Thread: Pinning down rationality

First off, awesome thread!!

I remember a talk, I believe it was TED, in which rationality was explained from different viewpoints
on the example of teens actually being more rational in decision-making then adults, considering their
standpoint and how they reach the conclusions to their actions.

I also believe that to distinguish between rational belief and rational behavior is essential.
Also I agree with your dissection of the two.

But it's also important to note, without moral judgement of its value, that a rational choice does not
have to be the right one, either because off winning against the odds, subjective gain or unforseeable
events that change the situation and outcome, or our own inability to grasp all factors.

b), which concerns behavior, can be unpacked in a similar way. If I smoke cigarettes, but I value my health and believe that cigarettes harm my health, then it is irrational for me to smoke cigarettes. To become rational I can stop smoking, discard my belief that cigarette smoke is harmful, or stop valuing my health.

Just to adress the point with the cigarettes, you disregard addiction.

Rationality becomes very different in the light of physical conditions.
(Specifically addiction might have been in that same TED talk, or I saw somewhere else)

Now to the questions:

Do humans generally think and behave rationally or irrationally? If it's somewhere in between, when are we rational and when are we irrational?

It's probably true that most humans think they think and behave, and therefore decide, rationally.
To this I already made a thread (and I already started reading the papers - now I have more time),
which argues that this is mainly not true. Even though these points are rather based on irrational
belief or irrational evaluation of ones own capabilties - meaning the irrationality is unintended.

So, what might be more to the question, do people act irrational inspite of knowing better?
I would argue that this frequently is the case also. Human emotion, needs or hope cloud our
judgement often enough, even though we might know better. If everyone were to reflect on
their choices, I'm sure many would reconsider.

We are rational, when we act in accordance to our own belief system (which in itself needs to be
at least somewhat rational or has not been repeatedly disproven) in a logical way. But what I think is
even more important is the rational behavior that grows out of the individual's set of needs and
perspective. And keeping in mind that it might often be irrational, but nonetheless right to do sth.

I'd like to add that I think it's always rational to consider that ones beliefs, however rational they
might seem, might be also irrational or just plain untrue.

What is the role of emotions in rationality? Does emotion help or hinder us in achieving rationality? Or is the question of emotions irrelevant?

Emotion is not irrelevant, if only because of its important influence on everything.

Emotion doesn't help nor hinder us in achieving rationality, the same way rationality doesn't
help nor hinder us in achieving or enjoying emotion. They very well might; combining the two
might even appear like combining relativity with quantum mechanics, mainly because the subjective
value is impossible to grasp. Although in this context, emotion might as well be called subjectivity.

In my opinion, they actually go quite well together.

Is it rational or irrational to value events that happen in the present more than those same events if they were to occur in the future? In other words, to what extent should we rationally be concerned about the welfare of our future selves relative to our present selves?

That's a good question.

My personal belief, however rational it may be, is that it is the moment that counts, even though I
must admit that I am not always rationally living up to this philosophy. If it comes down to it, both
is needed. Planning for the future is different from worrying about the future and the further into the
future the planning goes, the more irrational it gets, since unforseeable events are to be rationally
expected to happen.

Is logical consistency a necessary condition for rationality? Is it a sufficient condition?

Hm, in my understanding, logical consistency is a necessity for rationality.

Is it a sufficient condition? I don't know, sometimes maybe yes, sometimes maybe no.

Is is necessary for our beliefs about the world to correspond with objective reality? (Assuming that it is possible for us to know objective reality... let's save that discussion for another day.)

Well, I woud argue that it isn't, since, even if there was an objective reality, at the time,
we have no idea what it may be. I don't intend to go into the possibility of knowing
objective reality, or wether it exists, but I do think it's safe to say that what most of
us accept as the objective reality is only part of the story.

But all we have is that, so I think it is at least necessary to consider it thoroughly.

(As adressed a little further down, I do think we are bonded to our zeitgeist)

Referring to the earlier distinction between beliefs, values, and attitudes: can values and/or attitudes be irrational?

They can be rational to some, while irrational to others.

To be truly rational is a very difficult or moreso an impossible project.

I suppose that people that have unchangebale beliefs already know their own irrationality,
since it is often argued that science is just as flawed (which might be true) and tries to deflect.

If a certain act or belief ultimately benefits a person, is that alone sufficient to call that act or belief rational? Or is it necessary for the chosen act or belief to be the best possible for the actor in terms of expected value? In other words, if there are two choices A and B, and A has the higher expected value according to the judge's personal knowledge, but in fact B will ultimately benefit the judge more if chosen, which is the more rational choice?

