The Irrational Side?

[Sunstone]

Irrationality is the result of inadequate education and intelligence. To suggest that it is an innate human characteristic is akin to suggesting that cancer or insanity are part of what makes us human. Like cancer and insanity, irrationality is not an inherent aspect of our being, but a flaw.

Your post interests me, Runt. It seems to fly in the face of everything known to psychology. I wonder what evidence you might provide for your point?

I also wonder how you deal with some of the findings of psychology? For instance: It's well known to psychologists and neurobiologists that the amygdala structure in the brain plays a crucial role in such things as the fear response. The amygdala is part of the lower or "reptilian" brain, so named because that part of the brain shows up pretty early in evolution. It is not however, part of the cortex, or higher brain, which seems largely responsible for such things as reasoning and the application of logic to thought. In other words, it's well known that we can respond fearfully to situations without thinking logically or rationally about them, and that we do, in fact, do this all the time. How do you account for that in light of your insistence there is no innate irrationality in humans?

 

[Quiddity]

Your post interests me, Runt. It seems to fly in the face of everything known to psychology. I wonder what evidence you might provide for your point?

I also wonder how you deal with some of the findings of psychology? For instance: It's well known to psychologists and neurobiologists that the amygdala structure in the brain plays a crucial role in such things as the fear response. The amygdala is part of the lower or "reptilian" brain, so named because that part of the brain shows up pretty early in evolution. It is not however, part of the cortex, or higher brain, which seems largely responsible for such things as reasoning and the application of logic to thought. In other words, it's well known that we can respond fearfully to situations without thinking logically or rationally about them, and that we do, in fact, do this all the time. How do you account for that in light of your insistence there is no innate irrationality in humans?

Fascinating. What purpose do you think this serves in the scope of the species?

 

[Sunstone]

Fascinating. What purpose do you think this serves in the scope of the species?

In some circumstances, it's better to be scared than it is to be fearless. Imagine one of our ancestors on the African Savanna. He hears the grass rustle and instantly responds with fear. That is, his hair stands up, his heart beats faster, his immune system perks up, his adrenaline dumps into his blood system, his muscles tense, etc. All this prepares him to take action (fight or flight). If it turns out that the rustle in the grass is caused by a mouse, then he's scared but OK. If it turns out the rustle is caused by a stalking lion, he's prepared to do something about it. So, you see, there is a reason why irrational fear can be beneficial to the survival of individuals (and hence the species). It is, in a sense quite irrational to jump at every rustle in the grass, but it doesn't ordinarily hurt anyone to do so. However, it would be disasterous not to be ready to flee or fight off a lion. And that is probably why the fear response in humans is a very old one that has never been changed much by evolution. This explaination is a bit simplified, but I hope it helps.

 

[Quiddity]

In some circumstances, it's better to be scared than it is to be fearless. Imagine one of our ancestors on the African Savanna. He hears the grass rustle and instantly responds with fear. That is, his hair stands up, his heart beats faster, his immune system perks up, his adrenaline dumps into his blood system, his muscles tense, etc. All this prepares him to take action (fight or flight). If it turns out that the rustle in the grass is caused by a mouse, then he's scared but OK. If it turns out the rustle is caused by a stalking lion, he's prepared to do something about it. So, you see, there is a reason why irrational fear can be beneficial to the survival of individuals (and hence the species). It is, in a sense quite irrational to jump at every rustle in the grass, but it doesn't ordinarily hurt anyone to do so. However, it would be disasterous not to be ready to flee or fight off a lion. And that is probably why the fear response in humans is a very old one that has never been changed much by evolution. This explaination is a bit simplified, but I hope it helps.

Hmm, and you can't imagine action without fear? Not really seeing it. Perhaps another example? Please...

 

[Runt]

Your post interests me, Runt. It seems to fly in the face of everything known to psychology. I wonder what evidence you might provide for your point?

I also wonder how you deal with some of the findings of psychology? For instance: It's well known to psychologists and neurobiologists that the amygdala structure in the brain plays a crucial role in such things as the fear response. The amygdala is part of the lower or "reptilian" brain, so named because that part of the brain shows up pretty early in evolution. It is not however, part of the cortex, or higher brain, which seems largely responsible for such things as reasoning and the application of logic to thought. In other words, it's well known that we can respond fearfully to situations without thinking logically or rationally about them, and that we do, in fact, do this all the time. How do you account for that in light of your insistence there is no innate irrationality in humans?

I am not suggesting that irrationality doesn’t exist. I am suggesting that it is not a defining characteristic of us as humans. In fact, I would go on to say that the dead opposite is true; it is rationality that is an innate human characteristic.

As for your argument about the amygdala and its role in the “flight or fight” response, do we say that because opioid receptors in the brain can bind to endorphins as well as heroin that drug addiction is a part of being human? Or would we suggest instead that although our physiology gives us inclinations toward certain behaviors---whether they be drug addition or irrationality---those inclinations are not necessarily central to human nature. Yes, humans can be irrational at times---both for physiological and psychological reasons---but it is our ability to overcome irrationality that makes us human.

 

[Scarlett Wampus]

Can't the irrational and the ability to override it both be innate human characteristics?

 

[Quiddity]

Sunstone, perhaps a good clear definition of "rational" would be helpful? You'd be surprised how people's understanding differs...

