Human Reasoning in Four Steps: Act, Frown, Point, Nod

Strong Chimp had a favorite log, and Clever Chimp was rolling it away. Strong Chimp puffed up his chest and hissed. Clever Chimp stopped rolling the log, looked Strong Chimp in the eye, and pointed to bananas hanging from a branch. Strong Chimp relaxed. Clever Chimp mounted the log, retrieved the bananas, and shared them with her friend.

Implausible? If you say so. I won't pretend to be a primatologist. But I am pretending to be a choreographer. And I'm using the story of the chimps to illustrate a kind of dance that humans do with each other. We can call it: "act, frown, point, nod": Clever Chimp acted. Strong Chimp frowned. Clever Chimp pointed. Strong Chimp nodded.

If the chimp story is too much of a stretch, here's another involving paleolithic hunters.

Ug and Wug were walking along hunting rabbits. Ug stopped suddenly and gave the hand signal for "Tiger". Wug hadn't seen a Tiger for many moons, so he furled his brow. Ug pointed to some broken branches and paw prints. Wug nodded and they both remained alert for tigers.

Act, frown, point, nod.

Here the "act" part of the dance was a hand signal. And it turns out we can use symbolic representations to frown, point, and nod as well.

Consider this dance.

Paley: An intelligent being designed the universe.

Skeptic: I don't know about that.

Paley: In crossing a heath, [. . . ] suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer I had before given, that for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there. ... There must have existed, at some time, and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers, who formed [the watch] for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended its construction, and designed its use. ... Every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature; with the difference, on the side of nature, of being greater or more, and that in a degree which exceeds all computation. (from Natural History)

Skeptic: Good point. I'd never thought of it that way before.

Act, frown, point, nod.

This time all four steps of the dance are done with words. And this pointing of Paley's was a popular way to erase frowns and elicit nods, at least until Darwin came along and gave people a new way to maintain their frowns.

Variations on a Theme

"Act, frown, point, nod" is the core dance that defines the practice we call reasoning.

Not all reasoning ends with a nod. Though all reasoning must aim at getting it. For getting the nod is the point of the point.

And, until there is an act, a frown, and a point (with a nod to a nod), whatever dance we might be doing cannot be called "reasoning".

The dance does not always run its intended course. Sometimes our point does not earn a nod. And sometimes the nod is blocked for other reasons.

Consider:

Piketty: Capitalism naturally produces inequality.

Ideologue: I don't buy it.

Piketty: [goes away, plays with some models and data, and writes an 800 page book that points at various things]

Ideologue: I'm not reading that thing, and I still don't buy it.

This is more like, act, frown, elaborate point, ignore point and maintain frown.

And sometimes there is a partial nod, and a partial nod withheld.

Zeno: Motion is impossible.

Aristotle: Say What?

Zeno: That which is in locomotion must arrive at the half-way stage before it arrives at the goal. And then it must cross half the remaining distance. And then it must cross half of that half, and so on ad infinitum. In order to move even an inch, that which is in locomotion must cross an infinite number of intervals. And that is impossible.

Aristotle: You have pointed well. I feel compelled to nod. Yet I can't help suspecting that motion is possible. I'm going to have to devote a whole book of my Physics to producing a counterpoint that will allow me to maintain my frown.

Act, frown, point, partial nod, eventual counterpoint.

Sometimes we simply imagine doing something, and then we imagine others frowning. And then we worry that the proposed action might start a dance we don't know how to finish. So we sandbox alternative endings to the dance in our heads, trying out various pointings to see if we can imagine them producing nods.

Ego (prodded by Id): I don't want to carry this soda bottle all the way back to the car. It sure would be convenient to just toss it in this ravine.

Superego: If someone sees you do that, they would frown, and might even report you to the authorities.

Ego: Well, I could point out how far away my car is, and how burdensome this bottle feels.

Superego: That sounds pretty lame.

Ego: I could be super duper careful to make sure no one sees me, so there won't be any actual frowns.

