New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Can I Learn to Think More Rationally?

Daniel Willingham, a professor of psychology at the University of Virginia and author of Raising Kids Who Read: What Parents and Teachers Can Do, responds

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

The short answer is yes: you can learn to think more rationally but only about specific subjects. Enhancing rational thinking overall is much more difficult.

Before exploring the question in more depth, we first need to define rational thinking. For this discussion, let's stick with a relatively straightforward interpretation—rational thinking encompasses our ability to draw justifiable conclusions from data, rules and logic.

Schooling can indeed improve rational thought, research suggests. A recent analysis of many studies showed that college courses contribute to critical thinking abilities. But decades of research have also consistently found that students improve only in the type of reasoning skills emphasized in the course, not in other tasks. That is, if students work on logic puzzles, they get better at logic puzzles but not at other things, such as forming coherent arguments or winning debates.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


This pattern makes sense. Rational thinking requires different skill sets in different situations. The logic we use when interpreting a science experiment is not the same logic we need when buying a car or following a new recipe.

In general, our brain did not evolve to think in this logical fashion, and some types of reasoning are simply a bad fit for what our brain can do. We are, for instance, pretty good at understanding the frequency of events (how often commercial airplanes crash) but not so good at gleaning probabilities (the likelihood that our plane will crash).

Rational thinking is also a challenge because we instinctively harbor a range of irrational biases. We tend to fear a loss more than we relish an equivalent or greater gain. For example, most people would turn down a favorable gamble in which they could earn $22 if a coin lands on heads but lose $20 if it settles on tails. Although most recognize that taking such a bet makes sense, people often choose not to because the potential pain of losing often outweighs the pleasure of winning. These types of reasoning problems are widespread and interfere with our ability to cultivate rational skills.

So, although we can learn to think rationally, it is important to understand how that learning works. Becoming a more rational thinker across the board is not really a feasible goal. We will find the best results by focusing on the areas we value most.

Question submitted by Adolfo Castañeda, Mexico 

Do you have a question about the brain you would like an expert to answer? Send it to MindEditors@sciam.com

SA Mind Vol 28 Issue 2This article was published with the title “Can I learn to think more rationally?” in SA Mind Vol. 28 No. 2 (), p. 74
doi:10.1038/scientificamericanmind0317-74b

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe