How rational are you?

[Augustus]

Is it a tautology though? To have a technical discussion one requires terms with precise meanings. The word “belief” is a squishy word. In common usage it can be used to reference a conclusion held to be fact, a conclusion held within some range of confidence, or it can reference a guess. In discourse, if one wants to refer to the subset of positions within the set of all positions described above that meets the criteria of having been reasoned from high quality evidence, they assign a label to it. I assigned the label “belief” to a narrow subset of all possible positions or conclusion types and then used that to contrast with other subcategories.

"Unless of course for that individual a position considered rational and based on high quality evidence defined belief"

The way I read that, it would be the same as saying "All my beliefs are rational because if they are not rational and based on HQ evidence they aren't beliefs but something else" which would be a tautology.

But maybe I understood it differently to your intention?

For me it's still problematic as all of these require judgements: is evidence quality? sufficient? Could I have made any errors in processing it? etc.

If that is not in keeping with the spirit and intent of the OP I apologize. Is there a better label I should have used to refer to that set of positions arrived through reason upon high quality evidence? I thought my comment was appropriate as a tool to highlight the squishiness everyday words can have and we cannot simply assume in such cases where people are falling in the spectrum of usages.

No problem, the question is very much about self-perception and the term rational is very subjective too as it could focus on "objective factuality" or perceived utility or something else as the defining factor.

There is no right or wrong as such.

For me belief is just something you take to be true/false or act as if it were true/false, even if you are far from certain it is or will turn out to be true, but others may differ.

I would also ask whether you think a reasoned conclusion can be wrong or can a conclusion only be considered reasoned if it is in fact a correct conclusion. In the scenario regarding your wife, I would say that the conclusion that your wife loves you can be considered to be reason well or correctly even if it turns out she did not, in fact love you. Aside from the fact that people change their minds, sometimes high quality evidence can be fabricated to elicit a desired conclusion. So, if you are a millionaire and your wife was a “gold-digger” who provided all the appropriate signals of a loving and devoted wife, I think most would agree that your conclusion that she loved you qualified as a reasoned one, up to the point the charade ended and you received the divorce papers.

I certainly think it is rational to assume my wife loves me, even if it later turned out to be wrong.

But often it's only when we find out we are wrong we realise why we were being irrational at that time.

Many beliefs I thought I held rationally turned out to be because I'd not looked at enough evidence and/or the evidence I'd looked at was flawed/biased. But at the time, I was convinced there was an overwhelming preponderance of evidence on my side. Even the idea I could be wrong was preposterous because "everybody knows that..." and lots of people who thought the same as me reassured me that I was right.

Which is why I don't think we can always trust our own judgement on whether our own beliefs are rational.

Although, in general, I do definitely agree that being wrong about something doesn't necessarily mean it was irrational to believe it at the time.

Certainly we have discussed this in the past. And this is a great example of a complex issue with a huge fact set (the activity of Homo Sapiens over the last 200,000 years) and the difficulty of forming objective opinions regarding that huge fact set when we are first and foremost flawed and fallible creatures, as well as thoroughly socialized and indoctrinated into one sub-culture in one miniscule timespan slice. Can a member of this species flawlessly apply reason to this immense fact set and draw infallible conclusions on their own? I would say no, of course not. Is it at all possible to mitigate the flaws and fallibility inherent in every individual? I would say definitely.

If mitigation is possible, then the hope for reason is not lost. The limitation to be only able to mitigate simply means that reason does its work incrementally, not in one fell swoop. If we can document this incremental work then it would seem appropriate to describe the accumulated work product as progress.

So, how are we to judge? Is a complete lack of confidence in reason or a long term confidence in reason the more reasoned conclusion? What might we imagine the conclusion to be of a visiting alien of superior reasoning ability?

For me technology and knowledge increase, but human rationality and morality stay the same as these are products of our genetic makeup. Technologies don't change us as we simply shape them to our nature.

We may know more and be able to do more things, but we don't really change under the skin. Sometimes we do better for a while, then we do worse for a while. It doesn't mean we can't make improvements, but we just shouldn't expect them to last.

We can create systems that temper our worst instincts, but this only last for as long as the systems do and things change faster than we understand them. Attempts to control things often makes them worse, and what took 200 years to build can be lost in an afternoon. Sooner or later, people just want change.