Superego: If you do this now, it will make you more likely to do similar acts in the future, and eventually you will provoke frowns. And this is a dance you don't know how to finish.

There are two overlapping dances going on here.

First there is the dance between us and our imagined witness: act, frown, point, continued frown.

Then there is the internal dance between two parts of us: act, frown, point, counterpoint, counter-counter point, counter-counter-counter point.

And with the internalization of the dance, the conscience is born. The conscience is an inner dance partner that prepares us for our outer dance partners. And the conscience (broadly speaking) can handle a wide range of dances, from momentous and serious to light and playful.

Pinocchio: I want to write on the message board that Lebron James is the GOAT.

Jimney: But the Michael Jordan fans will mock you for this.

Pinocchio: Well, I could point out the fact that Bron has more assists, rebounds, and finals appearances.

Jimney: Well, they'll just make the counterpoints that Jordan has an extra MVP, won more championships, and had a higher scoring average.

Pinocchio: Hmm, what else could I say to force a nod out of their silly little noggins?

Imaginary act, imaginary frown, imaginary point, imaginary counterpoint, impasse.

And here's a fun thought. Since frowns, pointings, and nods are also actions, every step in the dance can serve as the opening act of a new dance within the larger dance. We can frown at our partner's frowns. We can frown at their pointings, and we can frown at their noddings. If we're looking for a dance, or looking to add some variation to the current dance, it's easy. All we have to do is frown at anything they do.

Activist: Global Warming is going to kill us all.

Skeptic: No it's not.

Activist: How can you say that?

Skeptic: It's just a made up crisis that allows activists to make tons of money.

Act, frown, frown at frown, point.

When the burden of leading the dance becomes too great, frowning at a frown is an easy way to switch places with our partner. But sometimes our partner wants a share of the lead, or they anticipate a frown to their frown, so they get right to the (counter) point.

Activist: Global warming is going to kill us all.
Skeptic: No it's not. It's just a made up crisis that allows activists to make tons of money.

This helps the original actor focus her subsequent pointing. It also gives the frowner some stake in the dance, for her counter-point can be frowned upon as well. And who knows where the dance might go from there?

We can also mix outer dance partners with inner dance partners.

Paul: We should support increases in the corporate income tax.

Mary: No we shouldn't.

Paul: Why not?

Mary: Most corporate taxes are regressive. The corporation gets to choose where the costs will be borne. They can push them off to consumers. They can push them off to workers. And they can push them off to shareholders. They won't want to push them off to shareholders. So the taxes will probably be paid ultimately by the relatively poor consumers and workers more than by the relatively wealthy shareholders.

[Paul's inner voice]: I feel like nodding

[Simulation of Paul's absent friends]: Corporations are bad. If you support corporate tax cuts, you're a traitor.

[Paul's inner voice]: I could point to the fact that we need the money for infrastructure.

[Simulation of Paul's absent friends]: That's more like it.

Paul: But we need that money for improving our infrastructure.

Mary: I agree, but we should get that money directly from the shareholders, not from the corporation.

[Paul's inner voice]: I feel like nodding again.

[Simulation of Paul's absent friends]: frown.

Paul: That's an interesting point. I'll have to think about it more and get back to you.

Now increase the number of participants to seven or ten, give each participant their own imaginary chorus, give the participants some complicated social identity relationships with each other, give some participants anonymity, and we can start to see some of the complexity of some of the dances we perform on social media and in real life every day.

Complex dances can make for splendid spectacle. Unfortunately, as the complexity rises, the percentage of frowns turning to nods seems to fall.

Related Dances

Here's another dance:

Hiker: [walks down a trail]

Bear: [rises up and growls]

Hiker: [backs away slowly]

We can call this dance: "act, frown, fight or flight".

