The Irrational Side?

[Runt]

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.

I have to ask (simply because I'm rapidly losing this argument and am not QUITE willing to give up just yet) why you are using rationality to prove that humans are inherently irrational...

 

[Sunstone]

I have to ask (simply because I'm rapidly losing this argument and am not QUITE willing to give up just yet) why you are using rationality to prove that humans are inherently irrational...

Actually, Runt, I don't see a contradiction in using a rational argument to suggest that humans are inherently irrational because I don't believe that the inherent irrationality of humans precludes them from also being inherently rational. That is, I think humans are both inherently rational and inherently irrational. How can that be, you might ask?

Well, in the first place, it's just a simple observation that people can act both rationally and at other times act irrationally. And from that simple observation, it is not great leap to suppose that there must be some inherent, genetic basis for both behaviors. In other words, if we don't have an inherent, genetic basis for both behaviors, how can we manifest both behaviors?

In the second place, there is ample evidence in psychology and neurobiology for that guess. There are genetically produced structures in the brain, such as the structures of the limbic system or the neocortex, that seem involved in those behaviors.

What then is the relationship between rationality and irrationality in human nature? Well, I have noticed that rationality seems somewhat more difficult for humans to accomplish in some circumstances than irrationality. For instance: I've observed, in my limited experience of people, what I think is a tendency for people to be more rational about things that have practical, immediate consequences to them than about things which have fewer or no practical, immediate consequences to them. I know many people who are, say, excellent, highly rational in their daily jobs, but whose politics are based on prejudice and even bigotry. We humans seem to be most usually inspired to rationality by feeling the consequences of it on us, or at least, by wishing to avoid the consequences of acting irrationally. And the closer those consequences are to us, the more we are inspired to rationality.

I also believe I've noticed another relationship between rationality and irrationality in human nature. Children are, overall, somewhat less rational than adults, and younger people are, overall, less rational than older people. I suppose from this that the ability to be rational is highly influenced by experience and learning how to be rational. Rational behavior is a skill, and can be honed like any other skill to excellence.

Lastly, I believe I have observed, and some psychologist would agree with me on this, that, all else being equal, some people are born with a greater predisposition to rational thought than others, just like some people are born with a greater predispostion to athleticism than others. Again, this fact argues for the existence of an innate trait for rationality. It also means that it is harder and more difficult for some people to develop their skills at rational thought than it is for others, just like it is harder for someone who is not a very talented artist to develop skills at photography, sculpting or painting.

I do not believe, however, that the fact some people are more talented for rational thought than others means society should not make an effort to encourage people to develop skills at rational thought to the best of each person's ability. It seems to me that it would immensely benefit society, at least in the long run, if it encouraged people to do so.

Yet, I do not believe that society generally encourages people to develop their skill to the best of their ability. To some extent we do: sometimes in school, and sometimes on the job, we do. But overall, our society is more prone, IMO, to encouraging people to irrational thought. We are asked to be "good consumers", to buy things we don't need and will scarcely use; to buy political and social views that may actually be against our best interests, and to buy them for "reasons" that are not genuinely reasonable; to buy wars that might be unnecesary and to buy them for "reasons" that are scarcely examined in any depth; and on and on and on. We are asked to be "good consumers" of so much nonsense that society generally doesn't encourage people to think to the best of their abilities; it largely encourages them to think more poorly than they can.

BTW, the contempt that science is held in by many people today is probably, IMHO, something of a product of teaching people rationality matters less than being "good consumers". At least, I feel there's a growing trend for people to pick and choose which science they want to believe, as if you should pick and choose truths like product brands.

In the end, I fear that without respect for rationality, we might become a world that believes entertainment is truth, and that the most entertaining "theories" are the most truthful theories. I believe I already see that happening.

So, is human nature essentially rational? In a limited, qualified sense, yes. Is it irrational? Again, in many ways, yes. Does Robert Bly speak somewhat truthfully in his poem? Once again: yes.

Well, Runt, that's my 2 cents. I'm curious what you yourself have noticed about the relationship between rationality and irrationality in human nature?

 

[Quiddity]

Sunstone, would you then agree (based on the definion you gave) that it is rational to believe in things we cannot prove?

 

[Sunstone]

Sunstone, would you then agree (based on the definion you gave) that it is rational to believe in things we cannot prove?

I think it is rational to believe in things that we have some evidence for ("evidence" broadly interpreted according to the wikipedia definition to include such things as reasonable expectations), and I think that it might be rational to have faith in things that we cannot prove, and even lack evidence for, but which do not actually contradict rational belief in the things we can prove or do have evidence for.

For instance, I think that it would be rational to believe in the supernatural nature of Ultimate Reality if we had a direct experience of it that gave us conclusive evidence or at least some clear, uncontradicted evidence we were experiencing something supernatural.

Again, I think it would be rational to have faith in the supernatural if our faith did not contradict rational belief in the things we can prove or do have evidence for.

Does that answer your question, Victor? What do you yourself believe on this issue?

 

[Quiddity]

I think it is rational to believe in things that we have some evidence for ("evidence" broadly interpreted according to the wikipedia definition to include such things as reasonable expectations),

This, I was certainly clear on.

and I think that it might be rational to have faith in things that we cannot prove, and even lack evidence for,

This one, on the other hand is one in which I would enjoy lurking into further with you.

but which do not actually contradict rational belief in the things we can prove or do have evidence for.

I would limit this to strictly evidence.

For instance, I think that it would be rational to believe in the supernatural nature of Ultimate Reality if we had a direct experience of it that gave us conclusive evidence or at least some clear, uncontradicted evidence we were experiencing something supernatural.

This is probably where you and I differ. You had already recognized (above in red) that you can have something rational without evidence. Can you give me an example of some evidence that would deal with the supernatural?

What do you yourself believe on this issue?

I usually argue rationality as a proper function or the absence of dysfunction. Example would be: Just as if God designed my cognitive faculty of remembering that I ate chicken yesterday, I am rational in believing I ate chicken yesterday, so too am I rational in believing in God if my mind is designed in such a way that I can discover Him in many circumstances which includes one without evidence.

And although I believe in most all of evolution (as much as I know at least) I see absolutely no purpose for such a cognitive faculty to flourish in evolution. The principle of parsimony has no role in the real world. Everything is bound by laws, except this cognitive faculty. Why is that? I decided years back that it's there for a reason. Even if it means I have to start with pink unicorns (attaching meaning beyond the tangible). I shall extend faith in relation to reality and proper function of it.

Peace be with you,
~Victor

 

[Sunstone]

You had already recognized (above in red) that you can have something rational without evidence. Can you give me an example of some evidence that would deal with the supernatural?

Perhaps the strongest possible evidence that a person can have for the supernatural is direct, personal experience of the supernatural. It is hard to deny ones own experience. So, if Jones "sees God", then Jones certainly might have some rational grounds for believing in the existence of that God.

Yet, one should be cautious here! Like any experience, an experience of something one takes to be supernatural is subject to errors of observation, errors of memory, and errors of interpretation. Jones, for instance, might legitimately question whether his experience was of "God" or whether that might be a flawed observation, or a faulty interpretation, caused by any number of things. The need to subject such an experience to rational analysis before deciding what it was all about should be obvious.

It might be worth noting, here, that the mere fact Jones has had such an experience is not ordinarily compelling evidence to anyone else for the supernatural, however compelling it is as evidence to Jones himself.

A second approach to evidence for the supernatural is more complex. Suppose you wanted to collect and survey all that has ever been written in the history of the world by people claiming to have experienced the supernatural. And further suppose that after many years of doing this you noticed a pattern was emerging from your survey. For the sake of illustration, let's say that one element of that pattern was people the world over, in all literate cultures, and in all different ages, for the most part agreed that pearly white light was an element of their experience of the supernatural. Wouldn't this provide some evidence, in the absence of any better explanation, for the supernatural? Perhaps. How strong that evidence would be depends, of course, on specifics it would be tedious to write of here.