For me the alien would say that imagining reason can save you presupposes you are rational in the first place. Your species is far less intelligent than it thinks it is, so use whatever reason you have to build systems that are more robust against human irrationality. Certainly don't make plans that assume you will become more reasonable in the future. You're too quarrelsome to ever get along well, so aim for a world where you minimise the chances of your mutual antipathy to turn violent. Expect the worst, and you might just postpone it a while longer.

(I imagine all super intelligent aliens would think like me )

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

'The vast majority of my beliefs are rational and based on high quality evidence' got my vote.​

And I believe a lot of 'out there' stuff in the paranormal, spiritual, alien and crypto realms. The evidence and its quality are vastly underrated in my opinion as society holds mainstream science as a Demi-God which has a materialist bent and is uncomfortable with those subjects I mentioned.

In light of all the paranormal encounters I've had over the past 43 years of my life, I completely agree with you. I firmly believe that there are supernatural occurrences that conventional science cannot rationally explain and refute, nor can any holy texts (like the Bible, for instance), nor any form of religious dogma. I've spent the last 15 and a half years investigating and researching the paranormal, and despite all the sophisticated, cutting-edge ghost-hunting equipment that I use, there are still some paranormal encounters that I am unable to properly document because they happen so quickly and end just as quickly as they begin. Lastly, as I mentioned in a previous post (read it here), belief in the paranormal is becoming more common in our modern society, which I view as a positive improvement given my abilities. I can be more open about my mediumship instead of always hiding in the shadows as I used to.

 

[JDMS]

I'm a bit confused by some of the discussion in this thread, perhaps because I'm directly referencing dictionary definitions of both "rationality" and "logic", whereas some people here seem to be stretching the meaning of rationality. The definition of rationality doesn't tackle the concept of what the desired or expected result of rationality is... there is no posted goal or expectation. It's not about increased survival, increased happiness, or anything. It's really not that complex at all, unless you randomly ascribe attributes to it like that, when there's no reason to.

Something is "rational" if it's based on logic, and logic is the quality of being justified by reason. That's it. Multiple things can be logical at once.

If I hand you a map with five different routes to a specific destination that you'd like to get to, and tell you to choose one (without specifying, "choose the fastest", "choose the safest", etc), you might pick different routes, all using logic.

You may rationally choose route #2 after using reason and the geographical information given to determine that this route is the fastest and most direct path to the destination, with the lowest chance of getting turned around.

Or, you could also rationally make the decision to take route #4, because it is only a half-mile longer, and doesn't involve crossing a busy road that may be potentially dangerous, given that you are a careful person.

These are both rational decisions, despite being personalized. Because, guess what? The definition of "rational" doesn't specify anything about the result of using said rationale. It doesn't say that the result is you'll get there faster or safer, or even whether something is true.

It's literally just about whether the idea, opinion, decision, etc. was based on thought, consideration, evidence, and so on.

 

[Augustus]

“Something like 90 to 95% of our decisions and behaviors are constantly being shaped non-consciously by the emotional brain system.”
Feelings First: How Emotion Shapes Our Communication, Decisions, and Experiences

That closer to what I thought. Seems we are actually more rational while making purchase decisions.

Ok, what do you got?

I agree that most things we do are not based on a rational consideration of the evidence, no idea about the exact % though.

It's possible you can make 90% or decisions "irrationally" but that your total number of beliefs are much more rational on the whole. I can make 100 errors on the same thing, but once I get it right it may stay with me (even subconsciously).

Also decisions don't necessarily relate to beliefs, and we make many more decisions than beliefs we hold.

 

[Augustus]

I'm a bit confused by some of the discussion in this thread, perhaps because I'm directly referencing dictionary definitions of both "rationality" and "logic", whereas some people here seem to be stretching the meaning of rationality. The definition of rationality doesn't tackle the concept of what the desired or expected result of rationality is... there is no posted goal or expectation. It's not about increased survival, increased happiness, or anything. It's really not that complex at all, unless you randomly ascribe attributes to it like that, when there's no reason to.

Humans like to make things complicated and language can point to many things - a variety of views are presented here:

Rationality - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Heyo]

“Something like 90 to 95% of our decisions and behaviors are constantly being shaped non-consciously by the emotional brain system.”
Feelings First: How Emotion Shapes Our Communication, Decisions, and Experiences

That closer to what I thought. Seems we are actually more rational while making purchase decisions.