Fight or flight seems to be the default continuation of "act, frown, . . ." in nature. Wouldn't it be nice if the hiker could explain to the bear that he means no harm, and, if she just lets him pass, he'll be out of her hair in no time? He might even offer to pay a toll (some of his trail mix, perhaps?). But this continuation of the dance isn't available. Neither the hiker nor the bear know how to do the "act, frown, point, nod" dance with each other. So the hiker must forego an opportunity he might have been able to salvage had he encountered a reasonable human instead.

And "act, frown, fight or flight" is still a standard continuation for "act, frown, . . .", even with humans, when we don't expect pointing to get us anywhere.

But pointing can sometimes get us somewhere. It can get us to a nod. And this opens up opportunities that we would otherwise have to forego. Wolves have figured this out to some extent:

Beta wolf: [bumps into alpha while playing]

Alpha wolf: [growls]

Beta wolf: [rolls onto back and exposes neck]

Alpha wolf: [relaxes]

This version of "act, frown, point, nod" is scripted and limited. Nevertheless, it is an important dance for pack animals. When you live in close proximity with others, triggering frowns is inevitable. And restricting responses to fight or flight presents a dilemma. If the frowning wolf is bigger and stronger, the offending wolf who chooses to fight risks injury. And fleeing makes for a lone wolf and a weaker pack.

This dance provides a third way. The offender can signal that they understand that they offended, that they are committed to the norms against offending, and that they will try to avoid similar offenses in the future. If these signals are taken to be credible, the offended wolf might relax and remove the threat of violence or exile. Eventually the offender can be restored to full standing in the pack (perhaps after a probationary period of side-eyes and low-level growls until the offender once again proves his worth).

Humans do this dance, too. We might call it: "act, frown, apologize, accept apology". And it is a very limited (though perhaps fundamental) form of act, frown, point, nod. In this case the person makes the case that, in spite of the action, they should remain a person in good standing in the eyes of the person offended, and in the eyes of other tribe mates.

Human pointing, in its full glory, goes far beyond this relatively simple act of exposing the neck. We have many more degrees of freedom in our pointing (and our acting, frowning and nodding) than are used in the apology dance. But before we give humans too much credit for thinking outside the box, let's consider this case of thinking inside the (Skinner) box:

Pigeon: [presses lever]

Machine: [no food pellet]

Pigeon: [does a dance and presses lever again]

Machine: [no food pellet]

Pigeon: [does a slightly different dance]

Machine: [food pellet]

We can score this overall dance: "act, frown, random action, frown, variation on random action, nod".

Humans do pigeon dances in some situations. Watch a superstitious person at a slot machine. Or watch Nomar Garciaparra in the 1990s trying to get the pitcher to deliver a big juicy food pellet.

Is this what reasoning is? When other humans frown at one of our utterances, or at one of our other actions, do we treat them as a pigeon treats a lever in a Skinner box? Do we just start pointing arbitrarily, hoping to get the human machine to deliver a nod?

It's a funny image. For the most part our reasoning isn't as silly and arbitrary as the moves a pigeon makes in a Skinner box. But pigeons aren't usually that silly and arbitrary, either. When dealing with patterned regularities (like bugs scurrying around after it stirs up some foliage), the pigeon's drive to try new moves and see what happens is a good one.

Do we point the way we do because we have learned through experimentation (combined with cultural transmission of good tricks others have found) how to point so others will nod? Or is something deeper going on.

With that question in mind, let's take a closer look at each of the turns in the dance.

Act

An act (or action) is anything we "do" that people can frown at. Physical motion isn't even necessary. Sit still and "do" nothing and someone can interpret that as "being lazy".

"Speech" acts are some of our most interesting actions. With my speech (or writing) I can ask you a question, make a statement, or utter an exclamation. I can cast aspersions on your character, invite you to trust me, show disrespect for something you care about, guide your expectations about the future, accept responsibility, or instigate a fight. I can also make categorical assertions, qualified assertions, and hypothetical assertions. And I can do many of these things at different levels at the same time.

