Sometimes it's not that people can't think critically, it's that they won't. When identity or values override logic, they decide the conclusion before the argument is even heard. In that moment, the capacity for reasoning still exists, but it's sidelined, functionally making the person unable to reason about that subject.

Let's break this down :

1. Reasoning vs. the refusal to reason

• Reasoning means: "I will evaluate claims on their merits."
• Refusal to reason means: "It doesn't matter what the claim is. I've already decided."

If someone's identity or values pre-determine their answer before examining the argument, they are no longer using reason as the deciding factor. That is a kind of inability to reason. Not because they lack the intellectual skill, but because they've chosen not to apply it.

2. Values can guide, but they shouldn't blind

Values and identity shape all of our judgments (none of us is purely rational machines). But when those values become absolute filters — "I will not agree with X, no matter what" — the door to reasoning is slammed shut.

• Saying, "I don't eat meat because of my values," reasoning can still happen within that framework.
• But saying, "I refuse to consider any evidence about nutrition, environment, or health that doesn't fit my stance," reasoning has been abandoned.

3. The subtle difference

The value-based or identity-based person still has the general ability to reason. But in practice, if reasoning never overrides bias, then bias functionally replaces reasoning.

So while the capacity is there, the outcome is the same as inability: no actual reasoning occurs in that domain.

A choice rooted in identity or values that automatically trumps reasoning is still a block to reasoning. The skill exists, but the will to apply it has been overridden, and in that moment, the person is effectively unable to reason.

Nothing Changes until the Story Does.

#StoryAlchemy #ChangetheStory

Photo by Lou Levit on Unsplash