Ok, what do you got?

How long do you think about a purchase?
I agree with at least 95% of my decisions to be irrational, probably more. Some, like smoking, are even against better knowledge not just mere ignorance.
I make those rash decisions because most of them aren't worth thinking about more than a few seconds and false decisions are usually of little consequence.

How long do you think about your beliefs, philosophical, theological, scientifically?
When I have come to conclusion about a belief after studying it for years, I'm pretty sure that conclusion is rational.

 

[JDMS]

How long do you think about a purchase?
I agree with at least 95% of my decisions to be irrational, probably more. Some, like smoking, are even against better knowledge not just mere ignorance.
I make those rash decisions because most of them aren't worth thinking about more than a few seconds and false decisions are usually of little consequence.

How long do you think about your beliefs, philosophical, theological, scientifically?
When I have come to conclusion about a belief after studying it for years, I'm pretty sure that conclusion is rational.

I feel the same way. I'm also curious about what counts as a "decision or behavior", considering that the majority of people will think through any decision that would be worth recording in a daily journal of your activities. For example, deciding which route to take when you drive, deciding what you want to eat for any given meal, etc.... I'm pretty sure most people consider these things before doing them, so unless these people are including random actions like touching your face or bobbing your leg while you sit, than 95% seems like a major overestimation to me.

But I guess I should probably read it first to know the answer to those questions

 

[MikeF]

“Something like 90 to 95% of our decisions and behaviors are constantly being shaped non-consciously by the emotional brain system.”
Feelings First: How Emotion Shapes Our Communication, Decisions, and Experiences

That closer to what I thought. Seems we are actually more rational while making purchase decisions.

Ok, what do you got?

Only my caution and subjective experience that these two references do not fully explain the topic of reason.

In your latest reference, we have this from the expert being interviewed:

Baba Shiv: Yeah, the fundamental premise, this is based in all the evidence out there​

that most of human decisions and human behaviors are shaped by emotion and not by​

reason. And then, if you ask me to put a number to this based on all the evidence out​

there I would conjecture something like 90 to 95 percent of our decisions, our behaviors​

are constantly being shaped non-consciously by emotional brain system.​

Feelings First: How Emotion Shapes Our Communication, Decisions, and Experiences​

Here he is speaking specifically about decisions. Do you consider the word decision to be synonymous with belief? Shiv’s use of “decisions” synonymous with the OP’s use of “belief”?

Also notices that he dramatically qualifies the numbers he is throwing out by calling them a conjecture. Hardly sufficient for us to make our own reasoned conclusion on his claims, wouldn’t you agree?

If we lump decisions and beliefs together in one big pot, where little insignificant decisions about everyday things add up to the hundreds per day, millions in a year, his numbers may be reasonable because the vast majority of decisions we make don’t rise to the level of a life directing and influencing event, a life affecting belief.

Again from Shiv:

Baba Shiv: And then, we fail to recognize that the rational bit accounts for only about five to 10 percent of human decisions.​

So, when our OP asks us to think about rational belief, is he zeroing in on this subset of 5-10% of decisions such that the emotional component referenced in the headline here doesn’t really apply to what we are talking about?

To my mind, these are things to think about, and must be wary of taking headline numbers at their apparent face value.

 

[Valjean]

Scientists have studied this question for decades, using a variety of different methods. Gallup's own research has found that about 70% of decisions are based on emotional factors and only 30% are based on rational factors.
Customer Brand Preference and Decisions: Gallup's 70/30 Principle

Well, 30% is higher than I would have expected.

Which is why a major goal of education should be to create intellectuals; the rational 30%.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Which is why a major goal of education should be to create intellectuals; the rational 30%.

As long as you understand that even rational has a limit.

 

[Nakosis]

Only my caution and subjective experience that these two references do not fully explain the topic of reason.

In your latest reference, we have this from the expert being interviewed:

Baba Shiv: Yeah, the fundamental premise, this is based in all the evidence out there​

that most of human decisions and human behaviors are shaped by emotion and not by​

reason. And then, if you ask me to put a number to this based on all the evidence out​

there I would conjecture something like 90 to 95 percent of our decisions, our behaviors​

are constantly being shaped non-consciously by emotional brain system.​

Feelings First: How Emotion Shapes Our Communication, Decisions, and Experiences​

Here he is speaking specifically about decisions. Do you consider the word decision to be synonymous with belief? Shiv’s use of “decisions” synonymous with the OP’s use of “belief”?

