How rational are you?

[mikkel_the_dane]

Are perceptions really beliefs? And do you only believe what you see or do you also connect a host of other beliefs to the perception which are merely stochastic and frequently false?

Well, that depends on what you believe is real.

 

[Heyo]

Well, that depends on what you believe is real.

I believe that reality is real, the universe is orderly and we are principally able to know it.
I know that perception is imperfect, otherwise I'd be forced to believe that my cats can teleport.

 

[Augustus]

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.

It still uses "reason" to define "rational belief" which is tautological, imo. But I understand your point so it doesn't really matter.

The reason I disagree is not that I find it tautological, but that it relies on self-evaluation. Imo there is ample evidence that our self-evaluations are not to be trusted as there are many cognitive functions we evolved with that specifically act to prevent us being fully rational in this regard because it affords/afforded some evolutionary benefits.

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

Nothing there I disagree with in general.

All processes of evaluation are subject to our limited cognitive faculties and are potential sources of error though.

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.

The problem again being we are not very good at judging when we are overconfident, being blinded by cognitive dissonance or confirmation bias, etc.

So I agree with your point, but also think that we are among the worst people to judge our own actions.

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 think this confuses knowledge with rationality.

Nazi Germany, the USSR, China, etc. used our growing 'rationality' to better oppress or kill. Politics in the West doesn't, to me seem to be becoming more rational, new "rationality" is being applied to manipulate the system and driving a race to the bottom.
People today are materially richer, but many are also increasingly disconnected and alienated.

I don't see increased technological and scientific knowledge making humans more rational, they just open up new avenues to help or harm.

Knowledge improves, human fallibilities stay the same.

Don’t we all, though?

Yes, but everyone else is wrong

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

Yes, but everyone else is wrong

Yeah and I always if I have to, take the position of being wrong and try to figure out how that works.

 

[Curious George]

Are perceptions really beliefs? And do you only believe what you see or do you also connect a host of other beliefs to the perception which are merely stochastic and frequently false?

Perceptions are perceptions, but beliefs are claims which you hold as true or false. These don’t have to coincide with your perceptions. For example if you are at a magic show you may see a rabbit appear or disappear but that doesn’t mean you believe the rabbit exists or no longer exists.

I am not sure what you mean by stochastic beliefs. Perhaps you can provide some examples. Regarding false beliefs, the beliefs do not have to be true to be rational: Rationality does not entail trueness.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Perceptions are perceptions, but beliefs are claims which you hold as true or false. These don’t have to coincide with your perceptions. For example if you are at a magic show you may see a rabbit appear or disappear but that doesn’t mean you believe the rabbit exists or no longer exists.

I am not sure what you mean by stochastic beliefs. Perhaps you can provide some examples. Regarding false beliefs, the beliefs do not have to be true to be rational: Rationality does not entail trueness.

Well, in a sense it does for the part about logic. And for at least one version of reason.

 

[anna.]

I do it for longer trips. But if you just have to go for groceries and there are two, more or less equal, roads, do you check then? Or do you just follow your feeling? I do the later and I know that I do it.
And I get characterized as exceptionally rational. So, when I know that I do it ...

Depends where you live, maybe. Where I live, checking Google at rush hour tells you which freeway is less slammed.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Depends where you live, maybe. Where I live, checking Google at rush hour tells you which freeway is less slammed.

Yes, for me it would be irrational to check Google for traffic as I live in a small town and mainly walk.

 

[Curious George]

Yes, it is possible to kill a human. Fact.
It is also observable that we have several value judgments on killing a human when it is a murder or not. Or wrong or not.
So if I understand you right, then all positions on killing are rational as long as they are based on facts. Is that it?

No, that is not it at all. That is a separate issue dealing with one value judgement of killing. My point is that this value judgement of killing, which presents an ought, relies on multiple assumptions that present “is” facts. You must believe that there is a you to do the killing and there is a subject to be killed, that there is a means by which to kill the subject, that there is definitive space and time in which you are killing, and so on…all of these facts on which you rely in order to act or not act on your value judgement are beliefs which you hold. Then, in addition to that belief, it may be possible that your decision to kill is based also on reasonable assumptions that are not necessarily facts but nevertheless appear true through inductive reasoning-ie the person running at my child with a hatchet in the air is going to attempt to kill my child (inductive reasoning).

