Exasperated- can people learn to be rational?

Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
Exasperated- can people learn to be rational?

Obviously some people can learn the error of certain beliefs and correct those- but were those people all predisposed to being rational?

Under advice from others, I've tried giving people more time, and I've tried teaching.  Is it all futile?  Can somebody who has a habit of exhibiting fundamentally irrational behavior learn to be more rational?  I can't say I've ever seen it.

I'm not just talking about religion.  I'm talking about the person who buys brand name filtered tap water for an absurd markup for no good reason.  I'm talking about people who make interpersonal decisions strictly at odds with their life goals.  I'm talking about inane phobias and habits that, despite being illuminated as irrational- and even agreed as such for all of five minutes- are nonetheless continued unapologetically after the revelation.

Any studies?  Any anecdotes, even?  Has anybody ever known another- with the possible exception of behavior under the influence of teenage hormones leveling out in adulthood- to go from habitually irrational to habitually rational?


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Here's a good book dealing

Here's a good book dealing with a process if irrationality.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Mistakes-Were-Made-But-Not/dp/0156033909/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1284217423&sr=8-1-fkmr0

 

 

A must read for any skeptic

 

 

 


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
Commander Ananas

Commander Ananas Comosus,

Thanks, but that's not quite what I meant...

 

I know *why* people do this, and all of the mechanics- how they delude themselves into thinking they are behaving rationally when they are not- and if somebody sees his or herself as a rational person in essence and makes a concerted effort to learn, things like that could possibly help.

 

I'm talking about something more along the lines of essential predisposition.

Call it an RQ, if you like- some people, even some Christians, make a point of trying to be rational (succeed or fail), while others, even some Atheists, seem completely apathetic to the prospect despite any benefit they may enjoy from more rationality.

 

 

Take bottled water. 

 

Person X wants to buy the red brand of bottled water.  I say, "Hey, look, the blue brand is significantly cheaper!".  Well, person X prefers the red brand. 

Why?  Well, maybe it tastes different- great, lets buy both and have a taste test; that will be fun.

No, no taste test- person X even admits that the taste can't be distinguished.

Oh, so maybe you have some reason to believe the blue brand is dodgy, and is somehow unclean?  Lets bust this case wide open- we can get a water testing kit an... no, not that either?

Then the blue water is it, right?  No? Oh, so not you don't want water at all now?

 

This isn't even a matter of "we can't tell when we're being irrational"- if that were the case, it's easy to point it out, and a person who at least appreciates and respects rationality will be drawn to the more rational choice (provided there are no lingering delusions, and the person fully realizes this choice is more rational)- this is about some drive which compels some people's egos into apathy and ignorance in a frantic move to protect some lingering subconscious whim.

Do these people define themselves by their choices of the red water brand over the blue one?  Is this some affront to their characters?  Even in *admitting* that it's irrational, a waste of money, a waste of time, etc.

 

I'm talking about more than rationalizing a choice with poor excuses- I can demolish any of those with ease- I'm talking about something which seems more essential, and perhaps something that can not be reasoned with, ever.

I'm talking about an irrational personal quality potentially tied to indelible character, regardless of beliefs held, and with no context of the excuses that those books expound and that I'm sure we all know well.  It seems to amount to *pride* in a character flaw- or maybe it's something else.

 

That's what I'm asking. 

Have you ever seen somebody really change from irrational to rational? 

Not just giving up religion- most of the people I've known to do that did essentially respect rationality and saw themselves as rational people long before they ever discovered the flaws in their religious beliefs.  Not just learning a little critical thinking- there are certainly methods of self evaluation we can all use, but this isn't just a lack of critical thinking ability. 

I mean one who can really change from a person who has no interest in being rational and doesn't care if things make sense or not to one who genuinely gives a shit.  And not just for five minutes- I've persuaded reluctant people for that long and they always seem to rebound- but persistently, as a matter of character.

 

Is this a problem with cognitive processing on some level?  Some dissonance alarm that's broken?  Even if they aren't morons, when they realize their actions are irrational but don't care- what kind of person is this? 

 

Maybe one with a weak will, so fragile that they can't resist subconscious advertisement programming even under the weight of overwhelming rational evidence?  Maybe one with no self esteem or character at all, with a self image built only from from those pointless whims?

 

It is essential character, or is it something people can be coaxed out of or educated out of?  Is it something that can be medicated?  What?

 

I've never seen it change, and I've never even seen it significantly improve.  I'm inclined to suspect that it's hopeless, or in the very least more difficult than it's worth. 

I'd like to hear some happy anecdotes of irrational people suddenly having an epiphany... or some study... or some medication or chemical imbalance I've never heard of.

Before I give up on these people entirely, I'd like to hear if anybody has actually seen or experienced a change like this- if it's even possible.


Rich Woods
Rational VIP!
Rich Woods's picture
Posts: 868
Joined: 2008-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Blake wrote:Obviously some

Blake wrote:

Obviously some people can learn the error of certain beliefs and correct those- but were those people all predisposed to being rational?

Under advice from others, I've tried giving people more time, and I've tried teaching.  Is it all futile?  Can somebody who has a habit of exhibiting fundamentally irrational behavior learn to be more rational?  I can't say I've ever seen it.

I'm not just talking about religion.  I'm talking about the person who buys brand name filtered tap water for an absurd markup for no good reason.  I'm talking about people who make interpersonal decisions strictly at odds with their life goals.  I'm talking about inane phobias and habits that, despite being illuminated as irrational- and even agreed as such for all of five minutes- are nonetheless continued unapologetically after the revelation.

Any studies?  Any anecdotes, even?  Has anybody ever known another- with the possible exception of behavior under the influence of teenage hormones leveling out in adulthood- to go from habitually irrational to habitually rational?

 

I think that "Agnostic" thread set you off a little Blake...hahaha... rightfully so though. Personally, I believe that as a species, we are not at the stage of emotional development that will allow for "prevailing wisdom" to accord rationality.

Fear remains a more powerful motivator than the thirst for knowledge for most. As a "relationship" educator, I see people fall into self destructive patterns because they are afraid to expose themselves emotionally ...and the fear of rejection/betrayal/broken heart in their minds is not worth risking emotional exposure. Many only know the painful side of "love", and settle into the confortability of  their dysfunctional cycle because subconciously they either don't believe themselves worthy of love, or have been hurt so badly that they close off to the possibility... (quick over-simplified summation)

Regarding theism, and other forms of irrational or unreasonable decision making... it may even come down to most people being followers, and adhering to common thought... and fear of the unknown is what keeps them from breaking away... to use a matrix reference... most people would take the "blue" pill...

As someone who still has a lot of learning to do, I'll just say that IMHO, the few reachable members of the matrix are worth the struggle.... 


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
Rich Woods wrote:I think

Rich Woods wrote:

I think that "Agnostic" thread set you off a little Blake...hahaha... rightfully so though.

 

Haha, nah, not very many things can actually set me off.  I always sound intense and dramatic- I can discuss the merits of hand soap with similar fervor.

This doesn't have anything to do with the Agnostic thread; just a coincidence of timing.

 

Quote:
As a "relationship" educator, I see people fall into self destructive patterns...

 

This is definitely part of it.

I can see the merits of different life goals.

 

Some people want serial monogamy, some people want open relationships, and some people want to settle down and have a family (whether still in an open relationship, or not).

So you get people who want to find a monogamous relationship for settling down (I won't make any judgments here, a goal is a goal- personally, that is my preference, but to each his/her own), and then they do something counter-productive to that goal like engaging in serial monogamy.

How does dating one person exclusively for two years help at all towards finding that particular person this individual wants to start a family with?  It doesn't make any sense.

If you're trying to find something, you play the field as much as possible instead of locking yourself down and suffering the opportunity cost of missed dating opportunities until you hit a crisis (whatever age that sets in) and settle for whoever happens to be convenient at the time.  That kind of commitment to a bad match is the most dangerous part of marriage style monogamy (frighteningly so), and it's nonsense to engage in dating behavior that maximizes that risk.

 

Do you know what I mean?

And even in explaining this- and even if the people can see that the behavior is irrational- they continue in it just like they'll continue buying the over-priced red brand of water when it's identical to the bargain blue label.

 

Is a person who will be rational about water more likely to be rational about dating?  Is somebody who is irrational about the water more likely to be irrational about dating?  In my experience, there seems to be a very, VERY, strong correlation.

Irrationality seems almost like a personality type.

