**Cognitive decoupling** is the ability to separate one’s [[Belief|beliefs]], emotions, or other conscious structures of [[Meaning]], from other distinct, but related, avenues of thought. It is a means of disassociating factual possibilities from their social, cultural, or political contexts, and simply following logical rules. Academically it is correlated with IQ, suggesting a relationship between [[intelligence]] and the ability to consider multiple dimensions of an issue without personal attachment. Typically it is associated with scientists and philosophers, but I would argue that it is also a skill cultivated in emergency and military professions. John Nerst makes a [distinction](https://everythingstudies.com/2018/04/26/a-deep-dive-into-the-harris-klein-controversy/) between "**high decoupling**" and "**low decoupling**." High decouplers operate as described above; removing opinions, emotions, and contextual complexity from subject matter in order to fully examine it. Low decouplers agree that subject matter can be analyzed objectively, but that it *must be re-contextualized* once a conclusion is reached. This is the role of journalism and (ideally) politics. Rebecca Brown makes the [argument](https://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2022/01/decoupling-contextualising-and-rationality/) that re-contextualization is an important step in evaluating claims as they relate to a [[plausibility structure]]. This is a matter of assessing claims within the purview of [[orders of evidence|higher order evidence]]. Understanding how a set of facts or a claim is situated within a social backdrop helps us determine its trustworthiness. Reputation of a source and knowledge of conflicts of interest may help determine how much faith we put in a factual claim. Brown believes this is a form of [[ecological rationality]]. Sam Atis [suggests](https://atis.substack.com/p/decoupling-as-a-moral-decision) there is a spectrum of decoupling responses that depend on conversational context. He differentiates between academic decoupling, **A-decoupling**, which is the skill described above, and discourse decoupling, **D-decoupling**, which is a popular rhetorical strategy in rationalist and effective altruist discussions. A-decoupling is relevant to analytic ethical [[Philosophy|philosophy]] and related fields, while D-decoupling is merely a [conversational ritual](https://unherd.com/2020/02/eugenics-is-possible-is-not-the-same-as-eugenics-is-good/) performed in the course of clarifying a casual argument. Willingness to engage in D-decoupling-type conversations relies largely on the context between claimants and the degree of trust between each. He makes the point specifically against engaging in D-decoupling debates with individuals whose position is clear, and are using the method as a rhetorical mechanism to remove values-driven meaning from the discussion. Reducing [[complexity]] is a common heuristic in cognitive behavior, but failure to reintegrate knowledge abstracted from an emotional or social context is as equally biased as allowing them to influence it in the first place. My opinion is that decoupling is a necessary skill in developing [[situational awareness]], but that it is overlooked outside of academic specialties and underdeveloped within those disciplines. Experimental evidence [suggests](https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.65.2.221) understanding an issue requires an initial belief that it is true. If the issue has emotional relevance or is confounded by a [[cognitive bias]], it can be difficult to challenge.