Why humans make irrational decisions

Since intuition is the core of the social intuitionist model, it is imperative for us to explore the origin of intuition. According to the Somatic marker Hypothesis [Damasio, 1994], our experience in the world triggers emotional experiences that involve bodily changes and feelings. When we  are exposed to repeated experiences of such emotional conditioning, our brain tunes into these responses and begins to respond similarly when similar situations occur. After this, even a mere thought of a particular experience is sufficient to trigger an “as if” response in the brain and our body experiences a similar feeling [though weaker than actual feeling in actual experience]. 

The ventromedial prefrontal cortex in our brain integrates these feelings or “somatic markers” with our other knowledge and planning functions so that the brain intuitively responds in familiar situations. Damasio’s work shows us how we rely on momentarily flashes of feeling as guides when making decisions.

Lakoff and Johnson’s work shows that our “embodied cognition” is built on our physical and emotional experiences. We attach meanings to our experiences based on the connotation our culture and society delegates to the objects. They have shown that nearly all complex thought relies on metaphors that we humans draw from our experience as physical creatures.

Furthermore, Darwin suggested that human moral sense grew out of social instincts and so humans follow prescriptive rules, i.e. individuals have learned to respect some rules because of active reinforcement by others [De wall, 1991]. Human society is characterized by constant and vigorous discussion on norms and norm violators. Furthermore, humans show willingness to expend individual or community resources to inflict punishment on the violators even if the violator has not harmed some of us. 

Thus, the social intuitionist model locates morality in human group’s efforts to solve cooperation and commitment problems through the use of language.

Backed by such arguments “Social Intuitionist approach” sees morality as a major evolutionary adaptation for an intensely social species, built into multiple regions of brain and body and is shaped by input from the culture. So, moral intuition is both innate and encultured.  

So far, it may have seemed that reasoning is completely intuitive however, it should be noted that looking back at link 3, the reasoned persuasion link, that says that people’s [ex post facto] moral reasoning can have a causal effect-on other people’s intuitions shows that moral judgment is an ongoing process spread out over time and over multiple people. Reasons circulate and affect other people when conversations occur. 

The link 6 “the reflective judgment link” shows that people may sometimes engage in private moral reasoning for themselves when their initial intuitions conflict and this can lead  people to contradictory judgment and which then leads us to link 2 where we reason to support our judgment and the process repeats. We use reflection to think over a problem until we feel right.

The link 5, the reasoned judgment link, recognises that a person could simply reason their way to judgment that contradicts their initial intuition, however, such ability is only common among philosophers who are trained to do so.

This way the model combines the value of both reason and intuition in moral judgment. So, it is never a dichotomy between rationalist approach and social intuitionist approach, but the way how reason and intuition are linked.

If the social intuitionist model is correct as a description of human moral judgment, it shows us the path to develop reasoning in the classrooms. As humans are innately evolved to depend on intuitions or heuristics, we can’t just shut off our brain’s heuristics. But, we can learn to be aware of them. Furthermore, we can create classrooms that encourage the students to use Links 5 and Link 6 more often. Furthermore, the model encourages us to take support from other people, link 4, social persuasion link; to improve our reasoning, thus emphasizing the role of peer discussions and learning.