I think the measure is a great idea and I appreciate the time and care you took to communicate your approach and the thinking behind it.
My first thought is that it makes me curious about how our perception of the reasonableness of others depends on our perception of their willingness to inquire and bend, their amiability , curiosity, and openmindedness, vs. their perceived capacity to reason consistently and accurately.
I suspect that our view of what it takes to reason together has a distinguishing line between “people who reason well are good at logic and at remembering and using factual knowledge and have high cognitive abilities,” and “people who reason well are curious and willing to listen to others and explore and seek new patterns.”
Seemingly both are important factors but there seem to me to be important individual differences in how much weight we give those factors. Many stereotypes are based on that sort of distinction and usually where there are persistent stereotypes there is at least a perceptual reason for them.
How much we care about precision and accuracy of thinking and how much we care about exploratory thinking and accommodation to others seems to me to shape how reasonable we see others. Whether we see accommodation as mere compromise for example. Or whether we see precision and diligence as rigid formality.
Maybe it's linked to empathy in which case specific relatedness would make a big difference compared with a more abstract concept. Is aunt/cousin/friend rational vs is neighbour at the end of the street vs top politician? Relatedness could lead to both overestimating and underestimating rationality compared with overall views.
Yes, very plausibly! There's a sense in which the question is very hard / almost nonsensical from the beginning - "how much to you belief in the reason of Other People *in abstract*. The advantage is that it makes the question about general worldview, rather than specific others (or at least attempts to), and puts it on the same abstract level as other measures (like the generalised trust measure, which is widely used)
I think the measure is a great idea and I appreciate the time and care you took to communicate your approach and the thinking behind it.
My first thought is that it makes me curious about how our perception of the reasonableness of others depends on our perception of their willingness to inquire and bend, their amiability , curiosity, and openmindedness, vs. their perceived capacity to reason consistently and accurately.
I suspect that our view of what it takes to reason together has a distinguishing line between “people who reason well are good at logic and at remembering and using factual knowledge and have high cognitive abilities,” and “people who reason well are curious and willing to listen to others and explore and seek new patterns.”
Seemingly both are important factors but there seem to me to be important individual differences in how much weight we give those factors. Many stereotypes are based on that sort of distinction and usually where there are persistent stereotypes there is at least a perceptual reason for them.
How much we care about precision and accuracy of thinking and how much we care about exploratory thinking and accommodation to others seems to me to shape how reasonable we see others. Whether we see accommodation as mere compromise for example. Or whether we see precision and diligence as rigid formality.
excellent point. The "analytic" vs "receptive" distinction rings very true to me. Thanks!
Maybe it's linked to empathy in which case specific relatedness would make a big difference compared with a more abstract concept. Is aunt/cousin/friend rational vs is neighbour at the end of the street vs top politician? Relatedness could lead to both overestimating and underestimating rationality compared with overall views.
Yes, very plausibly! There's a sense in which the question is very hard / almost nonsensical from the beginning - "how much to you belief in the reason of Other People *in abstract*. The advantage is that it makes the question about general worldview, rather than specific others (or at least attempts to), and puts it on the same abstract level as other measures (like the generalised trust measure, which is widely used)