Yes. To say that humans are poor at philosophy assumes some ideal way of doing philosophy that humans are not attaining. It's like saying that all humans are poor at basketball, despite players such as Michael Jordan. It presupposes some ideal philosopher (or basketball player) that no human can match. — Luke

I'm not considering the ideal. It's a comparison with other human abilities. We're naturally good at language and storytelling. Math and logic are harder for us to be good at. Memory recall is rather poor, when it comes to accuracy.

Colin McGinn in discussing the possibility that we're cognitively closed to certain philosophical answers mentioned that we're very good at technology, but there could be another intelligent species out there that's the reverse. Where they're as good at doing philosophy as we are at tool making. It's not that they would be perfect philosophers, just good at it.

I'm better at playing the violin than a dog. — Marchesk

Yeah, me too.

It's really hard to get the damn dog to hold still even when I tune him, let alone when I try an arpeggio.

It's really hard to get the damn dog to hold still even when I tune him, let alone when I try an arpeggio. — Brainglitch

>:O

Yes.

I am as certain as I can claim to be, that given it is possible to be better at philosophy - a species that identifies as human is almost certainly going to be at a disadvantage to another species of somehow preciously the same IQ and EQ that differs just by way of having a gender fricken neutral species name...
It is in some ways ludicrous to think of ourselves capable of correctly interpreting existential layer stuff when thinking about the sheer amount of crossed wires firing off from the disaster that is 'man'kind.
(TLDR if that was confusing - Gender is irrelevant. Everything is Energy. - To such a point, that when we cut the shit on defending our attachment to 'man'kind, we can note quite clearly that to call ourselves something so utterly sexist is to basically set ourselves up as either a joke or a facepalm for other species.)

It will get down to belief system issues.
As started in the OP "Rather, we're more interested in being right.". This really mixes well with the saying "Correct a fool and he will hate you, correct a wise man he will appreciate you". We are wrong, so often while thinking, that to embark on the thinking about thinking journey correctly implies an increased amount of 'being wrong'. This is discouraging, particularly for belief systems that haven't done some meta work on learning from mistakes.

Keep going.
<3

Philosophy is not exactly a collective correction and accumulation of a body of knowledge and belief like science; it consists more in an individual inquiry into how to live well or what to believe. — John

lol, I think it is exactly the other way around. But the classical thought section is not as popular as the Dr. Oz self help aisle. So if it were a matter of vote, I would lose.