 

Quote:
because they are afraid to expose themselves emotionally ...and the fear of rejection/betrayal/broken heart in their minds is not worth risking emotional exposure.

 

I know there are some explanations for some of the strange and damaging behaviors people engage in- definitely- but does that apply to bottled water too?  Sure, maybe a person feels like he or she has to have an exclusive relationship right off because he or she doesn't feel 'complete' without being chained to somebody else, regardless of how much of a loser that person is?  But what about the water? (and countless other examples)- do you think there might be something more to it than just emotional damage?


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Blake wrote: Is a person who

Blake wrote:

Is a person who will be rational about water more likely to be rational about dating?  Is somebody who is irrational about the water more likely to be irrational about dating?  In my experience, there seems to be a very, VERY, strong correlation.

Irrationality seems almost like a personality type.

 

I would say so.  My sister and I are totally opposite.  We are close to the same height, hair type and color, eye color.  We do not wear clothes in similar colors or styles.  We do not have similar hair styles.  We don't do the same makeup.  And we are polar opposites on rationality.  Raised in the same family, full sisters (with the same parents), only 2 1/2 years difference in age.  My sister will believe anything her Jehovah Witness elders tell her to believe without even trying to examine the claim.  She will believe anything her church friends tell her without researching any part of the story.  If you attempt to tell her about science - to her, it's all BS.

I can't talk to her for long without having severe tooth marks on my tongue as I am continually biting my tongue during our conversations.

Maybe it is because I am oldest and I have always been good at school.  And maybe she hasn't grown out of that need to rebel.  Maybe she is just stubborn and deliberately ignorant.  I have always suspected she isn't stupid, but I could never really be certain.  I have never been able to figure her out.

 

Blake wrote:

Quote:
because they are afraid to expose themselves emotionally ...and the fear of rejection/betrayal/broken heart in their minds is not worth risking emotional exposure.

I know there are some explanations for some of the strange and damaging behaviors people engage in- definitely- but does that apply to bottled water too?  Sure, maybe a person feels like he or she has to have an exclusive relationship right off because he or she doesn't feel 'complete' without being chained to somebody else, regardless of how much of a loser that person is?  But what about the water? (and countless other examples)- do you think there might be something more to it than just emotional damage?

 

Bottled water - buy a plastic bottle that is low in out-gasses, and fill it with tap water.  And continue to refill it.  Try to keep it out of the sun as that breaks down the plastic.  Red, blue - why do you need to buy very expensive bottled water when you can get it out of a water faucet or fountain for free?

As an aside - here in the North West US, there are drinking fountains downtown that run continuously.  They don't even have handles to turn them off.  Since I grew up in the desert South West, this always amazes me.  You could refill your bottles from these drinking fountains all day long for free.

My experience with my sister leans me towards, yes, if you are irrational about what you put in the grocery cart, you will be irrational in other aspects of your life.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
Blake wrote:Obviously some

Blake wrote:

Obviously some people can learn the error of certain beliefs and correct those- but were those people all predisposed to being rational?

Under advice from others, I've tried giving people more time, and I've tried teaching.  Is it all futile?  Can somebody who has a habit of exhibiting fundamentally irrational behavior learn to be more rational?  I can't say I've ever seen it.

I'm not just talking about religion.  I'm talking about the person who buys brand name filtered tap water for an absurd markup for no good reason.  I'm talking about people who make interpersonal decisions strictly at odds with their life goals.  I'm talking about inane phobias and habits that, despite being illuminated as irrational- and even agreed as such for all of five minutes- are nonetheless continued unapologetically after the revelation.

Any studies?  Any anecdotes, even?  Has anybody ever known another- with the possible exception of behavior under the influence of teenage hormones leveling out in adulthood- to go from habitually irrational to habitually rational?

 

Blake.  You can't teach people to think or to be rational.  

Let's say, I am buying an expensive water in red bottles and I have tons of completely rational reasons to do so.  Here come you and question my decision.  All you expect me to do in fact is NOT to start behaving rationally (according to your standards), but you expect me to agree with your logic and nothing less.  Naturally, my response?  I buy this red bottles because I like red color, have a nice day.

 

 

There are no 100% rational or 100% irrational people.  If you are 100% rational, you are a robot rather then a human. Irrational behavior is in some sense absolutely essential for the progress of civilization.  What you consider rational, may not be rational for many other people. 


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:Maybe it is because

cj wrote:

Maybe it is because I am oldest and I have always been good at school.  And maybe she hasn't grown out of that need to rebel.  Maybe she is just stubborn and deliberately ignorant.  I have always suspected she isn't stupid, but I could never really be certain.  I have never been able to figure her out.

 

The stubborn and deliberately ignorant seems to have something to do with it; even when these people are cornered into admitting that they are being irrational, they don't want to change.

Given the genetic relationship, I'd also suspect your sister isn't stupid... it's tricky to figure these people out.

 

Quote:

Bottled water - buy a plastic bottle that is low in out-gasses, and fill it with tap water.  And continue to refill it.  Try to keep it out of the sun as that breaks down the plastic.  Red, blue - why do you need to buy very expensive bottled water when you can get it out of a water faucet or fountain for free?

 

Actually, the tap water here tastes like metal with a hint of processed sewage.  One probably shouldn't drink it without boiling, and even then I can't drink it without mixing in something to cover up the taste.

In the states, and definitely in Portland where the water quality is great, I completely agree.

 

Quote:
My experience with my sister leans me towards, yes, if you are irrational about what you put in the grocery cart, you will be irrational in other aspects of your life.

 

Thanks cj,

 

What I think I'm trying to find is a litmus test that will save me frustration.  If I can't convince somebody out of something stupid like buying over-priced bottled water, which should be easy, they probably aren't going to be inclined to listen to rational argument about anything else.

 

One person in particular (with the water), I did talk out of Christianity, but it was a serious pain in the ass (it took several hours, when it should have taken no more than five or ten minutes IMO).  In every instance, the irrationality has seemed to be habitual and willful.


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
100percentAtheist

100percentAtheist wrote:

Let's say, I am buying an expensive water in red bottles and I have tons of completely rational reasons to do so.

 

I think you missed my point- they don't have rational reasons for doing so.  I ask them.  They'll admit (under a little pressure) that it isn't at all rational, and they have no reason for doing it.

If there was any reason, even, "I like the colour red and I'm willing to pay substantially more for something pretty because I'm rich and enjoy wasting money" or "I'm morally opposed to the blue water because their factory uses child slave labor; that's why it's so cheap" hey, that would be fine.

That's not the reason, though.  The reason is subconscious programming from advertisement- it's a willful choice to be irrational without understanding why when confronted with the fact.

I've known plenty of people who would say, "You're right, the blue one is cheaper!  I don't know why I buy the red one; I'll get the blue one from now on.  I guess the red one just stands out more on the shelf so it's the first one I see.  Those tricksy marketing bastards gouged me for the last time!"

 

 

Quote:
There are no 100% rational or 100% irrational people.  If you are 100% rational, you are a robot rather then a human.

 

100% rationality would result in analysis paralysis, not being a robot- a rational premise can be built on emotion given consistent facts; all intelligence has emotion, whether biological or synthetic, because that's what motivates action.

There are people, though, who will go with impulse (as we must in trivial matters, to get along at any reasonable pace), but then make a rational choice when made aware of the impulsive mistakes.  And there are other people who will grind in and unapologetically stick to their irrational impulses even when made aware of them.

 

 

Quote:
Irrational behavior is in some sense absolutely essential for the progress of civilization.  What you consider rational, may not be rational for many other people.

 

Not at all; rational behavior can't function on its own without all information, but rational behavior coupled with random behavior as a base to accelerate action and prevent analysis paralysis would be a sufficient replacement for any and all irrational behavior- and that's a reasonable approximation to what we do, actually.  The problem comes in when that random behavior is overwritten by counterproductive programming without our knowledge, and more so when people refuse to adapt that behavior in light of evidence, becoming attached to the whim over reason.

Rationality is objective relative to the premises and core motivations in place; it can be hard to break down, but outside of that context everybody can ultimately agree (providing their brains are in a working state).  A binary state of rationality is not opinion wherein all of the facts are present.  What is more or less rational, in the grey area of quantitative analysis between, can be chocked up to opinion, but what is ultimately rational or irrational in a qualitative way is a matter of fact.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Blake wrote:One person in

Blake wrote:

One person in particular (with the water), I did talk out of Christianity, but it was a serious pain in the ass (it took several hours, when it should have taken no more than five or ten minutes IMO).  In every instance, the irrationality has seemed to be habitual and willful.