So there you have two possible lines of evidence for the supernatural, neither of which provides conclusive evidence, but both of which might provide rational justification for a provisional belief in the supernatural.

I hope this answers your question.

 

[Runt]

I also believe I've noticed another relationship between rationality and irrationality in human nature. Children are, overall, somewhat less rational than adults, and younger people are, overall, less rational than older people. I suppose from this that the ability to be rational is highly influenced by experience and learning how to be rational. Rational behavior is a skill, and can be honed like any other skill to excellence.

Lastly, I believe I have observed, and some psychologist would agree with me on this, that, all else being equal, some people are born with a greater predisposition to rational thought than others, just like some people are born with a greater predispostion to athleticism than others. Again, this fact argues for the existence of an innate trait for rationality.

I will accept that humans are inherently irrational based on the argument you've given me; it is easier to accept irrationality when it does not completely discount rationality. However, would your statements quoted above not suggest that there is some validity to my original arguement? That irrationality is a product of insufficient education and/or intelligence as well as genetics?

Well, Runt, that's my 2 cents. I'm curious what you yourself have noticed about the relationship between rationality and irrationality in human nature?

I think people are generally more inclined toward rationality than irrationality... at least in ways that matter.

For example, I lock the door to my apartment not out of irrational fear but rather rational caution; I know that there have been armed robberies in my apartment complex that were the direct result of people leaving their doors unlocked, and so I can rationalize that by locking my door, I am more protected than I would otherwise be. This is a rationalization that could potentially save my life.

However, I make irrational decisions too, but they are less likely to have a bearing on whether I live or die. For example, it was rather dark in my apartment a few nights ago when I turned all the lights off after watching a scary movie, and even though I knew, rationally, that there was nothing in the dark to hurt me---that the toothfairy was not floating around near my ceiling, ready to kill me if I looked at her---I nevertheless couldn't help but fear the dark a little.

This irrationality was harmless. And it was harmless because rationality still overrode irrationality; I did not give into my fear and go running out the front door, falling down the stairs or something life threatening like that. Instead, I knew rationally that there was nothing to be afraid of, and told myself to go to bed because I was tired.

I see this sort of thing in humans all the time. Yes, at times we think or feel something that is irrational, but rationality eventually kicks in and keeps us from doig something stupid. Unfortunately, it doesn't always work out this way---just think of people who kill their child/husband/wife because they believe God told them to---but I think for the most part we are rational creatures.

 

[Sunstone]

...would your statements quoted above not suggest that there is some validity to my original arguement? That irrationality is a product of insufficient education and/or intelligence as well as genetics?

Yes, I agree your original arguement has some validity. Education, practice (use it or loose it applies here, I think), and experience all play a critical role in how rational we can be. The basis for it is genetics. The refinement of it is, broadly speaking, experience.

 

[Quiddity]

I will accept that humans are inherently irrational based on the argument you've given me; it is easier to accept irrationality when it does not completely discount rationality. However, would your statements quoted above not suggest that there is some validity to my original arguement? That irrationality is a product of insufficient education and/or intelligence as well as genetics?

How exactly is genetics linked to this? Unless there is a "smart" gene that I am not aware of, I'm not exactly grasping the connection.

 

[Quiddity]

[/color]
Perhaps the strongest possible evidence that a person can have for the supernatural is direct, personal experience of the supernatural. It is hard to deny ones own experience. So, if Jones "sees God", then Jones certainly might have some rational grounds for believing in the existence of that God.

