Motivated Reasoning

There is a concept in epistemology called motivated reasoning. The concept states that the mind does not form conclusions by following evidence but, instead, forms conclusions first and then follows evidence selectively to confirm them.

This idea is simple but irritating for those who believe we are homo economicus; consistently rational human beings with the self-interested ability to optimize decisions and maximize utility.

But we are not. Just like most homo simius, fast pattern recognition is a key feature of human thinking, one that has been essential to survival across most of human history. Our brain is an extraordinarily efficient prediction and pattern-recognition machine.

The key philosophical question is this: how much of what we call judgment is genuine discovery, and how much is just recognition dressed up as insight?

It's a problematic feature of our brain. And we have imported this mechanism, largely unchanged, into one of the most consequential decisions organizations make: the interview.

The modern interview has this problem at its core. Before the candidate has said anything of real substance, the interviewer has already formed a view, whether favorable or unfavorable, and the rest of the interview becomes a confirmation or refutation exercise.

This is not a failure of intelligence. It is simply what our brain does under time pressure and social exposure: pattern-match, rapidly, on the most visible signals available.

Confidence is mistaken for competence. Articulateness for intelligence. Warmth for capability. Nervousness for weakness. None of these things correlates meaningfully with the ability to do the job, and yet they dominate the interview from the very beginning.

The machinery around the interview has never been more sophisticated — better training programs, more structured question banks, scorecards, longer panel formats, complex competency frameworks. Companies invest heavily in all of this, and yet hiring outcomes remain inconsistent.

For this reason, my top recommendation comes from Lou Adler:

Do not make a hiring decision during the interview. If you can delay your verdict until after the conversation ends, you will increase objectivity and significantly reduce hiring mistakes.

This is what philosophers call epistemic humility: the intellectual virtue of recognizing the limitations of one's own knowledge, understanding that beliefs are provisional, and remaining open to revising them in light of new evidence.

In practice, this is very hard to do. The brain finds certainty comfortable and doubt agonizing. But all of the best and most experienced interviewers I know and admire apply this principle, in one form or another, consistently.

Here are cinco hacks that help make it possible:

1. Wait before you decide. Treat the interview as information-gathering only. No verdicts. If you feel a strong pull toward yes or no, that's precisely when you need to slow down and keep asking questions.
2. Use the interview to collect evidence, not to confirm your gut. Ask every candidate the same core questions. This forces consistency and gives you something real to compare afterward.
3. Make "no" harder to justify than "yes." A vague "I just didn't feel it" is laziness. Require yourself to back up any rejection with specifics around the job scope, scale, needed skills, and complexity of past work.
4. Debrief as a team before deciding alone. One person's blind spot is another's signal. Collective judgment beats individual instinct almost every time.

As I write this, I realize that what makes these disciplines hard to maintain is that they all require you to distrust your own instincts, at least temporarily. The best interviewers aren't those who trust their judgment the most; they're the ones who know when to withhold it.

If you can do that, you will avoid dumb hiring mistakes and build stronger teams.

Thank you for reading, and don't forget to subscribe if you want to know when the next post is out.