 

Self justification.  Never forget - we all need to justify to ourselves that what we believe is right.  Once we have completed that internal justification - regardless of the rationality or irrationality of the justification - we seldom reexamine it.  From the book - it is a pyramid.  You start at the apex and going any direction is but a short step away.  Get to the bottom of the pyramid, and you have to hike all the way around the bottom or go back to the top and back down.  A long trip, either direction.

Do people have a tendency to take similar "sides" of the pyramid?  Seems to be.  Studies with orangutans show that they repeat behavior that has worked for them in the past.  Even if it isn't working for them now.  And people seem to be the same way.  We are all insane in some respects of our lives, repeating the same behavior, expecting different outcomes.

The rational responder who clung to the "super nano-thermite bomb" theory had me in a puzzle.  Irrationality can strike anyone at any time.  We must all be on the look out for it in ourselves and others.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
A person either wants

A person either wants rationality innately or wants to believe whatever is convenient to their set disposition.

 

My "anecdotes" amount to that, at best. A previously irrational individual does not "learn" to become rational, aside from the occasional intermission from socializing with rational peers.

Granted, I look at the world through FAR more cynical eyes than most.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:A person either

Kapkao wrote:

A person either wants rationality innately or wants to believe whatever is convenient to their set disposition.

 

But we (as in those who want to be rational) certainly do learn certain skills and thought processes associated with being rational.

 

So, could I say that if they want rationality, then they can learn critical thinking, and logic, and then apply that to be more rational- just like I'm sure all of us learned certain methods of critical thinking now and then throughout our lives and then began applying them- but if they don't want to be rational, then even though they may learn those methods, they won't bother using them?

 

The trick here seems to be how one can tell if somebody wants rationality or not- If I ask people (and I have), they pretty much always say they want to be rational.  How do we know, or how could we know, if somebody actually wants to be rational, or if they just like to think they want to be rational, but don't actually want to follow through?

 

Kapkao wrote:
My "anecdotes" amount to that, at best. A previously irrational individual does not "learn" to become rational, aside from the occasional intermission from socializing with rational peers.

 

So, if they don't want to be rational, they can still be forced through social conditioning- and yet they will revert?  That makes sense in the context of my experiences. 

When I'm there laying out the points clearly, and with my force of personality, they'll be rational... and then after I leave they'll promptly revert and forget everything I've said.

 

Do you think somebody could be reconditioned, though, to change from a person who doesn't want to be rational, to a person who does?  What makes us want to be rational?  Is it early childhood experiences?  Is it genetics?  Is it something hormonal?

 

Could I medicate somebody with anti-psychotics to make them want to be rational?  Could I use some extreme emotional shock therapy to force their brains into an about face?  Or is it just outright impossible to catalyze a fundamental change like that in a person? (I'm not talking about doing anything illegal, of course)

 

 

cj wrote:

Once we have completed that internal justification - regardless of the rationality or irrationality of the justification - we seldom reexamine it.  From the book - it is a pyramid.  You start at the apex and going any direction is but a short step away.  Get to the bottom of the pyramid, and you have to hike all the way around the bottom or go back to the top and back down.  A long trip, either direction.

 

But some people seem inclined to re-examine it, and others don't.  Do some people just, inherently, like or dislike hiking on pyramids?

What is that fundamental nature or nurture that dictates whether or not we will tend to re-examine, or hike?

 

cj wrote:

 

The rational responder who clung to the "super nano-thermite bomb" theory had me in a puzzle.  Irrationality can strike anyone at any time.  We must all be on the look out for it in ourselves and others.

 

What was the "super nano-thermite bomb" about?  Sounds like something I could have debunked.  I've talked people out of a bunch of different conspiracy theories- it's easier than religion, I think.

 

Certainly, we must be vigilant, but do you think there's something to be said for a fundamental character trait?

 

 

I know we talked about the training, etc. before, but while it works in a way, people keep rebounding in terms of rationality; I haven't seen anybody become more rational.  They just keep displaying the same tendencies again and again (in different subjects).

 

In person, anyway, I can convince most people of just about anything given a little time and rapport, but that doesn't seem to be of any use in making people more rational.  It would be fine if I were a car salesman, because the only point of that is to sell the one car at that particular time- but I'm trying to inspire rationality in general.

Can it be done?  Of course people can be taught logical fallacies and practice, but can somebody be taught or trained to want to be rational?  Not just thoroughly convinced of one particular meme, but of a nature of experiencing and filtering everything, and how they feel about themselves with regards to rationality?

 

I've always been of the same mind as Kapkao, but a few years ago a friend told me that people just need to be educated in critical thinking- I was skeptical, but I thought it was worth a try.  It seems like he was wrong in the cases that those people don't want to be rational.  I agree that if they do, at heart, want that then it could work- but those people seem to need to want to be rational to have a hope.  Can that core desire be implanted in any lasting and sincere way?  And how?


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
100percentAtheist

100percentAtheist wrote:

Let's say, I am buying an expensive water in red bottles and I have tons of completely rational reasons to do so.

 

Blake wrote:

I think you missed my point- they don't have rational reasons for doing so.  I ask them.  They'll admit (under a little pressure) that it isn't at all rational, and they have no reason for doing it.

If there was any reason, even, "I like the colour red and I'm willing to pay substantially more for something pretty because I'm rich and enjoy wasting money" or "I'm morally opposed to the blue water because their factory uses child slave labor; that's why it's so cheap" hey, that would be fine.

That's not the reason, though.  The reason is subconscious programming from advertisement- it's a willful choice to be irrational without understanding why when confronted with the fact.

I've known plenty of people who would say, "You're right, the blue one is cheaper!  I don't know why I buy the red one; I'll get the blue one from now on.  I guess the red one just stands out more on the shelf so it's the first one I see.  Those tricksy marketing bastards gouged me for the last time!"

If I'm exposed to someone who is badgering me into believing my ideas on trivial matters aren't rational, I'm likely to second guess or even acquiesce to the badgering (no matter how rational my ideas are) just to shut him/her up.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:If I'm

jcgadfly wrote:

If I'm exposed to someone who is badgering me into believing my ideas on trivial matters aren't rational, I'm likely to second guess or even acquiesce to the badgering (no matter how rational my ideas are) just to shut him/her up.

 

Wha?  We're talking about something like a 10% - 20% markup in cost.  Applying the same behavior across the board, that's at least a 10% - 20% increase in savings (and generally much more considering what percentage of income is usually spent vs. saved).  Given a rough approximation of how much people work to save for retirement, that has to be almost a decade of your life.

A decade of your life is trivial? @_@

I don't know, if I were a working class Joe, I'd rather be playing bingo and watching my grandchildren than hanging out in a cubicle all day when I was 55.  But maybe that's just me... maybe some people don't really care (or like their jobs and don't mind spending frivolously; and if that's the case, the more power to them).

 

 

As to the acquiescing; how can one know if a person is just being non-confrontational and giving up, or if said person actually agrees and is being rational?

Do I need to deliberately question things that are clearly rational and suggest irrational alternatives and see if the person goes for it anyway to find out?


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Blake wrote:jcgadfly

Blake wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

If I'm exposed to someone who is badgering me into believing my ideas on trivial matters aren't rational, I'm likely to second guess or even acquiesce to the badgering (no matter how rational my ideas are) just to shut him/her up.

 

Wha?  We're talking about something like a 10% - 20% markup in cost.  Applying the same behavior across the board, that's at least a 10% - 20% increase in savings (and generally much more considering what percentage of income is usually spent vs. saved).  Given a rough approximation of how much people work to save for retirement, that has to be almost a decade of your life.

A decade of your life is trivial? @_@

I don't know, if I were a working class Joe, I'd rather be playing bingo and watching my grandchildren than hanging out in a cubicle all day when I was 55.  But maybe that's just me... maybe some people don't really care (or like their jobs and don't mind spending frivolously; and if that's the case, the more power to them).

 

 

As to the acquiescing; how can one know if a person is just being non-confrontational and giving up, or if said person actually agrees and is being rational?

Do I need to deliberately question things that are clearly rational and suggest irrational alternatives and see if the person goes for it anyway to find out?

For me, it is a trivial point.

