That sounds likely to produce more effective argumentation rather than more effective reasoning. We're essentially talking about reviving Rhetoric as a subject of study, either formally as a course or informally by way of lots of practice in the domain -- and while that might include some inoculation against biases, it's not at all clear whether that would dominate the effects of learning to leverage biases more subtly and effectively.
At a guess, in fact, I'd say the reverse is true.
That sounds likely to produce more effective argumentation rather than more effective reasoning.
If you expose populations of gazelles to populations of cheetahs, you will get gazelles who are more effective cheetah-avoiders.
They will also be faster. Actually, really, objectively faster, as measured by someone who has a clock rather than a cheetah's appetite as their metric.
The strongest techniques of argumentation — the ones that work against people who are also strong arguers — happen to be those that are in conformance with the mathematical rules of l...
I saw this in the Facebook "what's popular" box, so it's apparently being heavily read and forwarded. There's nothing earthshattering for long-time LessWrong readers, but it's a bit interesting and not too bad a condensation of the topic:
A glance at the comments [at the Times], however, seems to indicate that most people are misinterpreting this, and at least one person has said flatly that it's the reason his political opponents don't agree with him.
ETA: Oops, I forgot the most import thing. The article is at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/arts/people-argue-just-to-win-scholars-assert.html