This is one of those cases in which you have to ask rational for whom.

In my moral construct it is not rational, but who is to say that morality has any say here.

Ones own rational vs the the group? Again, rational for whom? (Which is my point)

Any of the things we experience, as rational as we make them out to be, are still in a way decoded
through our senses - we can't perceive otherwise. Therefore the perception is a crucial point. While
someone acts rationally in that instance, it might have been irrationaly out of an outside perspective.

That is why I think we sometimes (often, always?) have to take a step back and question our rational.

Are the tenets of rationality universal or are they culturally and historically relative?

This also depends. It's rational to assume that they can only be as advanced as the rational
(meaning scientific) progress. A simple thought experiment might be that it would be irrational
to think we know everything, so therefore our concept of it is tied to what we have figured out
so far. We know that we have to keep searching, but from time to time, we also need to make
decisions. Therefore it is undoubtedly related to culture and the historical status quo.

Does it matter whether people are strictly rational or not? How hard should we work to make our beliefs and decisions conform with rationality?

Belief only matters if people act on what they believe. As long as the morals of a belief system are
in accordance with those of the "universal, rational consensus" *cough* it doesn't make a difference.

And in my opinion, diversity is what makes everything wonderful and interesting. Everyone should
work hard to conform their beliefs to their personal rational, in addition to living in the now and
being emotionally, subjectively fulfilled, but that's as far as it goes. I believe we should be true to
ourselves, but as soon as we pass the line to applying (or forcing) rationality (or anything, really)
on others, it looses its objective features.

It is written that someday some one would be sent to cast the truth to the ground. It is written of in different ways, of course, repeated several times in the text. Would such an event itself be needed if man knew what rationality was? Knew what the foundation of language was? It signifies a turning point in history, a turning point in language and human psychology.
But first, let us look at this word rational and try to understand what it really mans. Numbers are no more than names in arithmet6ic grammar. A process is irrational when one cannot derive a name by the conventions of that grammar for some thing. Does one know how many fundamental branches of grammar there are? Set Theory should give one a clue.

The human mind is that environmental acquisition system which must acquire experience and construct with those experiences human behavior such that that behavior maintains and promotes the life of the body. It does so using the only two fundamental logic systems available. Some early Greeks discovered this, and were working on a Two-Element Metaphysics. Some, like Plato, believed correctly, that it was not possible to be rational when one did not know the fundamentals of grammar, and could not thus even distinguish what he said was true or false.

However, by biological definition, if an environmental acquisition system is not doing its job, the body will fail to acquire the life maintained by that system. Man's eyes are still closed, his mind is not yet awake. Emotions are a relatiologic, common grammar is a tautologic. A formal system, even for the human mind, is when you say the same thing in each of the fundamental logic systems.

Interesting thread. I'll try to provide some commentary but unfortunately it is getting late here, so it won't be as deep as I would like.

Originally Posted by DuB

Do humans generally think and behave rationally or irrationally? If it's somewhere in between, when are we rational and when are we irrational?

Most people do not behave rationally in my experience, or at the very least are very easy to manipulate in to behaving in an irrational manner. But I would say most people fall in the middle, showing some instances of rationality, and some instances of complete irrationality.

Very few people are completely irrational, and likewise very few people are completely rational. (Though one should note that behaving in a completely rational manner might well have several negative side-effects socially; e.g. a person might be labelled as cold for not caring about emotion. Ironically, acting too rational can actually be an irrational decision!)

What is the role of emotions in rationality? Does emotion help or hinder us in achieving rationality? Or is the question of emotions irrelevant?

I think emotions do not help us to make rational decisions in any way; they are relatively primitive ways of making a decision and are superseded by reason. For instance, let us take the emotion fear.

Fear is an emotion designed to protect us, by making us avoid potentially bad situations in the first place, or escape from them if we are caught up in one. However, this reaction is an instinct, and thus can easily misfire. For example, many people are fearful of speaking in public; this is an irrational fear, and only by use of reason can we analyse the situation and judge that the emotional reaction is misfiring here.

What emotional reactions do have the advantage of however is time. Time which might not be available in a real situation.

Is it rational or irrational to value events that happen in the present more than those same events if they were to occur in the future? In other words, to what extent should we rationally be concerned about the welfare of our future selves relative to our present selves?