I rarely buy bottled water. If I do it's usually one bottle because I'm too far from home to use the tap and I'm thirsty. If you come up to me and harangue me about my one bottle of water, then I will likely give in to you to shut you the hell up.  Or tell you to blow me and go home. 

Got one grandkid - haven't seen her since she was 2. Her mom got ticked at us and moved away. I'm probably going to be at my job until a decade after I'm dead - that's more because I'm in education and the country and state I live in considers education a low priority.

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:For me, it is

jcgadfly wrote:

For me, it is a trivial point.

I rarely buy bottled water. If I do it's usually one bottle because I'm too far from home to use the tap and I'm thirsty. If you come up to me and harangue me about my one bottle of water, then I will likely give in to you to shut you the hell up.  Or tell you to blow me and go home.

 

Okay, for you "bottled water" is a trivial point because you don't buy it.

I'm not talking about addressing strangers about bottled water (or addressing strangers about anything at all), and the bottle of water I'm talking about is an example; I don't literally mean just a bottle of water.  In the context of my example, bottled water is all that is really drinkable.  I buy bottled water almost every day, and the cost is significantly up there with food- I just mean some kind of that is regularly purchased, but I'll just simplify my example.

 

One needs to buy item type X every day, and it makes up a substantial portion of one's daily expenses.  Item Y and Item Z are types of item X that one may chose between; Item Y and Z are of the same quality in ever respect except for the brand label, for which item Z has more advertising and as a consequence is 10% more expensive.

I make the argument that one should purchase item Y instead of item Z, because they have the same desired quality, and Y is less expensive, all other relevant factors to the purchasing decision being equal.  I only make this argument to people I know. (And actually, the last time I made the argument, it was my money that was being spent on said item)

 

But anyway, my point is just an example of a situation with all things being the same now, and with potential advantages later, where it would seem prudent to go with the more rational option.

 

 

Quote:
Got one grandkid - haven't seen her since she was 2. Her mom got ticked at us and moved away. I'm probably going to be at my job until a decade after I'm dead - that's more because I'm in education and the country and state I live in considers education a low priority.

 

What country is that, the states?


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Blake wrote:jcgadfly

Blake wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

For me, it is a trivial point.

I rarely buy bottled water. If I do it's usually one bottle because I'm too far from home to use the tap and I'm thirsty. If you come up to me and harangue me about my one bottle of water, then I will likely give in to you to shut you the hell up.  Or tell you to blow me and go home.

 

Okay, for you "bottled water" is a trivial point because you don't buy it.

I'm not talking about addressing strangers about bottled water (or addressing strangers about anything at all), and the bottle of water I'm talking about is an example; I don't literally mean just a bottle of water.  In the context of my example, bottled water is all that is really drinkable.  I buy bottled water almost every day, and the cost is significantly up there with food- I just mean some kind of that is regularly purchased, but I'll just simplify my example.

 

One needs to buy item type X every day, and it makes up a substantial portion of one's daily expenses.  Item Y and Item Z are types of item X that one may chose between; Item Y and Z are of the same quality in ever respect except for the brand label, for which item Z has more advertising and as a consequence is 10% more expensive.

I make the argument that one should purchase item Y instead of item Z, because they have the same desired quality, and Y is less expensive, all other relevant factors to the purchasing decision being equal.  I only make this argument to people I know. (And actually, the last time I made the argument, it was my money that was being spent on said item)

 

But anyway, my point is just an example of a situation with all things being the same now, and with potential advantages later, where it would seem prudent to go with the more rational option.

 

 

Quote:
Got one grandkid - haven't seen her since she was 2. Her mom got ticked at us and moved away. I'm probably going to be at my job until a decade after I'm dead - that's more because I'm in education and the country and state I live in considers education a low priority.

 

What country is that, the states?

Supposedly, I'm in Indiana in the good ol' USA. Sometimes I think I've been knocked out and taken to a banana republic.

Is this a hypothetical or have you actually confronted people with this example? If the latter - if I were on the other end (to use your example), my first thought would be "Either this guy works for the other water distributor or he's just trying to be a pain in my ass."

Not a good view to put out there if you really want to convince people of something.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
Blake wrote: I buy bottled

Blake wrote:

 I buy bottled water almost every day, and the cost is significantly up there with food- I just mean some kind of that is regularly purchased, but I'll just simplify my example.

 

 

Do you refill?  I mean if you don't, it is completely irrational.

 


Rich Woods
Rational VIP!
Rich Woods's picture
Posts: 868
Joined: 2008-02-06
User is offlineOffline
I think we might be acting a

I think we might be acting a little over-officiously whrere it applies to the concept of "irrationality"...I think *everyone* has little "quirks" in their personality.... sometimes VERY rational people have litttle idiosyncrisies (sp?) ... For example, my brilliant and beautiful wife has an irrational distain for the song "I Will Survive"...and for Mazdas... I know I should eat healthier... but I still manage tio have a terrible desert to vegetable ratio in my diet...and i won't even get into Beer...

 

Psychologically, there are a multitude of things from our childhood that alter our preceptions, no matter how rational we try to be...


Bahana
atheist
Bahana's picture
Posts: 85
Joined: 2006-08-04
User is offlineOffline
  It is a day to day

 

 

It is a day to day battle even for those who think critically to remain rational. Humans by nature do not need to be rational to survive.  They can reproduce just fine.  It's work to go against our initial childhood programming. Just takes times and practice like any other skill.

 

 


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Blake wrote:But we (as in

Blake wrote:

 

But we (as in those who want to be rational) certainly do learn certain skills and thought processes associated with being rational.

 

Learn during formative years= yes.  After brain has reached full size= moot point. A person can always learn new things if it is "useful" and well within their powers of comprehension, but little else.

 

Quote:
The trick here seems to be how one can tell if somebody wants rationality or not-

 BINGO

Quote:
Kapkao wrote:
My "anecdotes" amount to that, at best. A previously irrational individual does not "learn" to become rational, aside from the occasional intermission from socializing with rational peers.

 

So, if they don't want to be rational, they can still be forced through social conditioning- and yet they will revert?

Everyone reverts to their 'core state' in absence of social pressure. It's only the desire to socialize that inhibits more base/irrational desires in some individuals.

 

Quote:
Do you think somebody could be reconditioned, though

To redraft major thought processes and stop "thinking with their heart"? Nope; not according to what

 

Quote:
Could I medicate somebody with anti-psychotics to make them want to be rational?

antipsychotics make a person less psychotic, not more rational.

 

 Small warning, though: I should tell you that unlike energy concerns and qubits, I AM out of my element when it comes to people. (aside from psychology/psychiatry stuff)

 

 

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Is this a

jcgadfly wrote:

Is this a hypothetical or have you actually confronted people with this example? If the latter - if I were on the other end (to use your example), my first thought would be "Either this guy works for the other water distributor or he's just trying to be a pain in my ass."

Not a good view to put out there if you really want to convince people of something.

 

Like I said, this wouldn't be an address to a stranger- and in that particular example, it was my money that was being spent.

 

 

100percentAtheist wrote:

Do you refill?  I mean if you don't, it is completely irrational.

 

Where would I refill from?  I would not buy bottled water if the tap water were potable with the exception of needing a bottle.

 

 

 

 

 

Rich Woods wrote:

I think we might be acting a little over-officiously whrere it applies to the concept of "irrationality"...I think *everyone* has little "quirks" in their personality.... sometimes VERY rational people have litttle idiosyncrisies (sp?) ... For example, my brilliant and beautiful wife has an irrational distain for the song "I Will Survive"...and for Mazdas... I know I should eat healthier... but I still manage tio have a terrible desert to vegetable ratio in my diet...and i won't even get into Beer...

 

Taste is another thing in my opinion; of course there will be kinds of sensory stimuli that we can't stand, but sensation is a real thing.

 

However, lets say that there are two kinds of dessert, X and Y. 

X is made from sugar and fat, and Y is a carefully engineered dessert made from, let say, broccoli which in a blind taste test is absolutely indistinguishable from X, with numerous peer reviewed scientific studies proving the positive health value.  X and Y cost the same, with the same availability and convenience- and they even look the same, short of ingredients on the label.  Which do you choose?

 

Rich Woods wrote:
Psychologically, there are a multitude of things from our childhood that alter our preceptions, no matter how rational we try to be...

 

I think there are things that inform our perceptions (like taste in food or music- they can change, but there's a certain barrier to that [time]) and then things that shouldn't have anything to do with them, but alter them anyway (like brand labeling, which rationality can overcome).

