Rationalization as Cognitive Homeostasis: A Homobiasos Theory of Adaptive Self-Regulation

Why do intelligent, well-informed individuals persist in biased reasoning and polarization? Rather than viewing these phenomena as cognitive failures, this paper proposes that rationalization serves an adaptive regulatory function, a form of cognitive homeostasis that maintains psychological coherence when beliefs, emotions, and identity collide. The Homobiasos framework reconceptualizes bias as part of a homeostatic system analogous to physiological regulation, balancing stability and adaptation across cognitive and affective domains.Drawing on evidence from decision science, moral psychology, and affective neuroscience, Homobiasos proposes three recursive processes: (1) conflict detection, where dissonant information triggers affective discomfort; (2) regulatory integration, where intuitive and deliberative processes collaborate to restore equilibrium; and (3) narrative consolidation, where reinterpretation stabilizes coherence even at the cost of accuracy. This model predicts that deliberation amplifies rather than corrects bias under identity threat, cognitive sophistication facilitates motivated reasoning, and interventions targeting affective regulation (e.g., self-affirmation, trust-building) outperform accuracy incentives.Beyond human cognition, parallels with machine learning systems suggest that homeostatic regulation may constitute a general principle of adaptive intelligence. Reframing rationalization as cognitive homeostasis shifts the question from “why do people deviate from rationality?” to “how do people regulate trade-offs between competing economic, emotional, and identity utilities?” Bias, under this view, is not a flaw to eliminate but a mechanism sustaining psychological integrity amid complexity and uncertainty.