Yet, one should be cautious here! Like any experience, an experience of something one takes to be supernatural is subject to errors of observation, errors of memory, and errors of interpretation. Jones, for instance, might legitimately question whether his experience was of "God" or whether that might be a flawed observation, or a faulty interpretation, caused by any number of things. The need to subject such an experience to rational analysis before deciding what it was all about should be obvious.

It might be worth noting, here, that the mere fact Jones has had such an experience is not ordinarily compelling evidence to anyone else for the supernatural, however compelling it is as evidence to Jones himself.

A second approach to evidence for the supernatural is more complex. Suppose you wanted to collect and survey all that has ever been written in the history of the world by people claiming to have experienced the supernatural. And further suppose that after many years of doing this you noticed a pattern was emerging from your survey. For the sake of illustration, let's say that one element of that pattern was people the world over, in all literate cultures, and in all different ages, for the most part agreed that pearly white light was an element of their experience of the supernatural. Wouldn't this provide some evidence, in the absence of any better explanation, for the supernatural? Perhaps. How strong that evidence would be depends, of course, on specifics it would be tedious to write of here.

So there you have two possible lines of evidence for the supernatural, neither of which provides conclusive evidence, but both of which might provide rational justification for a provisional belief in the supernatural.

I hope this answers your question.

That was rather similar to what I said in shorter words.....
Did you read what I said when you asked "What do you yourself believe on this issue?"
That's what I meant by "proper function" and all that jazz.

 

[Runt]

How exactly is genetics linked to this? Unless there is a "smart" gene that I am not aware of, I'm not exactly grasping the connection.

The connection between genetics and intelligence has been studied for over a century. Although genetics is not the sole factor in an individual's intelligence---environment plays a huge role in determining how fully an individual will learn to utilize their potential---it does factor in.

 

[mr.guy]

it is easier to accept irrationality when it does not completely discount rationality.

It should; rationality seems less a binary attribute and more a general description of (vantagely dependant) constructive (?) behaviour.

To be rationaly irrational seems no great contradiction

 

[Sunstone]

That was rather similar to what I said in shorter words.....
Did you read what I said when you asked "What do you yourself believe on this issue?"
That's what I meant by "proper function" and all that jazz.

Yes, I read it and even re-read it as closely as I could, yet I couldn't quite understand your choice of words, especially the last paragraph. Sorry if I repeated your ideas back to you. It was inadvertant.

 

[Quiddity]

The connection between genetics and intelligence has been studied for over a century. Although genetics is not the sole factor in an individual's intelligence---environment plays a huge role in determining how fully an individual will learn to utilize their potential---it does factor in.

I would contend that genes has no factor what so ever. But I'm more then willing to be corrected if you have something for me to read.

 

[Runt]

I would contend that genes has no factor what so ever. But I'm more then willing to be corrected if you have something for me to read.

http://www.loni.ucla.edu/~thompson/PDF/nrn0604-GrayThompson.pdf
http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v5/n2/full/nn0202-83.html
http://intl.genome.org/cgi/content/abstract/10/2/157
http://www4.ncsu.edu/~jwosbor2/otherfiles/PSY304/APA-intelligence.pdf
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/850358.stm
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9F05EEDF1F3DF935A35755C0A961958260
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/11/011105073104.htm
http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/003408.html
http://www.loni.ucla.edu/media/News/DM_11062001.html

 

[Booko]

I would contend that genes has no factor what so ever. But I'm more then willing to be corrected if you have something for me to read.

Due my family situation, I'd find it hard to believe that genes play no role in intelligence.

My brother and I and a few cousins are all adopted. In my extended family where people are biologically related, there is great consistency not only in intelligence, but in tendencies when it comes to approaches to life (see Myers-Briggs Personality Index)

My brother and I and 2 out of 3 of our cousins who are adopted are all "odd ducks" both in areas of intelligence and in approaches to life.

My wider family tends to be very down-to-earth working class traditional people. You know, the sort of bedrock any society is built on. They would be miserable if forced to attend college. Trade schools are another matter altogether.