Raspberry chocolate mousse just isn't equivalent in taste to broccoli.  Given enough time, you could adapt your tastes to prefer broccoli (and it wouldn't be an easy task), but that in itself is an effort- I can understand why you opt for dessert; you're feeding sensation, granting yourself an experience- that is a real thing that informs the pleasure you get out of an event. 

If broccoli was equal in taste, however, without that effort of conditioning yourself to it, and was the same price, and shared every deciding trait- then it would come down to a question of rationality.

Those matters where only rationality is the deciding factor- that's what I'm curious about.


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
Bahana wrote: It is a day

Bahana wrote:

 

It is a day to day battle even for those who think critically to remain rational. Humans by nature do not need to be rational to survive.  They can reproduce just fine.  It's work to go against our initial childhood programming. Just takes times and practice like any other skill.

 

 

I'll put you down for a "yes", that people can learn to be more rational (that there aren't any inherent predispositions?).  Do you have any interesting stories?

 

 

Kapkao wrote:

 BINGO

 

So then I need to develop a series of scientific tests to determine this, controlling for peer pressure.

Any ideas on where to start?

 

Evaluating reaction to rational and irrational suggestion seems like the practical basis for tests; but how can I present and objectively evaluate that reaction?

I could potentially use actors, who have no preference for response... or maybe actors who aren't smart enough to realize which suggestions are rational and which are irrational.  If I did it myself, I might give off clues by way of body language or presentation.  That could be prohibitively expensive, though.

And what kind of metric could I use?  I'd need to determine the rationality, the hypothetical benefit (people being drawn to things they think will help them), and the peer pressure in numerical terms.

 

 

Kapkao wrote:

To redraft major thought processes and stop "thinking with their heart"? Nope; not according to what

 

Not according to what...?

 

Kapkao wrote:
antipsychotics make a person less psychotic, not more rational.

 

They shake up brain chemistry in various ways (as do anti-depressants); it might be possible.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Blake wrote:If broccoli was

Blake wrote:

If broccoli was equal in taste, however, without that effort of conditioning yourself to it, and was the same price, and shared every deciding trait- then it would come down to a question of rationality.

Those matters where only rationality is the deciding factor- that's what I'm curious about.

 

There is a theory that people are evolved to prefer the taste of carbohydrates and fat as these were harder to obtain for our diets when we were hunter gatherers.  I can sort of see it - veggies and meat were relatively easy to get.  Fat and carbs were scarcer then without modern factory farms and agriculture.  Having a craving for them meant the proto-civilized human would gorge when s/he did get a hold of some.  And those who could store the carbs as fat had a rung up on the evolution ladder.  Sigh.

I don't think there is an easy answer as I think it is too complex.  Some is innate - some is environmental - some is ingrained in childhood. 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:  Some is innate -

cj wrote:
  Some is innate - some is environmental - some is ingrained in childhood. 

You owe me some bugspray for stealing my own words.


Blake: As I'm too lazy to analyze it any further or even finish my own damn sentences. I'll have to take a raincheck...

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:cj wrote: 

Kapkao wrote:

cj wrote:
  Some is innate - some is environmental - some is ingrained in childhood. 

You owe me some bugspray for stealing my own words.


Blake: As I'm too lazy to analyze it any further or even finish my own damn sentences. I'll have to take a raincheck...

 

So I paraphrased it and not intentionally, we just happen to agree this time.  Big deal.

But if you insist....

Pssssssssssstttttttttttt.....................

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Blake wrote:jcgadfly

Blake wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Is this a hypothetical or have you actually confronted people with this example? If the latter - if I were on the other end (to use your example), my first thought would be "Either this guy works for the other water distributor or he's just trying to be a pain in my ass."

Not a good view to put out there if you really want to convince people of something.

 

Like I said, this wouldn't be an address to a stranger- and in that particular example, it was my money that was being spent.

 

 

100percentAtheist wrote:

Do you refill?  I mean if you don't, it is completely irrational.

 

Where would I refill from?  I would not buy bottled water if the tap water were potable with the exception of needing a bottle.

 

 

 

 

 

Rich Woods wrote:

I think we might be acting a little over-officiously whrere it applies to the concept of "irrationality"...I think *everyone* has little "quirks" in their personality.... sometimes VERY rational people have litttle idiosyncrisies (sp?) ... For example, my brilliant and beautiful wife has an irrational distain for the song "I Will Survive"...and for Mazdas... I know I should eat healthier... but I still manage tio have a terrible desert to vegetable ratio in my diet...and i won't even get into Beer...

 

Taste is another thing in my opinion; of course there will be kinds of sensory stimuli that we can't stand, but sensation is a real thing.

 

However, lets say that there are two kinds of dessert, X and Y. 

X is made from sugar and fat, and Y is a carefully engineered dessert made from, let say, broccoli which in a blind taste test is absolutely indistinguishable from X, with numerous peer reviewed scientific studies proving the positive health value.  X and Y cost the same, with the same availability and convenience- and they even look the same, short of ingredients on the label.  Which do you choose?

 

Rich Woods wrote:
Psychologically, there are a multitude of things from our childhood that alter our preceptions, no matter how rational we try to be...

 

I think there are things that inform our perceptions (like taste in food or music- they can change, but there's a certain barrier to that [time]) and then things that shouldn't have anything to do with them, but alter them anyway (like brand labeling, which rationality can overcome).

Raspberry chocolate mousse just isn't equivalent in taste to broccoli.  Given enough time, you could adapt your tastes to prefer broccoli (and it wouldn't be an easy task), but that in itself is an effort- I can understand why you opt for dessert; you're feeding sensation, granting yourself an experience- that is a real thing that informs the pleasure you get out of an event. 

If broccoli was equal in taste, however, without that effort of conditioning yourself to it, and was the same price, and shared every deciding trait- then it would come down to a question of rationality.

Those matters where only rationality is the deciding factor- that's what I'm curious about.

I understand why you care when it's your money ( I care for mine as well). Why do you assume that others have your standard of rationality/care for their money as you do?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:I understand

jcgadfly wrote:

I understand why you care when it's your money ( I care for mine as well). Why do you assume that others have your standard of rationality/care for their money as you do?

 

If somebody expressed a reason to the effect of "I don't care about wasting money" I would accept that that person was just picking something, more or less, at random- though the fact of them not caring about the money could be irrational in itself.

Aside from some obscenely rich people, or those who distinctly have more money than they want or need, that's not a typical attitude indicative of rationality.  If over spending in one area has the potential to result in an inadequacy in another, one that would cause concern, then it is irrational to waste money (that is, really wasting- meaning expending without reason or practical end to suit the expenditure).

There is one other category of potential logical exception, but I won't get into it as it's even more rare (and maybe even just theoretical, as I've never heard of it before).

People who don't fit into those rare exceptions and have limited funds, and who are wasteful with money, are behaving irrationally in their use of money if they don't care for it- so, the poor choice of item X inherits criticism of irrationality from the behavior the person has towards money if they don't fall under one of those extremely rare exceptions.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Blake wrote:jcgadfly wrote:I

Blake wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

I understand why you care when it's your money ( I care for mine as well). Why do you assume that others have your standard of rationality/care for their money as you do?

 

If somebody expressed a reason to the effect of "I don't care about wasting money" I would accept that that person was just picking something, more or less, at random- though the fact of them not caring about the money could be irrational in itself.

Aside from some obscenely rich people, or those who distinctly have more money than they want or need, that's not a typical attitude indicative of rationality.  If over spending in one area has the potential to result in an inadequacy in another, one that would cause concern, then it is irrational to waste money (that is, really wasting- meaning expending without reason or practical end to suit the expenditure).

There is one other category of potential logical exception, but I won't get into it as it's even more rare (and maybe even just theoretical, as I've never heard of it before).

People who don't fit into those rare exceptions and have limited funds, and who are wasteful with money, are behaving irrationally in their use of money if they don't care for it- so, the poor choice of item X inherits criticism of irrationality from the behavior the person has towards money if they don't fall under one of those extremely rare exceptions.

Instead of "I don't care about wasting money" how about "It's my money and I will do as I damn please with it. I'm buying what I want. Why should it bother you?"

Apologies for the typing - doc says I might have carpal tunnel - I've had the splint on for about 3 hours.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Instead of "I

jcgadfly wrote:

Instead of "I don't care about wasting money" how about "It's my money and I will do as I damn please with it. I'm buying what I want. Why should it bother you?"