Perhaps the only class of actions more important than speech acts (for the purpose of reasoning) are our attitudinal actions. These are our acts of "holding", "adopting" or "maintaining" attitudes such as beliefs, desires, intentions, and many emotions. Any of these states of mind and body can be frowned upon -- especially when people think we have some control over them. Thomas Scanlon calls these "judgment sensitive attitudes" We could equally well call them "frown vulnerable attitudes."

The "act, frown, point, nod" dance can take off from any kind of action, and part of what allows human dialectic to generate dances of extraordinary complexity is that frowns, pointings, and nods are also actions that can be frowned upon.

Frown

A frown is an objection to an act. Before we had language we frowned mostly with physical expressions. If someone moved in on our mate, we would manifest signs of jealous rage. If someone gave us a smaller share of the hunt than we were expecting, we might frown with an indignant glare. Frowns can take the form of violence. They can be mere threats of violence. And they can signal an intention to withhold a favor. Today we still frown with our physical expressions. And we also frown with words.

A frown can be apt or not. The action we frown at is not always the action the actor intended. Sometimes we miss some of the meaning the actor intended. And sometimes we read-in more than was there. When there is miscommunication, sometimes the blame goes to the actor, who should have known how her act would be perceived, and sometimes it goes to the frowner for not being more charitable in interpreting the intention of the actor.

We know how to frown at some things the moment we are born. Other frownings (such as jealousy) kick in later in our development. Many other action/frown pairings must be learned.

We learn from parents, other caregivers, and society at large that some things are to be frowned upon. We learn some of these lessons through explicit instruction, some through gossip, and others by earning frowns from others with our own actions. Sometimes we work out new implications from meta-frowning rules. And sometimes we extend these lessons by way of analogy.

It makes some sense to frown at things that affect our personal interests. We have to stand up for ourselves or others will take advantage. And we do frown at such things. But we also frown at things that don't affect us much, if at all. We frown at John Wilkes Booth shooting Abraham Lincoln. We frown at the thought of strangers littering in hypothetical scenarios. And we frown whenever we think someone on the internet is wrong.

We are naturally inclined to take upon ourselves the role of social-norm enforcer -- even when there is nothing in it for us. If the personal stakes are too high, we will sometimes resist this inclination. But we have to make a positive effort to resist. And sometimes we must even set out to unlearn the habit of frowning at violations of norms that have long since lost their teeth (such as when people use "who" when they're "supposed to" use "whom").

Why do we make ourselves the frowning agents of the state like this? Why do we do it even when there's nothing in it for us, or even when frowning comes with downside risk? We do it for our groups. Our groups sustain us, and we return the favor by tending to the health of the group. One day we will have a rigorous game-theory account to explain why this works. Perhaps inclusive fitness can explain it all. And perhaps the explanation will require cultural selection or even a small dash of biological group selection (for more on the group selection controversy, go here). Either way, it's a thing that needs to be explained.

For now we will take it for granted that we often frown in order to do our part in enforcing group norms. And our specific concern here is to note the role of the frown in our dances.

A frown is an invitation to dance. But which dance? Sometimes it is an invitation to the open-ended dialectic of "act, frown, point, nod". But sometimes it's an invitation only to "act, frown, apologize, accept apology" or "act, frown, fight or flight" or "act, frown, feel bad because nothing you say will get you out of the dog house tonight."

Those who frown might not be looking for explanations, justifications, or excuses. They might just be looking for compliance. But after the frown, it's the actor's move, and she can point if she wants to.

Point

When people frown at us, we're often in trouble (to some degree or other), and we would like to get out of trouble. Sometimes we can point our way out of trouble. The key is to point at things that will make people nod.

Some act/frown combinations are well-worn tropes, and we can use stock pointings to try for the nod. If I step on someone's foot and they frown, I can point to a pair of facts -- that I didn't mean to do it and I feel bad about it -- and that might get me the nod. Other stock pointings include: "It wasn't my fault.", "I didn't say/do that.", "You did it, too.", "They deserved it.", and "It's just my opinion, Man."

But those stock pointings won't help if someone is frowning at your claim that global warming is (or isn't) a problem. In those cases you need to think on your feet a bit.