My brother is an completely impulsive artistic type with people skills that never quite seem to end.

I'm the family bookworm, scientist and intellectual who uses the rules when they work, but will toss them overboard when they stop working.

My 1 cousin kinda doesn't count, as she's manic-depressive. She found her birth family and...guess what? Her family is filled with people who are also manic-depressive.

My other cousin is a very outgoing, has to meet people all the time, social butterfly. She's a flight attendant.

While this is all anecdotal "evidence" and not at all statistically significant, I've found it interesting when comparing notes with other people who are adopted that they also find themselves as the odd ducks in their family. It's not that they don't get along with their family, it's just they seem to go off in other directions.

 

[Quiddity]

[/color]
http://www.loni.ucla.edu/~thompson/PDF/nrn0604-GrayThompson.pdf
http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v5/n2/full/nn0202-83.html
http://intl.genome.org/cgi/content/abstract/10/2/157
http://www4.ncsu.edu/~jwosbor2/otherfiles/PSY304/APA-intelligence.pdf
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/850358.stm
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9F05EEDF1F3DF935A35755C0A961958260
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/11/011105073104.htm
http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/003408.html
http://www.loni.ucla.edu/media/News/DM_11062001.html

Well that's what I get for asking. Definately take a look. Gracias...

 

[Runt]

Well that's what I get for asking. Definately take a look. Gracias...

Lol, you're welcome. Don't worry; it makes a fairly interesting read.

 

[Runt]

While this is all anecdotal "evidence" and not at all statistically significant, I've found it interesting when comparing notes with other people who are adopted that they also find themselves as the odd ducks in their family. It's not that they don't get along with their family, it's just they seem to go off in other directions.

I've seen some of the same sort of "evidence" in my own family. Most of the individuals on my father's side of the family are highly intelligent despite having had few opportunities for education. My sisters and I are about as smart as our father (I think my little sister may be even more intelligent, but sometimes it is hard to tell because she doesn't apply herself academically). On our mother's side of the family it is very different. Most of the people there are of average intelligence (as far as I can tell) except for two of my uncles, both of whom share a father that is different than that of the rest of their siblings. Also, I have two cousins who are of 170+ intelligence (I know one is 174 and I think the other was a little lower than that) and whose father is also highly intelligent (although not as intelligent as his sons, at least as far as I can tell).

All this would seem to suggest, to me, that intelligence is---at least in part---hereditary. I do, however, believe that environment plays a big role in the development of intelligence---for example, if I recall correctly, a child's IQ is not set until the age of about 10; early stimulation of the mind, upbringing, education, and other factors can influence how much of a child's inherent potential is actually achieved. After that point, an individual supposedly just learns to use the natural tools that they have, but do experience any increases in IQ (although I guess with age they can experience decreases). Some of this information is available in the papers and articles I gave Victor.

 

[michel]

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!

Off topic, I have just seen your new religion!
On topic, I have asked my wife about adopting you, but she regretfully turns down your application, due to the fact that we have no room available for trampolines in the house, and she would hate to deny you the opportunity to persue your beliefs.

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.

I am finding that statement extremely hard to accept. Is it not 'irrational' for a girl and boy to have unprotected sex ? If both had their 'rational' hats on, they would realize just how much danger they are putting themselves in, by the act (ie Pregnancy, danger of contracting STD's)..............

more debatable and definitely 'murky', but would it be rational for a human who is trying to commit suicide by drowning, to deny the impulse to breathe ? - and yet, we can't.

There are so many 'inherrent inbuilt reflexes' that, in my view, are irrational hard wired into us. Do you still disagree?

In the example of the 'sex' example given above, as you and I both know, it doesn't seem to matter how often you get the message accross to youngsters of the inherrent dangers of sex, that they will still indulge. That would further indicate that some irationality cannot be unlearned.
; or at the very least, can only be unlearned through lengthy periods of hard disciplining.