> By opting for a an argument that sounds reasonable to justify your pre-existing decision/idea, you don't "put thought into it". You use your emotions to pick a logical sounding justification.

So taking the time to read or consider an argument that might justify something you instinctively believe, is putting zero thought into it? Come on, the amount of thought is quite literally not zero, and it is zero when letting your emotions drive your decisions. Therefore, yes, a rationalization is putting some thought into it.

> That makes it even more dangerous than admitting "I don't really have a justification, I just like this decision/idea". That is what we call "rationalization", and it's the worst thing one can do.

Is it? What evidence do you have that people who rationalize make worse or "more dangerous" decisions in any or most contexts than those who apply no thought at all to their decisions?

> It's how abuse victims remain with their abuser, how racists find supporting arguments for their beliefs, etc.

And by relying on emotions to make decisions, you think victims of domestic abuse and racists are going to suddenly change those behaviours? The rationalization is a complete red herring here.

Domestic abuse victims stay in abusive relationships for emotional reasons. At least deconstructing their rationalizations could drive them to seek help. What argument do you think could contravene an emotional decision that was given no rationalization?

Similarly, you think racists who don't rationalize are somehow "more rational", or more open to changing their views than those who don't? Do you have evidence of this?

> That's a false equivalent, because in actual life arguments about personal beliefs (about decisions/ideas/relationships/etc) can not always be shown to be faulty as they are not axiomatic but casual.

Which is exactly the case for emotional decisions with no rationalization. Decisions which have been subjected to some thought actually have some justification that can be challenged.

The other person may assert they're right regardless, in which case you're no better off than if they had made decision without a rationalization. Or they may acknowledge their mistake or switch to another rationalization, either of which is a victory for truth. In the latter case, it's a retreat to an ever-narrowing gap of fallacious reasoning.

Like I said, you can see exactly this progession in hundreds of testimonials in the atheism subreddit. Former Christians admit that when challenged, they fell back on progressively more absurd rationalizations for Christian dogma until they could no longer accept it, and then they eventually became agnostics or atheists.

So I have plenty of evidence suggesting the progression I describe actually works. I've seen zero evidence that emotional decisions can be changed in any way other than some oppressive action (like jail time, social shunning, etc., all of which are dehumanizing).

In order to accept your framing that rationalization is "more dangerous", I require a comparable amount of evidence that people who don't rationalize are more rational on average, or are more easily convinced of the truth when challenged, or something along those lines. Can you provide that?