 

That is an irrational response to criticism, and a red herring.  It doesn't matter why I care; the rationality or irrationality of the action stands independent of my motivations.

My motivation, if you care, is curiosity; I'm trying to evaluate human rationality.  In the case that this is a friend whom I know to have limited funds, then a secondary motivation might be to help said friend save money in ways he or she may not have thought of before.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Blake wrote:jcgadfly

Blake wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Instead of "I don't care about wasting money" how about "It's my money and I will do as I damn please with it. I'm buying what I want. Why should it bother you?"

 

That is an irrational response to criticism, and a red herring.  It doesn't matter why I care; the rationality or irrationality of the action stands independent of my motivations.

My motivation, if you care, is curiosity; I'm trying to evaluate human rationality.  In the case that this is a friend whom I know to have limited funds, then a secondary motivation might be to help said friend save money in ways he or she may not have thought of before.

Ah, so you are being the sole arbiter of rationality. Nice of you to finally admit it.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Ah, so you

jcgadfly wrote:

Ah, so you are being the sole arbiter of rationality. Nice of you to finally admit it.

 

What are you on about?

 

Whether something is absolutely rational or irrational is quite objective- that has nothing whatsoever to do with my opinion.  When two things are both irrational, however, which one of those things is more or less irrational is a subjective matter. 

It would be opinion, for example, to say that X religion is more rational and Y religion, wherein they both contain some element of objective irrationality.

It's like comparative possibility.  If something is logically possible or impossible, that is a matter of fact; once it verges into the realm of impossibility, though, it is mere opinion as to which is "more impossible"; the notion of something being more or less impossible is rather incoherent from an objective standpoint.

 

From an objective stance, once can only say that, taken as a whole, humans do not behave rationally in everything.  While one person may be rational in some facets of action, other facets may be irrational, and it is only opinion which can give weight to the significance of those various areas when action is taken as a whole.  Any particular action, however, taken in the appropriate context, can be judged rational or irrational in that context an an objective and qualitative way- it just can't be measured beyond the assertion of presence or absence without bringing in a subjective metric to do so.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Blake wrote:jcgadfly

Blake wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Ah, so you are being the sole arbiter of rationality. Nice of you to finally admit it.

 

What are you on about?

 

Whether something is absolutely rational or irrational is quite objective- that has nothing whatsoever to do with my opinion.  When two things are both irrational, however, which one of those things is more or less irrational is a subjective matter. 

It would be opinion, for example, to say that X religion is more rational and Y religion, wherein they both contain some element of objective irrationality.

It's like comparative possibility.  If something is logically possible or impossible, that is a matter of fact; once it verges into the realm of impossibility, though, it is mere opinion as to which is "more impossible"; the notion of something being more or less impossible is rather incoherent from an objective standpoint.

 

From an objective stance, once can only say that, taken as a whole, humans do not behave rationally in everything.  While one person may be rational in some facets of action, other facets may be irrational, and it is only opinion which can give weight to the significance of those various areas when action is taken as a whole.  Any particular action, however, taken in the appropriate context, can be judged rational or irrational in that context an an objective and qualitative way- it just can't be measured beyond the assertion of presence or absence without bringing in a subjective metric to do so.

Sorry, rationality is dependent on the mind involved.

For me, it's not rational to jump out of a airborne plane with a parachute on my back. Skydivers do it all the time. I can't say they're irrational.

For me, it's not rational to jump off a bridge attached to an elastic cord. I can't call bungee jumpers irrational.

You, however, have set yourself up as the sole judge of "rational". Forgive me if I don't bow to your wisdom.

Should I simply refer to you as the "Judge Dredd of 'Average'"? (thanks 2 gryphon)

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Sorry,

jcgadfly wrote:

Sorry, rationality is dependent on the mind involved.

 

I already explained this to you.  No, it is dependent on logic.  Only an evaluation of greater or lesser degrees of irrationality is subjective.

 

Quote:
For me, it's not rational to jump out of a airborne plane with a parachute on my back. Skydivers do it all the time. I can't say they're irrational.

For me, it's not rational to jump off a bridge attached to an elastic cord. I can't call bungee jumpers irrational.

 

You are completely failing to consider context.

 

If you are seeking to optimize pleasure and minimize pain, and you do not get more pleasure than pain out of an event, then it would be irrational to engage in that event without some reason associated with future gain.

It would be irrational for *you* to jump out of an airplane like that without any good reason- it's also irrational for them to jump out without a good reason.  The difference is that they DO have a good reason- they enjoy it.  As such, it's perfectly rational for them to jump out of airplanes, as a means to an end (entertainment).

Taken in a larger context, though, other factors come in- with too many variables to analyze- which will certainly turn up something irrational *eventually*.  That is why we can only very reliably examine very specific situations and tendencies with the context limited to those situations.

For example, the sky diver may in fact prefer scuba diving, and may have been able to get more enjoyment out of diving for the same cost or opportunity cost- but perhaps the sky diver chose sly diving because of some advertisement that biased his unconscious mind to chose it without critically evaluating the decision.

In that case, the act of sky diving wasn't irrational- but his choice of sky diving over scuba diving was.

Obviously, though, if he enjoyed sky diving more than scuba diving for the same cost or opportunity cost, then he made the rational choice in that matter.

We can keep expanding the scope to include more associated actions, and more variables- and as I said we will eventually come into something irrational if we "zoom out" far enough.  That is why we can only very reliably examine very specific situations and tendencies with the context limited to those situations- and that is exactly, and only, what I'm doing.

 

Quote:
You, however, have set yourself up as the sole judge of "rational". Forgive me if I don't bow to your wisdom.

 

I have done no such thing, and I strain to refrain from calling you an idiot at this point (after I have already explained this all quite clearly for you).  I think I'm doing pretty well at being patient with you considering how hard you're trying to antagonize me.  I'm *trying* to give you the benefit of the doubt here, and hoping that you'll be able to learn.


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:Kapkao wrote:cj

cj wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

cj wrote:
  Some is innate - some is environmental - some is ingrained in childhood. 

You owe me some bugspray for stealing my own words.


Blake: As I'm too lazy to analyze it any further or even finish my own damn sentences. I'll have to take a raincheck...

 

So I paraphrased it and not intentionally, we just happen to agree this time.  Big deal.

But if you insist....

Pssssssssssstttttttttttt.....................

 

1. What's the bugspray for?

2. I agree, it's terribly complicated.  I have a penchant for trying to do things that are more trouble than they're worth.

3. No problem Kapkao.  I'll just have to let you know when I invent my rationality meter; I imagine it as something of a price gun that reads out in overall rationality.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
"Is not!" "Is to!" Ad

"Is not!" "Is to!" Ad Infinitum  rears its ugly head on the internet again...

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Blake wrote:cj wrote:Kapkao

Blake wrote:

cj wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

cj wrote:
  Some is innate - some is environmental - some is ingrained in childhood. 

You owe me some bugspray for stealing my own words.


Blake: As I'm too lazy to analyze it any further or even finish my own damn sentences. I'll have to take a raincheck...

 

So I paraphrased it and not intentionally, we just happen to agree this time.  Big deal.

But if you insist....

Pssssssssssstttttttttttt.....................

 

1. What's the bugspray for?

2. I agree, it's terribly complicated.  I have a penchant for trying to do things that are more trouble than they're worth.

3. No problem Kapkao.  I'll just have to let you know when I invent my rationality meter; I imagine it as something of a price gun that reads out in overall rationality.

1. an old joke on cj's tendency to quip "eww! Bugspray" when something's bugging her

2. read the post just above mine

3. rationality is somewhat relative

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Jesus Christ people, if you

Jesus Christ people, if you don't like his water bottle example just pick something else to use in your own thought experiment.

-----------------------

I think it can be taught...however, I think most people are just content to live as is.  If, for example, people were suddenly in a situation where the had to be rational or someone would shoot them in the head, I'd say most people would be rational, or accept the education to become rational.  I you kept that up for a long enough time it would stick.

I don't have many anecdotes...most of the people who I have converted to rationality are still around, so I can't be sure if it is my influence still keeping them straight or not.

But since that is not the case, and since most people do just fine without rationality, there is no motivation.  To top it off, capitalism (and many other things) preys on irrationality.  But you know that already.

 

Nature vs. nurture is an interesting concept in regard to this topic.

