Missionloops · research seat (open) · judgment & rational thinking
Smart is not the same as rational.
A research seat for the psychometrician of rational thinking: the person who builds the instruments that measure whether someone actually reasons well, apart from how intelligent they are. The open question is whether real-stakes practice moves the part of rational thinking that intelligence and ordinary development leave untouched.
What this seat is about
Being intelligent and reasoning well are different things, and the difference is measurable. Across the standard reasoning tasks, performance correlates with intelligence only weakly, far too weakly for one to stand in for the other. So a person can have a high intelligence score and still reason badly. The field calls that dysrationalia. The work of this seat is to measure the part of good reasoning that an intelligence test misses, and to find out whether it can be trained.
Two of the most consequential biases, the slant toward your own side and the pull of how a choice is framed, do not shrink with intelligence or with age. Can deliberate practice move them? That is the question this seat is open to study.
What the literature already shows
- Rationality is separable from intelligence, and the gap is measured. Performance on reasoning tasks correlates with intelligence only weakly, so an intelligence test cannot stand in for a test of rational thinking, and a high-scoring person can still reason badly.
- Myside bias is the bias intelligence does not touch. Evaluating evidence in a way slanted toward your own prior opinion is essentially unrelated to intelligence; in some studies the correlation is zero, and across many policy positions the higher-intelligence group is no less biased.
- But it becomes correctable when something outside calls for the override. Tell a person to set their own belief aside and argue as if they did not hold it, and intelligence starts to help, because now there is a specific move to carry out. Left to themselves, people do not make it, and years of education, not intelligence, predicts lower myside bias.
- A capable person reasons badly for two distinct reasons. The mind defaults to the cheapest, fastest answer (the cognitive miser), or it runs on faulty mindware, the rules and beliefs it reasons with, which can be missing or actively corrupting (contaminated mindware). Intelligence protects against neither.
- The inconvenient result is reported, not buried. Actively open-minded thinking predicts most reasoning tasks beyond intelligence. Yet it does not predict the avoidance of myside bias, the very thing it was built to capture, a paradox the scale's own developers put on the record.
The proposal's bet follows directly from the override result. The bias most relevant to a steered operator is the one intelligence cannot touch, and it becomes correctable only when something outside the person calls for the override. The guide is that outside call: the second person who asks the operator to argue the case as if they believed the opposite. Whether the guide reliably produces the override is not assumed. It is the study.
The open questions
The sharpest open question is whether real-stakes practice moves myside bias, the bias that ordinary intelligence and ordinary development leave in place. The bet is that the driver is an incentive: when the problem is the operator's own and the cost of being wrong is real and lands on them, reality sets the standard rather than the side. Either the slant toward one's own prior is effectively fixed, and trained operators show it as much as matched high-ability controls; or real-stakes contact and a guide-supplied override move them toward the accurate answer.
- Proving the gain without measuring intelligence. The hard measurement problem is showing that judgment improved, separately from any gain in intelligence. That needs an outcome built on rational thinking, not ability; weighted toward the disposition-loaded tasks that actually move with practice; and in a repeatable form a famous, already-answered test cannot supply. A performance test and a self-rating of the same capacity also routinely diverge, so the platform's blind signal and the operator's self-assessment are two readings, not one. This is where the seat meets the statistics and measurement seat.
- The AI as contaminated mindware. A sycophantic or compromised AI lands on the operator the way contaminated mindware does: belief content that disables the operator's own evaluation from the inside, where they cannot catch it. Does trained judgment, and a second observer outside the operator's head, hold when the tool is denied or turned against them?
- Where defence names it. Myside bias under identity stakes is the core of the cognitive-warfare resistance door, and judgment under denial and compromise is the cognitive-sovereignty door.
Why the platform is the instrument
Rational thinking is mostly measured with paper tasks on neutral material, where the bias that matters does not appear: a made-up controversy threatens no identity, so the slant toward one's own side never fires. The validated populations closest to operator conditions are not undergraduates but real-stakes decision-makers, where the failure that wrecks high-stakes judgment is not low intelligence but contaminated mindware and the cognitive miser. Here the substrate is the operator's own identity-loaded problems under genuine stakes, a second observer who can call for the override, and a controlled way to deny or corrupt the tool at test.
The studies this seat can run
A menu, not a programme. Recast any toward your own published line, or bring a question we did not anticipate.
The seat, and the terms
The seat is open, and the ask is a conversation, not a commitment. The terms are a free option: tell us the question you would bring, and commit only if it is funded.
We are looking for the researcher whose work is the measurement of rational thinking: the instruments that show whether someone reasons well apart from how intelligent they are, the dispositions that carry reasoning beyond ability, and the biases intelligence does not touch. The seat is an assessment collaboration, not a theory of judgment. If that describes your work, the platform is the substrate the measurement needs: a real-stakes population whose judgment can be tested before and after, against a criterion set in advance.
scott (at) missionloops (dot) ca
See also: All research seats · Defence · Member · Investor