1. Did you even read the article?

    Readup tracks your reading progress. In our community, you can’t comment on articles you haven’t really read.

    The New Yorker | Elizabeth Kolbert | 2/20/17 | 15 min
    6 reads2 comments
    8.5
    The New Yorker
    6 reads
    8.5
    PadlockYou must read the article before you can post or reply.
    • deephdave
      Top reader this weekReading streakScout
      3 weeks ago

      Astute!

      We’ve been relying on one another’s expertise ever since we figured out how to hunt together, which was probably a key development in our evolutionary history. So well do we collaborate, Sloman and Fernbach argue, that we can hardly tell where our own understanding ends and others’ begins.

    • bill
      Top reader of all timeScoutScribe
      3 weeks ago

      Eye-opening. Insightful. Read this.

      The concept of “the illusion of explanatory depth” is brilliant:

      If we—or our friends or the pundits on CNN—spent less time pontificating and more trying to work through the implications of policy proposals, we’d realize how clueless we are and moderate our views. This, they write, “may be the only form of thinking that will shatter the illusion of explanatory depth and change people’s attitudes.”

      It’s a beautiful (and ironic!) that if we learn to think freely we’ll find new ways to reach agreement.