 

[michel]

Irrationality is the result of inadequate education and intelligence. To suggest that it is an innate human characteristic is akin to suggesting that cancer or insanity are part of what makes us human. Like cancer and insanity, irrationality is not an inherent aspect of our being, but a flaw.

To some extent I agree with you, but I would change some of the words............

Irrationality is the result of inadequate education and intelligence

There's more to it than that; surely ? when I see a wasp, I become terrified. I know a wasp sting hurts, but to go to the extremes to avoid it is not rational.

I am not sure that irrationality is a flaw; if it was to be 'removed', my wife and I would never had children (we would have decided that a) we couldn't afford it. b) with my genes, it would have been better to adopt!

 

[mr.guy]

I know a wasp sting hurts, but to go to the extremes to avoid it is not rational.

Because you've rationalized an emotion.

 

[Quiddity]

Because you've rationalized an emotion.

And how exactly do you this? Emotions can rationalize big foot if you want it too. Can it not?

 

[telecino]

Is rational what can be absorbed by the mind/mentel/intellect?
Then is irrational what simply can't be?

In this case, God is irrational and he's not the result of bad eduction.

Rationality is not the Truth, it might be a part of the truth that we humans can absorb, but to definitely define irrational as "bad", isn't this pushing rationalism up to the level of racism?

It's just an opinion, and i'm not trying to be rational here, just understandable.

 

[EnhancedSpirit]

Now I want to know what the six big ideas are.

 

[mr.guy]

Emotions can rationalize big foot if you want it too. Can it not?

Huh? I don't understand what you mean by "emotions" rationalizing big foot.

A rationale of big foot needn't be based on an emotional "need" or "intuition"; it can be reasoned (be it poorly) on purported "evidence" (for what that's worth). I would hesitate to say that emotions "rationalize" all on their own (so to speak).

While one can have an emotional response to a rationalization, i might posit that strong emotions may evoke deeper rationalized and "internalized" scripts; those same strong emotions could have also been initially inspired by rationalizing, and so forth.

Personally, i fail to grasp much of what isolates the two.

 

[mr.guy]

Is rational what can be absorbed by the mind/mentel/intellect?

What is rational is what can be reasoned with due moderation, be it poorly or no. The concept does not lend itself well to absolutism.

 

[Sunstone]

...it would have been better to adopt!

O please, Michel, adopt me! Please! After six years of the current administration, after 20 years of the creationism vs science debate, after as many years of Rush Limbaugh politics, I'm ready for you Brits to take us back! I profoundly apologize for the misunderstandings of 1776! Please adopt me! I can learn to eat puddings: I'm not that old!

 

[Quiddity]

Huh? I don't understand what you mean by "emotions" rationalizing big foot.

A rationale of big foot needn't be based on an emotional "need" or "intuition"; it can be reasoned (be it poorly) on purported "evidence" (for what that's worth). I would hesitate to say that emotions "rationalize" all on their own (so to speak).

While one can have an emotional response to a rationalization, i might posit that strong emotions may evoke deeper rationalized and "internalized" scripts; those same strong emotions could have also been initially inspired by rationalizing, and so forth.

Personally, i fail to grasp much of what isolates the two.

You said:
....rationalize and emotion...
And on this post you said:
..emotional response to a rationalization..

You've officially confused me...

 

[Quiddity]

O please, Michel, adopt me! Please! After six years of the current administration, after 20 years of the creationism vs science debate, after as many years of Rush Limbaugh politics, I'm ready for you Brits to take us back! I profoundly apologize for the misunderstandings of 1776! Please adopt me! I can learn to eat puddings: I'm not that old!

:biglaugh: ....

 

[mr.guy]

You said:
....rationalize and emotion...
And on this post you said:
..emotional response to a rationalization..

You've officially confused me...

Sorry. I do tend to view the two in tandem; but in contrasting them, the cart may frequently be pulling the horse.

 

[Sunstone]

Sunstone, perhaps a good clear definition of "rational" would be helpful? You'd be surprised how people's understanding differs...

That's a good idea, Victor. But I hadn't thought about a definition of rationality for such a long time, that I thought it would be real work to build one, so I went to the Wikipedia article on rationality and stole the following:

A logical argument is sometimes described as rational if it is logically valid. However, rationality is a much broader term than logic, as it includes "uncertain but sensible" arguments based on probability, expectation, personal experience and the like, whereas logic deals principally with provable facts and demonstrably valid relations between them.

In the context of this thread, I think a synonym for rational would be "reasonable".

 

[Sunstone]

I am not suggesting that irrationality doesn’t exist. I am suggesting that it is not a defining characteristic of us as humans. In fact, I would go on to say that the dead opposite is true; it is rationality that is an innate human characteristic.

As for your argument about the amygdala and its role in the “flight or fight” response, do we say that because opioid receptors in the brain can bind to endorphins as well as heroin that drug addiction is a part of being human? Or would we suggest instead that although our physiology gives us inclinations toward certain behaviors---whether they be drug addition or irrationality---those inclinations are not necessarily central to human nature. Yes, humans can be irrational at times---both for physiological and psychological reasons---but it is our ability to overcome irrationality that makes us human

As for the notion the workings of the amydala are somehow an accessory of some sort, or are at least imperfectly analogous to a foriegn substance like opium, that happens not to be the case. The amydala is always processing the information recieved from the senses. It plays a vital role not only in the fear response, but in associating memories with emotions, and in other things too. If one believes in a central human nature, its workings are arguably as central to human nature as anything is.