Depends on what you're likely to get in the future verses if you act now, and the various consequences of doing so. If I procrastinate by playing video games to avoid doing work, then I end up suffering additional negative effects such as stress and anxiety from not having done the work; completing it first and getting it out the way is the rational choice here.

However, if the situation will be no different to me for having waited, then it's rational to act now. For example if someone offers me a chocolate bar now or in 10 minutes time. We will assume I desire the chocolate bar equally now as in 10 minutes time, and that delaying my choice for 10 minutes does not cause any other effects on me (no hunger, distractions from wanting the chocolate bar etc).

The rational choice would be to have the chocolate bar now assuming everything else is equal, simply because I can be sure I can eat it now. By delaying the decision, something could come up that then interferes with this. For instance, the person might withdraw their offer and eat the bar themselves. Everything else being equal, I can always be more certain of results now rather than results in the future.

Is logical consistency a necessary condition for rationality? Is it a sufficient condition?

Generally yes. However if being threatened by an irrational actor then it might well be the most logical decision to act in a manner that would otherwise be described as illogical.

Is is necessary for our beliefs about the world to correspond with objective reality? (Assuming that it is possible for us to know objective reality... let's save that discussion for another day.)

It's not necessary, but it should be highly desirable; the more accurately our beliefs correspond to reality, the less likely we are to make mistakes.

can values and/or attitudes be irrational?

Certainly.

If a certain act or belief ultimately benefits a person, is that alone sufficient to call that act or belief rational? Or is it necessary for the chosen act or belief to be the best possible for the actor in terms of expected value? In other words, if there are two choices A and B, and A has the higher expected value according to the judge's personal knowledge, but in fact B will ultimately benefit the judge more if chosen, which is the more rational choice?

At face value, the rational choice based on the judge's perspective is to pick option A. However, you would need to factor in the risk/reward of choosing A over B, and the opportunity cost of investigating the matter further. There is also the factor of how the judge came to obtain the knowledge that points them in a certain direction; that knowledge might well be unreliable. The level of certainty in the position is important.

Are the tenets of rationality universal or are they culturally and historically relative?

I would say they are universal, but that historical/cultural facts that we may not be aware of might also be playing a role. Thus what might appear to be irrational is actually the most rational choice given the full picture.

Does it matter whether people are strictly rational or not? How hard should we work to make our beliefs and decisions conform with rationality?

It is important in societies where most people are interconnected, which is to say most modern societies, because people acting in an irrational manner generally impacts others as well.

I think rationality is about applying what's best in a situation; if someone's sad (like your friend) you may be considered doing something irrational if you give them the cold shoulder. However, you may be considered doing something ratinol if you say 'no' to that stranger on the street who seems to be a rapist. Sometimes, to pick the most ratinol decision, logical choices must be made, and sometimes strong emotions can make it difficult or impossible to logically decide.

I think so-called 'common sense' is about rationtaly. And some people will be more ratinol than others, but no one is 100% of either.

Originally Posted by hgld1234

I think rationality is about applying what's best in a situation;.

That is exactly right, the next question is how is it achieved? How do you know when what you think is sense or non-sense? Knowing which path to take, is not the same as walking the path.

Sometimes pissing someone off is even the right thing to do.

The human mind processes information via languages. I believe that for every human body acquisition system, and sense system, there is a langauge to learn and understand. First however, is an idea very old, all language systems have the same foundation based on simple physical fact.

My personal project is to determine if lucid dreaming itself is a sense, an environmental acquistion system component, or just non-sense.

I'm so rational, I'm irrational!

Sometimes pissing someone off is even the right thing to do.

Not with a friend.

That is exactly right, the next question is how is it achieved? How do you know when what you think is sense or non-sense? Knowing which path to take, is not the same as walking the path.

By simply deciding to do that action, you act in that way. As for thinking what is sense and what isn't, I can't really say that, as everyone has a different idea of rationality. There are some things which are generally agreed to be ratinol or irranatinol though. And yes, knowing the right way won't lead to walking it, but once someone knows the right way, it'll be easier to act the ratinol way.

The human mind processes information via languages. I believe that for every human body acquisition system, and sense system, there is a langauge to learn and understand. First however, is an idea very old, all language systems have the same foundation based on simple physical fact.

My personal project is to determine if lucid dreaming itself is a sense, an environmental acquistion system component, or just non-sense.

And that has got something to do with the topic how…

Seriously, though, I can't see any links between that and the topic. Tell me if I'm wrong.