We then may form rational beliefs about how to obtain some desired outcome. There are usually more normative statements nestled in these such as choosing to kill one subject charging at your child with a hatchet, may also contain a belief that your child’s life is more valuable than the subject’s life, or that stopping harm has a higher value than allowing harm when you could stop it. While these further valued judgments may or may not be rational, the original value judgement that you ought or ought not kill the subject rationality will flow from the rationality of the underlying assumptions and the reasoning by which you derived what you ought do.

 

[Curious George]

Well, in a sense it does for the part about logic. And for at least one version of reason.

I don’t think this is the case. Trueness is only one facet of knowledge. You can have well justified beliefs that are not true.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, that is not it at all. That is a separate issue dealing with one value judgement of killing. My point is that this value judgement of killing, which presents an ought, relies on multiple assumptions that present “is” facts. You must believe that there is a you to do the killing and there is a subject to be killed, that there is a means by which to kill the subject, that there is definitive space and time in which you are killing, and so on…all of these facts on which you rely in order to act or not act on your value judgement are beliefs which you hold. Then, in addition to that belief, it may be possible that your decision to kill is based also on reasonable assumptions that are not necessarily facts but nevertheless appear true through inductive reasoning-ie the person running at my child with a hatchet in the air is going to attempt to kill my child (inductive reasoning).

We then may form rational beliefs about how to obtain some desired outcome. There are usually more normative statements nestled in these such as choosing to kill one subject charging at your child with a hatchet, may also contain a belief that your child’s life is more valuable than the subject’s life, or that stopping harm has a higher value than allowing harm when you could stop it. While these further valued judgments may or may not be rational, the original value judgement that you ought or ought not kill the subject rationality will flow from the rationality of the underlying assumptions and the reasoning by which you derived what you ought do.

So explain how that works in practice for me wanting to defend my wife? And what do you mean by reason and logic as for rationality?

 

[anna.]

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.

I was reading through the thread to see how people defined the term rational for themselves, and wondering how rational would be defined by philosophy, or psychology, beyond the standard dictionary definition. I came across the following introduction to what looks like an intriguing article but most of it's behind a paywall, unfortunately. I'd like to know more about the difference between theoretical and practical rationality.

“Rationality” is among our central and most widely used evaluative notions. That humans are “rational animals” is a presumption built into the very name of our species, Homo sapiens; and the thought that humans are rational, perhaps distinctively so, appears to be part of the popular fabric of thought about ourselves. “Rational” and its complement “irrational” are standardly used, both in ordinary speech and across a variety of academic disciplines and subdisciplines, to describe persons, beliefs, actions, plans, policies, desires, decisions, institutions, and a host of other things. It is widely agreed that lying behind this richness of use is a general division between “theoretical” or “epistemic” rationality and “practical” rationality. But that distinction goes only so far in regimenting the concept and the issues with which it is bound up. Because it is a term that is used in so many ways, and with regard to such a wide range of topics and subjects, it does not admit of any neat analysis. Some have despaired of its being a useful general theoretical notion at all. Given its centrality, however, it is better to map the notion in its various principal employments than to try to get by without it. This entry lays out those employments and describes some of the main issues arising in connection with the notion of rationality.​

Rationality

"Rationality" published on by null.

www.oxfordbibliographies.com

 

[anna.]

Yes, for me it would be irrational to check Google for traffic as I live in a small town and mainly walk.

I live in a big metropolis in a big state, where a drive I make regularly can take 3 or 6 hours, depending on traffic. Would it be irrational of me not to check Google?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don’t think this is the case. Trueness is only one facet of knowledge. You can have well justified beliefs that are not true.

And I think differently. Now we have entered the realm of limited cognitive, moral and cultural relativism and that not only applies to truth. It also applies to rationality.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I live in a big metropolis in a big state, where a drive I make regularly can take 3 or 6 hours, depending on traffic. Would it be irrational of me not to check Google?

Depends. But it is rational from a time perspective under at least one way to value your time.

 

[anna.]

Depends. But it is rational from a time perspective under at least one way to value your time.

Depends on what?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Depends on what?

If you want to avoid getting stuck in traffic. Now on the other hand if you want to avoid getting home you choose differently.

