Are we hard wired to believe or to doubt?

Jeremy Dean from Psyblog poses the question whether the mind's default position if for us to be naturally critical or naturally gullible. He states:

"It's not just that some people do and some people don't; in fact all our minds are built with the same first instinct, the same first reaction to new information. But what is it: do we believe first or do we first understand, so that belief (or disbelief) comes later?"

Deane points out that philosophers Descartes and Spinoza represented opposing views on this. Descartes believed that we understand first, then believe or disbelieve. According to Spinoza, however, we initially believe and only later change our mind when more evidence comes to light.

Who was right? According to Dean, the consensus scientific view is that we believe first and ask questions later. This has an evolutionary survival advantage in that we can more efficiently avoid danger or grab opportunities that present themselves. This view ties in with a previous posting on Occam's Donkey in which I quoted Michael Shermer on the preference of the human mind for anecdotal evidence above scientific evidence. According to Shermer this is due to an evolutionary imperative to pay attention to perceived danger, with false positives (i.e. false alarms) being relatively harmless, but false negatives (perceiving there to be no danger when in fact there is) potentially fatal.

Critical thinking and being skeptical is thus hard work and goes against our natural instincts!

Shermer's original article in the Scientific American can be found here.