They cite Rationality and the Reflective Mind, which looks potentially interesting.

Stanovich argues that to fully characterize differences in rational thinking, we need to replace dual-process theories with tripartite models of cognition. Using a unique individual differences approach, he shows that the traditional second system (System 2) of dual-process theory must be further divided into the reflective mind and the algorithmic mind. Distinguishing them will allow us to better appreciate the significant differences in their key functions: The key function of the reflective mind is to detect the need to interrupt autonomous processing and to begin simulation activities, whereas that of the algorithmic mind is to sustain the processing of decoupled secondary representations in cognitive simulation.

The same author also wrote What Intelligence Tests Miss: The Psychology of Rational Thought, which also looks pretty good.

He mentions Georges Bush, Jr. who was very intelligent as measured by IQ tests. But, he was not a proficient thinker as he was dogmatic, ill informed, impatient, and prone to rash decisions sometimes associated with devastating outcomes. Stanovich describes Bush condition as Dysrationalia or someone who is less rational than his IQ would suggest.

Papers on the genetics of intelligence are published every other month. Who would defend a morality that can be discredited by a single study?

Those studies don’t discredit egalitarian morality. They discredit scientific authority with bad science. That’s not to say their conclusions are necessarily wrong, just that their arguments and evidence are not worth the paper they’re printed on (though they cost a lot more than that.)

Munguia’s article offered no support to Hispanic students, it was simply a defense of affirmative action and, by extension, any political party prepared to support that particular policy. A contextualizer will usually invoke higher motives, such as aiding the oppressed. But, in reality, they are simply promoting their in-group. So runs the decoupler argument.

So is Falkovich, the guy who wrote this, a contextualizer, a coupler? Is it OK for him for some reason? I’m confused.

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/05/fear-of-the-sjw

… If I call people idiots who won’t listen to reason, how likely are they to want to engage me in reasoned discourse? I honestly do think this is a tendency that men often have, which is to say things that are obviously going to cause an emotional reaction, and then say “See, look how emotional you are, why can’t you respond with logic?” Charles Murray, for instance, should have known exactly what he would get when he wrote a book making arguments about racial intellectual inferiority in a country with a hideous history of racial dehumanization. But instead of trying to understand where his critics were coming from, he simply assumed that they could not handle his ideas. Same with James Damore: There were many ways he could have written his memo that would have been more empathetic to the feelings of his colleagues. But instead, he adopted a “fuck your feelings” mindset and was deliberately provocative.

I don’t think ignoring people’s feelings makes you more “rational.” I think it just makes you an asshole. …

Meanwhile, [once again] (https://www.reddit.com/r/SneerClub/comments/7szldi/in_which_scott_alexander_is_amazed_to_have/dtchyd6) we’ve turned a method of thought into a tribal identity, because people always talk more rationally when you divide them into rival factions:

To a contextualizer, decouplers are allowing themselves to be manipulated. …

America’s coastal enclaves are mostly populated by educated urban progressives.

I love how these dumbasses keep forgetting about the existence of POCs and the working-class.

Sam Harris is a science LARPer, you insufferable suckers.

man, remember when the term “dangerous professor” was pretty exclusively reserved for Toni Negri?

also lol this figure how do you get a venn diagram this wrong?

The IDW is a nascent group of thinkers mainly composed of high- decoupling scientist types, like Jordan Peterson

HAHAHAHAHA

Jacob Falkovich is a former tennis coach, soldier, and hedge fund trader; current math geek, rationalist, and effective altruist. He writes about numbers, rationality, and hedgehogs at Putanumonit.com. You can follow him on Twitter @yashkaf

It’s got to the point where I just scroll down to the bottom of Quillette articles for laughs.

Presumably this makes me a non-decoupler or whatever

1 Stanovich, K. E. “Rationality and the reflective mind” (2011)

2 Kevin Simler and Robin Hanson. “The Elephant in the Brain” (2018)

3 Stanovich, K.E. and West, R.F. “Individual Differences in Rational Thought” (1998)

4 Stanovich, K.E. et al. “Myside Bias, Rational Thinking, and Intelligence” (2013)

I also tend to cite more than two distinct authors in any one paper, and vet my sources for signs of “being a shithead contrarian for money”

Drawing on and analysing diverse sources is also, presumably, non-coupling

Harris is a scientist by training

And thought experimenter by occupation.