The goal is to create a "train of thought" that leads the frowner from things they are prone to accept to the idea that our action or attitude is acceptable as well. In the best of cases we can point to a single consideration, and that will ignite a chain of inferences in the frowner's mind, and the train will arrive on time at the station of our choosing. Sometimes, though, we have to walk the frowner through, inference-by-inference, so they can arrive at the conclusion we want. If there is a great inferential difference between us and them, the train might run out of steam before it gets to the station. And sometimes the train gets blocked or sidetracked (or deliberately sabotaged, because they see where it's heading, and they don't want to go there).

That this works at all is due in large part to the fact that most people have similar cognitive hardware, firmware, and even software. We have similar folk ontologies, similar background information, similar concepts, and similar inference engines (for things such as perception, folk physics, mind-reading, and domain specific logic). And this all gives potential pointers some hope of creating favorable trains of thought in the minds of others.

Much of the time we simply point to the very things that led us to our act. If I say "we should go", and you frown, I might simply point to the clock (which is what triggered the thought in my own mind to begin with), confident that you will come to the same conclusion. When Wug frowned, Ug pointed to the very branches and paw prints that led to "tiger" in his own mind, and that was sufficient to make Wug nod.

Perhaps ideally we would always just point to the things that have led us to do the things we have done or hold the attitudes we have come to hold. If those considerations led us there, why wouldn't they lead them there as well? And, if they don't lead them there, perhaps it's because the other person is privy to things we are not. If they counter-point well, we will change our minds, and our acts and attitudes will be better in the future.

But many times we point at things that played no role in our own story. Or we leave out considerations that did play a role in our story. Perhaps that's because we don't remember how we got there. Or perhaps it's because the path was so convoluted we're afraid that re-tracing the steps risks losing our interlocutor's attention, so we streamline the story a bit. Or perhaps we were under the influence of motives we don't wish to reveal.

Much of the time, though, the problem is that we arrive at our acts and attitudes intuitively. We have no idea which inferences led us to where we are. We know some inferences were made, but they were made unconsciously. Our intuitive sense has led us into a thicket of frowns, and now we must point for our supper.

Sometimes we hold a belief only because our most cherished tribe holds it. And sometimes outsiders frown at such beliefs. If we are fortunate, our tribe has taught us how to point in situations like this. And, if all else fails, we can usually refer the frowner to our group's designated pointers -- our dancing champions ("Here, just read this book, and you'll see what I'm saying."). We tend to notice when members of rival religions and political ideologies pass the buck like this. We tend to be oblivious when we do it ourselves. (Ask a non-expert to defend their belief in evolution or climate change some time.)

It's frustrating when we point and others don't nod. But sometimes we can console ourselves with the fact that some people -- the important people -- would nod if they were to see the way we pointed. (This works even better when we are able to tell a story about why the frowners are incapable of following a good train of thought.).

Nod

If the pointer has the most artful role in the dance, the nodder/withholder has the role that makes the whole thing work. The success or failure of our pointing depends on what makes people nod.

We call this turn in the dance "nod", because that's what the pointer is hoping for. But "nod" is really short for "evaluate and then deliver either a nod, a frown, or a mixture of both".

In formal reasoning dances (such as logic or mathematics) there are well-defined rules that govern the nod. If the pointer follows the communally accepted patterns, you must nod. If they do not, you must frown. In less formal settings, three main criteria seem to govern the nod: relevance, acceptability, and sufficiency.

If an evaluator is to judge a pointing as relevant, she must be able to imagine some inferential path from the thing pointed at to the thing that was originally frowned upon. That inferential path needn't go all the way through in the actual world. The thing pointed at can be counterfactual. And some of the other links that would be needed can be counterfactual. But the thing pointed at has to play a role in at least some compelling inferential path in some nearby world.

What's relevant to one judge might not be relevant to another. And a consideration is judged irrelevant by a particular judge if the judge can't imagine any way to get from here to there regardless of what the facts or other pointings turn out to be.

