Social psychologists and evolutionary psychologists have been studying the origins, neural networks, and role of intuition for decades. Wellness influencers cling to the belief that intuition is a mystical force. Derek looks at the research while celebrating the importance of this hard-won skill.
-- -- --Support us on PatreonPre-order Conspirituality: How New Age Conspiracy Theories Became a Health Threat: America | Canada Follow us on Instagram | Twitter: Derek | Matthew | JulianOriginal music by EarthRise SoundSystem
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Hello, Matthew here from the Conspirituality Podcast Team.
The following is a sample of the bonus episode we produce every week for our Patreon subscribers.
You can support our work and have full access to bonus episodes and other premium content by subscribing for as little as $5 a month at patreon.com slash conspirituality.
Thanks for listening and your support, which keeps us ad-free and editorially independent.
In 2001, social psychologist Jonathan Haidt put forward an interesting question to try to better understand moral intuition.
This is from an article he wrote.
Quote, Julie and Mark are brother and sister.
They are traveling together in France on summer vacation from college.
One night, they are staying alone in a cabin near the beach.
They decide that it would be interesting and fun if they tried making love.
At the very least, it would be a new experience for each of them.
Julie was already taking birth control pills, but Mark uses a condom, too, just to be safe.
They both enjoy making love, but they decide never to do it again.
They keep that night as a special secret, which makes them feel even closer to each other.
What do you think about that?
Was it okay for them to make love?
End quote.
Hate bet that you would react with immediate disgust.
Logic doesn't really play a role given that you can't argue about the genetic dangers of a baby born through incest.
Hate made that an impossibility with two layers of sexual protection.
Their enjoyment might have raised a further red flag, but in the end, they never repeat the incident.
So then what, really, is the objection?
This is between two consenting adults.
No harm will ever come from it, especially to the siblings as they agreed upon it and even enjoyed it.
Hate notes that most people still respond, I don't know, I can't explain it, I just know it's wrong.
So the question, is this a rational argument or an intuitive one?
And if so, how does intuition play a role?
And what is intuition, again?
Evolutionary psychologist Deborah Lieberman followed up on Haidt's work.
She wanted to understand how a personal incest taboo—I would never have sex with my sister—turned into the notion that incest is wrong for everyone.
Most cultures have incest taboos, often as part of their theology.
So in one sense, we can understand cultures that believe their way is the only way tend to universalize.
Still, Lieberman found that the longer siblings lived together under one roof, the more their rejection of a sexual relationship increased.
Interestingly, it was not taught by their parents, nor did the degree of their relationship matter, such as being a brother, half-brother, or step-brother.
Incest taboos seem to be an innate trait across cultures.
In his 2013 book, The Righteous Mind, Haidt looked even more deeply at our moral intuitions, which he believes are in some ways tribal.
He writes that our moral thinking is much more like a politician searching for votes than a scientist searching for truth.
Intuitions come first, strategic reasoning second.
