely listen to understand it. Instead, we immediately look for flaws in the logic, contradictions, and weaknesses. Conversely, when we encounter a viewpoint that aligns with our own, we tend to accept it without applying the same level of scrutiny.
Can We Be Less Right?
Haidt does not claim that critical thinking doesn’t exist, but he emphasizes that it is much harder for us than we realize. So how can we develop awareness of these mechanisms and avoid the trap of always being right?
Recognize that our brains seek justifications, not truth – Acknowledging that we are driven by intuitions rather than pure rationality helps us approach discussions with greater humility.
Ask: Am I really trying to understand, or just trying to win? – If we feel an intense urge to prove someone else wrong, it’s a good indication that our rider is working for our elephant.
Try to articulate the opposing viewpoint honestly – Haidt suggests practicing by explaining the opposing argument so clearly that its proponent would agree with your presentation of it. If we can’t do this, we likely haven’t truly understood it.
Cultivate genuine curiosity about different perspectives – Instead of viewing disagreements as battles, we can see them as opportunities to expand our understanding.
Recognizing that our minds are justifying minds—minds that rationalize rather than seek truth—is the first step toward real intellectual openness. This doesn’t mean we should abandon our principles or avoid expressing our opinions, but rather that we should step back and acknowledge that the other side isn’t necessarily wrong—they simply see things from a different perspective, just as we do.
So next time you find yourself completely convinced that you’re right, remember: it’s probably just your elephant pulling you in the direction it prefers—and your rider? He’s just busy coming up with justifications.