An evaluator judges a pointing acceptable just in case she thinks it's true, or likely enough, or valid in some other normative sense.

And an evaluator judges a pointing to be sufficient if it contains (or kicks off) a chain of inferences that gets all the way to the original action being defended.

An evaluator can frown or nod at any of the criteria independent from the others. For instance she can frown with respect to acceptability but nod with respect to relevance and sufficiency. This can narrow a disagreement down to a mere question of fact (as opposed to logic) and can be a sign of progress.

The goal is to get a complete nod, but pointers must be prepared to work with what they get.

Counterpoint

Here's a common playground dance: "statement," "no, it's not," "yes, it is," "no, it's not," "yes, it is," and so forth. Children eventually learn that this is not a very satisfying way to dance.

"Yes, it is" is not a reasonable response to a frown. That's not how the dance is supposed to go. When I frown, you're supposed to point at something that supports your claim.

But the initial "no, it's not" can frustrate the dance as well.

Imagine your opening act is to present a claim with ten carefully crafted reasons for holding the claim, and all your interlocutor says in response is "You're wrong."

What do you do with that? Do you start pointing to things that might further justify each of the ten claims? Suppose you do, and they come back again with "you're wrong."

A naked frown can put the pointer in a pickle. When the frown can mean a dozen different things, it's tough to know how best to point. So the actor frowns at the frowner's "naked" frown by asking "why the frown?"

Now the frowner has to point to justify his frown. And he does that by pointing at something that undermines the actor's original act. At that (counter) point, the original actor will be able to point more efficiently and effectively in defense of her act.

To spare the actor from having to ask, the frowner often skips right to the counterpoint. And this sets up a point/counterpoint dynamic.

Naked frowns aren't always bad. In face-to-face conversation we naked frown in real time with narrowed eyes, shaking head, crossed arms, raised eybrow, and/or furled brow with clenched jaw and down-turned lips (the literal frown). And, in the flow of the conversation, the speaker can usually discern exactly which part of her act provoked the frown. If she knows how to deal with the frown, she can modify her monologue on the fly. If not, she can stop and ask for a reason for the frown.

In written contexts we sometimes commit many more actions per turn of the dance than we do when dancing face to face, and there is no opportunity to give feedback in real time as the actor is acting. Consequently, written reasoning dances tend to be much more strictly "point-counterpoint" (or [point, point, point, point, . . .]/[counterpoint, counterpoint, counterpoint, counterpoint, . . .]) than face-to-face arguments.

In written contexts the responder qua frowner sometimes finds it difficult to proceed. She doesn't want to naked frown at several points all at once. But she wasn't able to frown in real time, and it's sometimes hard to know where to begin. Should she try to frown at all of them? Or just pick one and steer the dance toward a favorable variation?

It's also worth noting that people sometimes discourage counterpointing in some situations. They don't want you to explain your frown or nod. They just want "a simple yes or no". Sometimes this happens because they don't appreciate the complexity of the issue and are impatient with "fancy talk". And sometimes they do appreciate the complexity of the issue and are setting a social trap. Members of congress go to great lengths to set such traps for each other by putting poisoned pills into legislation. "In 2012 you naked frowned at a bill that would provide school lunches to poor children." "Yes, but that's because y'all put a provision in the bill that would allow private citizens to use chemical weapons on their neighbors."

Summary and Prospective

So we can view reasoning as a dance. And, even if we say no more about it, this way of looking at reasoning can be quite useful. In my own experience, just seeing reasoning as a series of acts, frowns, points, and nods, has helped me dance better. I am still a clumsy dancer. And some of my conversations still get stuck at points. But, when they do, I now find it easier to figure out where they get stuck and how to get them unstuck.

That said, there is still much more to say about the dance of reasoning. In future essays, we will consider questions of purpose, mechanism, social context, stylized versions of the dance, and how to do it better.

If you wish to stay in the loop, you can follow me on Twitter.