 

[MikeF]

It still uses "reason" to define "rational belief" which is tautological, imo. But I understand your point so it doesn't really matter.

The reason I disagree is not that I find it tautological, but that it relies on self-evaluation. Imo there is ample evidence that our self-evaluations are not to be trusted as there are many cognitive functions we evolved with that specifically act to prevent us being fully rational in this regard because it affords/afforded some evolutionary benefits.

I agree completely. Self-evaluations are not to be trusted. So what does that mean? Are there methods and means by which we can check ourselves? Are there tools available to mitigate human error and help us circumvent those “many cognitive functions that we evolved with that specifically act to prevent us being fully rational”?

I suggest there are.

Nothing there I disagree with in general.

All processes of evaluation are subject to our limited cognitive faculties and are potential sources of error though.

Perfect. I love points of consensus.

The problem again being we are not very good at judging when we are overconfident, being blinded by cognitive dissonance or confirmation bias, etc.

So I agree with your point, but also think that we are among the worst people to judge our own actions.

More consensus. Are there tools available to help us in this regard?

I think this confuses knowledge with rationality.

Nazi Germany, the USSR, China, etc. used our growing 'rationality' to better oppress or kill. Politics in the West doesn't, to me seem to be becoming more rational, new "rationality" is being applied to manipulate the system and driving a race to the bottom.
People today are materially richer, but many are also increasingly disconnected and alienated.

I don't see increased technological and scientific knowledge making humans more rational, they just open up new avenues to help or harm.

Knowledge improves, human fallibilities stay the same.

I think you may have meant that I am confusing knowledge with reason.

If that is the case, then I agree some distinctions need to be made. Reasoning is about determining what is or qualifies as knowledge, correct? Reasoning is the process, knowledge is the result. Faulty reasoning can stem from the reasoning process itself or from the information that is being reasoned upon. Rationality on the other hand seems to imply thought conducted in a way that conforms to some set of accepted premises, norms, and knowledge. An individual may be considered to behave rationally when evaluated within the individual's accepted premises, norms,and accepted knowledge set, but deemed irrational in regards to a different set of premises, norms, and accepted knowledge set which may or may not be identical to the other knowledge set.

So in terms of your references to Nazi Germany etc, it would be using increased knowledge to more effectively oppress and kill, which is what I think you are suggesting by placing the term rationality in quotes. Whether they acted within the domain of rationality depends entirely upon what set of premises, norms, and accepted knowledge set is to be used to make the determination. Your examples seem to be about value choices rather than about reason. As I indicated in an earlier post, competing value choices are not resolved with reasoning, rather through political negotiation, with the caveat that if a value choice is dependent upon faulty premises or knowledge, those would be grounds to challenge the value choice.

What does it mean to make humans more rational? If rationality is determined within a framework of premises, norms, and an accepted knowledge set, and all three of these inter-relate and affect each other, then to become more rational, we have to be able to evaluate all three categories in a way other than subjective self-assessment. Is there a mechanism to accomplish this? I would suggest the principles and standards of scientific inquiry as just such a mechanism.

If we both accept the “hardware/software” metaphor for human behavior and agree that socialization and indoctrination can result in instilling irrationality, then it would imply that on the software end, humans can be made either more irrational or more rational than their baseline hardware state. If this is indeed the case, then better scientific understanding of how we work, how we behave, as well as of the objective world, will only help in moving the needle in the direction of humans becoming more rational.

Yes, but everyone else is wrong

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

What does it mean to make humans more rational? If rationality is determined within a framework of premises, norms, and an accepted knowledge set, and all three of these inter-relate and affect each other, then to become more rational, we have to be able to evaluate all three categories in a way other than subjective self-assessment. Is there a mechanism to accomplish this? I would suggest the principles and standards of scientific inquiry as just such a mechanism.
...

All these are subjective as there even is no one objective version of what science or knowledge is.
You are playing with words an in effect say if we agree on a set of subjective ideas and call them science, rational and knowledge, then they are that.

Here read on for the whole part of current approaches:

Philosophy of science - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Here is no one version of what science and knowledge are. When will you learn that???

 

[anna.]

If you want to avoid getting stuck in traffic. Now on the other hand if you want to avoid getting home you choose differently.

Do you think either/both of those are purely rational decisions?