 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Blake wrote:jcgadfly

Blake wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Sorry, rationality is dependent on the mind involved.

 

I already explained this to you.  No, it is dependent on logic.  Only an evaluation of greater or lesser degrees of irrationality is subjective.

 

Quote:
For me, it's not rational to jump out of a airborne plane with a parachute on my back. Skydivers do it all the time. I can't say they're irrational.

For me, it's not rational to jump off a bridge attached to an elastic cord. I can't call bungee jumpers irrational.

 

You are completely failing to consider context.

 

If you are seeking to optimize pleasure and minimize pain, and you do not get more pleasure than pain out of an event, then it would be irrational to engage in that event without some reason associated with future gain.

It would be irrational for *you* to jump out of an airplane like that without any good reason- it's also irrational for them to jump out without a good reason.  The difference is that they DO have a good reason- they enjoy it.  As such, it's perfectly rational for them to jump out of airplanes, as a means to an end (entertainment).

Taken in a larger context, though, other factors come in- with too many variables to analyze- which will certainly turn up something irrational *eventually*.  That is why we can only very reliably examine very specific situations and tendencies with the context limited to those situations.

For example, the sky diver may in fact prefer scuba diving, and may have been able to get more enjoyment out of diving for the same cost or opportunity cost- but perhaps the sky diver chose sly diving because of some advertisement that biased his unconscious mind to chose it without critically evaluating the decision.

In that case, the act of sky diving wasn't irrational- but his choice of sky diving over scuba diving was.

Obviously, though, if he enjoyed sky diving more than scuba diving for the same cost or opportunity cost, then he made the rational choice in that matter.

We can keep expanding the scope to include more associated actions, and more variables- and as I said we will eventually come into something irrational if we "zoom out" far enough.  That is why we can only very reliably examine very specific situations and tendencies with the context limited to those situations- and that is exactly, and only, what I'm doing.

 

Quote:
You, however, have set yourself up as the sole judge of "rational". Forgive me if I don't bow to your wisdom.

 

I have done no such thing, and I strain to refrain from calling you an idiot at this point (after I have already explained this all quite clearly for you).  I think I'm doing pretty well at being patient with you considering how hard you're trying to antagonize me.  I'm *trying* to give you the benefit of the doubt here, and hoping that you'll be able to learn.

Back at you. What I consider rational, you may not (given the context) With context added, rationality can't be absolute (unless you decide on a particular standard).

Call me an idiot if it makes you feel good - it's not like that's the worst thing I've ever been called.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
Jcgadfly,  *Context* is all

Jcgadfly,  *Context* is all I'm talking about; I suggest you re-read my posts on the subject.

 

Kapkao wrote:

1. an old joke on cj's tendency to quip "eww! Bugspray" when something's bugging her

2. read the post just above mine

3. rationality is somewhat relative

 

1. oh, alright.

2. ?

3. Rationality is relative to the conditions and circumstances, which include the core motivations or premises behind the actions- it is not relative in any absolute sense, though.  Given all of the information, it is a process of behaving in a logically consistent way in the context of the provided premises to reach the desired ends.

The rationality price gun was a joke, of course- there's almost no way it could pick up on all of those variables that might be present.

 

 

mellestad wrote:

I think it can be taught...however, I think most people are just content to live as is.  If, for example, people were suddenly in a situation where the had to be rational or someone would shoot them in the head, I'd say most people would be rational, or accept the education to become rational.  I you kept that up for a long enough time it would stick.

 

So, basically, I just need to put them in life and death situations regularly (or situations that they think are life and death) with rationality saving them, and they will grow to be more rational out of self preservation; it rubbing off in other areas of their lives.

Kind of like building up a positive association with rationality.  Rationality = saves my life.  Irrationality = death.

But then... they'd be rational for an irrational reason?  Ah well, can't win them all.

 

mellestad wrote:
But since that is not the case, and since most people do just fine without rationality, there is no motivation.  To top it off, capitalism (and many other things) preys on irrationality.  But you know that already.

Yeah, the commercial world really isn't helping at all.  All of these messy irrational memes and advertisements do a number on people, I'm sure.

 

mellestad wrote:
Nature vs. nurture is an interesting concept in regard to this topic.

 

It's really unfortunate that we can't experiment on human children more (nothing cruel, but it would be great to have some controlled upbringings to learn quite a bit more about this kind of psychology).

Maybe an animal model could help solve the problem.  Something like Skinner's pigeon superstition experiments; I could possibly use ravens (they may be intelligent enough to model the behavior). 

If there is a genetic predisposition to rationality or irrationality in other species of animals, it's almost certainly in humans too.  It might even be enough to see if there are any correlations to I.Q. and other personality traits.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
(ie "read my previous post

(ie "read my previous post just above this one&quotEye-wink

Quote:
3. Rationality is relative to the conditions and circumstances,

Nope, r0ng again. Rationality is relative to the person invoking it as a word

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote: Nope, r0ng

Kapkao wrote:

Nope, r0ng again. Rationality is relative to the person invoking it as a word

Only to the extent that all language is subject to the effects of idiocy and poor communication.  The words "two" and "bread" are also relative to who invokes them as words; if somebody says he or she wants "two bread", that person might just mean that he or she wants five cans of pinto beans.

Yes, if you break language and make everything meaningless, everything is relative to who says it.

 

I'm not quite ready to do that, so I'll have to disagree with your philosophy of the uselessness of words to communicate.

 

Merriam-Webster wrote:


Definition of IRRATIONAL
: not rational: as a

(1) : not endowed with reason or understanding

(2) : lacking usual or normal mental clarity or coherence b : not governed by or according to reason <irrational fears>


Synonyms: fallacious, illegitimate, inconsequent, inconsequential, invalid, illogical, nonrational, unreasonable[...]


Antonyms: logical, rational, reasonable[...]



Emphasis added.

Consider Rational and Reason:


Merriam-Webster wrote:


Definition of RATIONAL

1
a : having reason or understanding

b : relating to, based on, or agreeable to reason : reasonable <a rational explanation> <rational behavior>



Definition of REASON

1
a : a statement offered in explanation[...]
b : a rational ground or motive <a good reason to act soon>
c : a sufficient ground of explanation or of logical defense; [...]
d : the thing that makes some fact intelligible : [...]



Irrational and illogical are used synonymously and interchangeably for good reason.


Would you be one of the nutters who think logic is subjective too?  I didn't think you were...


Neither rationality, logic, irrationality, nor illogic are matters of opinion in their their binary sense- though they do depend on their premises, and in the case of rationality, the question is behavior and those premises involve the necessary human context.

Either the logic is sound given the premises, or it isn't.  Either the person's behavior is rational given the context, or it isn't.

Postulating a gradient of greater or lesser irrationality within the bounds or something that is strictly irrational is the only place you'll find legitimate opinion on the matter, and that's only because, objectively speaking, suggesting that there are different degrees of illogical is fallacious, and any seeming difference is just a matter of perception: the extent to which the illogical nature is obvious.

 


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
@Blake:Well, I imagine you

@Blake:

Well, I imagine you know I was just making a point.  Not everyone would need a life or death situation, I imagine the range of needed pressure would be on a sliding scale.  With proper controls you could probably get the same impact with very little pressure...just time and repetition.  I imagine if you sat someone at a computer console and had them answer thought problems all day with a small reward for each rational answer it might work for most people, given enough time.  Sort of like a game, slowly expanding the thought problems into different areas of their life.

 

Part of the problem is, even outside of the commercial world, our popular culture does not reward rationality.  Movies, books, games, TV...they often show irrational behavior as laudable.  The skeptic is often seen as a doubter, or a bad person.  Culture rewards many different things, but rationality is not usually a noble attribute.  Those in power tend to stress obedience, faith, loyalty, love...all to a degree that makes a person blind.  Maybe the ultimate solution is to make rationality sexy?  Perhaps the irony would cause an implosion though.

 

I agree, there are a lot of questions that could be answered if you could raise 50,000 kids in a controlled environment.

 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:@Blake:Well,

mellestad wrote:

@Blake:

Well, I imagine you know I was just making a point.

 

Naturally, and thanks for your comments; it's interesting.

 

How long do you think it would take, in general?  A computer game might be an interesting way to go about it; could be difficult to design though.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Blake wrote:mellestad

Blake wrote:

mellestad wrote:

@Blake:

Well, I imagine you know I was just making a point.