Also notices that he dramatically qualifies the numbers he is throwing out by calling them a conjecture. Hardly sufficient for us to make our own reasoned conclusion on his claims, wouldn’t you agree?

If we lump decisions and beliefs together in one big pot, where little insignificant decisions about everyday things add up to the hundreds per day, millions in a year, his numbers may be reasonable because the vast majority of decisions we make don’t rise to the level of a life directing and influencing event, a life affecting belief.

Again from Shiv:

Baba Shiv: And then, we fail to recognize that the rational bit accounts for only about five to 10 percent of human decisions.​

So, when our OP asks us to think about rational belief, is he zeroing in on this subset of 5-10% of decisions such that the emotional component referenced in the headline here doesn’t really apply to what we are talking about?

To my mind, these are things to think about, and must be wary of taking headline numbers at their apparent face value.

Then do you think beliefs or more are less rational and based on what?

 

[Shaul]

The pedantic in me objects to the phrasing of the poll. It conflates reasoning with evidentiary proof or empiricism. They are different things.

 

[Nakosis]

Which is why a major goal of education should be to create intellectuals; the rational 30%.

I recall a story about one guy who decided he was going to create an intellectual and used his daughter as the guinea pig. Homed schooled her. Allowed her to only listen to classical music.
So she turned out having a very hi IQ. Very intelligent but claimed to be very unhappy with her life. He neglected her emotional development.
Also there have been folks who after suffering brain damage to the emotional area of the brain find they are unable to make decisions.

We are emotional creatures motivated by emotions. Our feelings provide the reason to act. Computers don't rely on feeling and probably make the better decisions. I don't know that making the rational decision all of the time actually makes the experience of life better.

 

[MikeF]

"Unless of course for that individual a position considered rational and based on high quality evidence defined belief"

The way I read that, it would be the same as saying "All my beliefs are rational because if they are not rational and based on HQ evidence they aren't beliefs but something else" which would be a tautology.

But maybe I understood it differently to your intention?

I feel my intent is different. Keep in mind I am attaching a narrower definition to the label “belief” than you are using in the OP, where the OP I believe is equating “belief” with all opinions regardless of level of evidence or applied reason.

“All my beliefs are opinions formed with reason and high quality evidence and are therefore rational. All my working hypotheses are opinions formed with reason and varying degrees of quantity and quality of evidence and are only held with the degree of confidence commensurate with the quantity and quality of evidence and are therefore rational. All my guesses are decisions that may or may not attempt to use some reason in their determination and use little to no evidence and are held with no degree of confidence and are neither rational nor irrational”

Is that still tautological in your opinion? I would also highlight in view of recent comments that “opinions” used here would be a much narrower category than “decisions”, where opinions would require the subjective perception that reason was applied to the process of its formation.

No problem, the question is very much about self-perception and the term rational is very subjective too as it could focus on "objective factuality" or perceived utility or something else as the defining factor.

There is no right or wrong as such.

For me belief is just something you take to be true/false or act as if it were true/false, even if you are far from certain it is or will turn out to be true, but others may differ.

I think we would be describing the same thing except I would not see all beliefs being held to be true/false, rather, they are held with varying degrees of confidence and we act on that confidence accordingly. One thing your description does not take into account is the sense of perceived risk involved in the outcome of a particular decision. How one anticipates the weight or risk in the outcome of a decision, opinion, belief, the more thought and attention that might be put into it. Higher perceived risk will prompt an attempt to exercise more reasoning and possibly prompt the search for additional information before acting.

I certainly think it is rational to assume my wife loves me, even if it later turned out to be wrong.

But often it's only when we find out we are wrong we realise why we were being irrational at that time.

Many beliefs I thought I held rationally turned out to be because I'd not looked at enough evidence and/or the evidence I'd looked at was flawed/biased. But at the time, I was convinced there was an overwhelming preponderance of evidence on my side. Even the idea I could be wrong was preposterous because "everybody knows that..." and lots of people who thought the same as me reassured me that I was right.

Which is why I don't think we can always trust our own judgement on whether our own beliefs are rational.

Although, in general, I do definitely agree that being wrong about something doesn't necessarily mean it was irrational to believe it at the time.

Showing a little bit of two minds on the issue, and rightly so. Since decisions can involve complexities, it's not realistic to say we are only rational when absolutely right. Lots of factors involved, including our inherent limitations.

It seems to me if one makes a choice with limited information, it can still be considered rational despite turning out to be wrong. When it may turn out to be irrational is if unwarranted confidence was applied unjustly to some of the evidence and that is what resulted in a flawed belief, or some active denial of actual evidence is involved.

For me technology and knowledge increase, but human rationality and morality stay the same as these are products of our genetic makeup. Technologies don't change us as we simply shape them to our nature.

We may know more and be able to do more things, but we don't really change under the skin. Sometimes we do better for a while, then we do worse for a while. It doesn't mean we can't make improvements, but we just shouldn't expect them to last.

We can create systems that temper our worst instincts, but this only last for as long as the systems do and things change faster than we understand them. Attempts to control things often makes them worse, and what took 200 years to build can be lost in an afternoon. Sooner or later, people just want change.

Here I am in complete agreement that each generation is producing the relatively same model of instinctual animal decade after decade, millennia after millennia. And I think we both agree that in addition to the “hardware” (for lack of a better metaphor) component of our behavior, there is also a “software” component in which socialization and indoctrination can significantly influence behavior beyond what is provided merely by the “hardware”.

I think what differs between us is a contrast in “glass half full” vs “glass half empty” outlooks. I agree with the cyclical nature of society that you describe, and while I absolutely agree that downturns can be terrible for those who experience them through their duration, yet things restabilize and continue. You seem to feel that in these cycles we are walking backwards on an escalator and not really moving. I see it more like taking two steps forward for every one step back.

In my subjective opinion, for certain population centers on this planet, the aggregate quality of life on the whole increases over time. Not to disregard those areas where this hasn’t occurred to the same extent, but I feel it shows that a cultural area can improve and progress over time, that the human experience is not stagnant.

For me the alien would say that imagining reason can save you presupposes you are rational in the first place. Your species is far less intelligent than it thinks it is, so use whatever reason you have to build systems that are more robust against human irrationality. Certainly don't make plans that assume you will become more reasonable in the future. You're too quarrelsome to ever get along well, so aim for a world where you minimise the chances of your mutual antipathy to turn violent. Expect the worst, and you might just postpone it a while longer.

And this would be what I am saying. It is not the individual's reason, it is the reason of the collective that slowly builds. And I agree that the individual stock model human will most likely be no more rational in the future than it is today. But each generation does not start from scratch, using its reason from a position of complete ignorance. Each generation is building upon the reasoned work of the previous generations, and in that regard progress is made.

The problem that I see is how outdated legacy beliefs persist due to the nature of socialization and indoctrination. There is no way to download new and improved software and simply reboot the system. It’s an evolutionary process and we simply have to muddle through our part in it as best we can, hopefully making positive contributions.

(I imagine all super intelligent aliens would think like me )

Don’t we all, though?

 

[Augustus]

The pedantic in me objects to

*pedant

 

[Valjean]

I recall a story about one guy who decided he was going to create an intellectual and used his daughter as the guinea pig. Homed schooled her. Allowed her to only listen to classical music.
So she turned out having a very hi IQ. Very intelligent but claimed to be very unhappy with her life. He neglected her emotional development.
Also there have been folks who after suffering brain damage to the emotional area of the brain find they are unable to make decisions.

We are emotional creatures motivated by emotions. Our feelings provide the reason to act. Computers don't rely on feeling and probably make the better decisions. I don't know that making the rational decision all of the time actually makes the experience of life better.

Should have included folk, pop and rock music.

 

[Rival]

I don't care about always being rational. It works much of the time for basic living, it's rational to wash my hands, but other things I would be called irrational over I just don't care.

 

[Nakosis]

Should have included folk, pop and rock music.

And certainly jazz.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

To my best knowledge most of mine are, occasionally I'm shown wrong.

 

[Heyo]

For example, deciding which route to take when you drive, deciding what you want to eat for any given meal, etc.... I'm pretty sure most people consider these things before doing them

Do you check for roadworks on the internet before deciding which route to take, do you make a diet plan with your nutritional needs when you decide what to eat?
Idleing you conscious brain while waiting for the decision that has already been made in the unconscious part to rise the top doesn't count as a rational decision, it is at best rationalizing the irrational decision.