 

Naturally, and thanks for your comments; it's interesting.

 

How long do you think it would take, in general?  A computer game might be an interesting way to go about it; could be difficult to design though.

I have no idea.  You would need to test that in the original experiment.  Since this would probably be college kids you would need a few groups...a control, then in eight hour blocks, one days worth, one week, and then expand the timing as far as your budget allows with different groups.  Give them some sort of test before the trial, then follow up x amount of days after their conditioning.

 

If it doesn't work, add electro-shock, then loaded guns.

Edit:  Actually, I'm surprised no-one has ever done this.  I wouldn't be surprised if something similar has been done, it seems fairly obvious.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:Blake

mellestad wrote:

Blake wrote:

mellestad wrote:

@Blake:

Well, I imagine you know I was just making a point.

 

Naturally, and thanks for your comments; it's interesting.

 

How long do you think it would take, in general?  A computer game might be an interesting way to go about it; could be difficult to design though.

I have no idea.  You would need to test that in the original experiment.  Since this would probably be college kids you would need a few groups...a control, then in eight hour blocks, one days worth, one week, and then expand the timing as far as your budget allows with different groups.  Give them some sort of test before the trial, then follow up x amount of days after their conditioning.

 

If it doesn't work, add electro-shock, then loaded guns.

Edit:  Actually, I'm surprised no-one has ever done this.  I wouldn't be surprised if something similar has been done, it seems fairly obvious.

 

Michael Shermer did a sociological survey of college students that is sort of like this.  Test for beliefs before a college class that challenges their existing irrational beliefs, there was a slight shift to the more rational beliefs right after the class.  Test again just before graduation - back to the original irrational beliefs, very little stuck.  Can't remember the title of which book of his I read this in just now - apologies.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:Michael Shermer did

cj wrote:

Michael Shermer did a sociological survey of college students that is sort of like this.  Test for beliefs before a college class that challenges their existing irrational beliefs, there was a slight shift to the more rational beliefs right after the class.  Test again just before graduation - back to the original irrational beliefs, very little stuck.  Can't remember the title of which book of his I read this in just now - apologies.

 

Ah, yeah, you mentioned that one once before.

 

I guess it just comes down to, more or less, not relying on teaching anybody to be more rational in the short term.  It's either a very, very long-term gig, or one just has to find rational people.

The trouble is, how does one find rational people?

 

In China, I find it exceedingly difficult, since almost everybody believes more or less the same thing and religion is extremely rare- hard to get the rational ones to stand out.  By far, I would say the population is much less annoying, but rational people are like needles in a stack of... a slightly different kind of needle?  Superficially, it's very hard to tell the difference.

I think maybe religion almost does us a favor there, in helping to sort out who's slightly more likely than not to be more rational.

 

I do like China- it's safe, cheap, and the average person is less annoying to me by at least an order of magnitude.  Seems like a large Western city might have more rational people seeking out each other and forming groups for the very reason that most people are extremely irritating, though.

I've lived in Portland (Oregon) and Vancouver (Canada)- two cities that are largely full of fruit loops (sorry cj, I'm sure you aren't one of them Eye-wink )- and there are some small atheist and free thinking groups, but the they are both kind of small (I can meet everybody who attends any kind of meet-up like that regularly in a couple weeks).

I'm thinking about New York City, maybe?  There seem to be a few more people there.  The sheer volume of people there might at least allow me to be more experimental.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Blake wrote:I've lived in

Blake wrote:

I've lived in Portland (Oregon) and Vancouver (Canada)- two cities that are largely full of fruit loops (sorry cj, I'm sure you aren't one of them Eye-wink )- and there are some small atheist and free thinking groups, but the they are both kind of small (I can meet everybody who attends any kind of meet-up like that regularly in a couple weeks).

I'm thinking about New York City, maybe?  There seem to be a few more people there.  The sheer volume of people there might at least allow me to be more experimental.

 

I don't know - I sort of stand out because I'm not an obvious fruit loop.  You have to hang around for awhile before you get my brand of fruitiness.

The problem with groups of like minded people is I am not a joiner.  Going to meetings of any kind is a hassle for me.  I hate socializing anymore.

Once had a guy from NYC move to Portland and was working in IT where I was also working at the time.  He moved back to NYC, said he couldn't stand us westerners.  Said we were all nice and polite but no one would go drinking with him after work.  No one would socialize.  Thinking about it, it's true.  I don't get buddy-buddy with my neighbors or my co-workers.  We go home and we keep to ourselves.  So do my neighbors.  I have a few friends I hang with occasionally.  The other day three of them came to visit one on the heels of another and I left the house.  Literally before the last one showed up.  I let my husband do the honors.

Even the big mega churches.  People around here contribute to the fund, and those monstrous buildings are built, but then they don't show up for services.  Hugh parking lots and hardly any people on Sunday unless it is Easter or Christmas.  So I think it may be that the NYC atheists groups are a lot more active than any you found around here.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:The problem with

cj wrote:

The problem with groups of like minded people is I am not a joiner.  Going to meetings of any kind is a hassle for me.  I hate socializing anymore.

 

I'm not much of a joiner either, but I have to meet some people I can stand and who will likewise put up with me eventually or I'll end up old and alone, rather than young and alone.

 

cj wrote:
Once had a guy from NYC move to Portland and was working in IT where I was also working at the time.  He moved back to NYC, said he couldn't stand us westerners.  Said we were all nice and polite but no one would go drinking with him after work.  No one would socialize.  Thinking about it, it's true.  I don't get buddy-buddy with my neighbors or my co-workers.  We go home and we keep to ourselves.  So do my neighbors.

 

That's really useful to know, and actually explains quite a bit that I found strange about Portland, thanks cj!

 

cj wrote:
So I think it may be that the NYC atheists groups are a lot more active than any you found around here.

 

It would be hard to imagine they wouldn't be- Portland was pretty much the least active place I've ever been to.  I only ever met less than a half a dozen in the city.  The next closest group was way out in Beaverton when I was there, and was still pretty small.

 

At least, this seems promising:   http://nyc-atheists.org/


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Blake wrote: Kapkao wrote:

Blake wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

Nope, r0ng again. Rationality is relative to the person invoking it as a word

Only to the extent that all language is subject to the effects of idiocy and poor communication.  The words "two" and "bread" are also relative to who invokes them as words; if somebody says he or she wants "two bread", that person might just mean that he or she wants five cans of pinto beans.

Yes, if you break language and make everything meaningless, everything is relative to who says it.

 

I'm not quite ready to do that, so I'll have to disagree with your philosophy of the uselessness of words to communicate.

I can use dictionaries as well:

Quote:

sub·jec·tive

1.existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought ( opposed to objective).
2.pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation.

3. placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions

The definition of "rationality" does not lie on a definite (objective and measurable) absolute, despite you wanting to believe otherwise. It is a generic, criteria-free descriptor. If you have specific criteria to illustrate otherwise, do share. I somehow doubt you do.

Quote:
Irrational and illogical are used synonymously and interchangeably for good reason.

It's funny you bring up 'logic' as well, because (in the way you are using it, as an adjective) it is also subjective to the person invoking it.

Quote:
Neither rationality, logic, irrationality, nor illogic are matters of opinion in their their binary sense- though they do depend on their premises, and in the case of rationality, the question is behavior and those premises involve the necessary human context.

Except in the absence of definite, quantitative criteria, they are precisely matters of opinion. In fact, most qualities of the mind are simply matters of opinion. All of the arm-flailing and fist-wringing in the world won't change that.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:It is a

Kapkao wrote:
It is a generic, criteria-free descriptor. If you have

specific

criteria to illustrate otherwise, do share. [...]

It's funny you bring up 'logic' as well, because (in the way you are using it, as an adjective) it is also subjective to the person invoking it.

 

I see the problem here.  No, there are specific, objective criteria.  Logical indicates merely internal consistency (internal, being whatever system we evaluate; depending on where one draws the lines, one can get different conclusions- that is, how far back do we go in analyzing and demanding justification for premises?); reason and rationality inherit from that.  That's why a certain action can be rational or irrational, given a confined subset of circumstances and mental factors (premises)- taken as a whole, if we go back and dissect every premise, one is almost inevitably going to find some hiccups or inconsistencies in a large enough human system.  That's why I said humans, as a whole, would measure irrational, but certain confined incidents of action could be evaluated as rational or irrational given the emotional premises in the situation.