Rationality Ain't Sexy

[mm_ll]

I'm all for emotions, and I'm not suggesting that we should do anything to get ride of them.

You can't, no one can! It is part of our nature, we have both the rational and irrational sides, it's a matter of preferences.

Some people will refrain from having emotions, but what they are actually doing is internalizing. Then at one point they let it all out, either on a clearly irrational way or very passively. Of course I'm speaking for myself, as I have personal experience on this subject. My shrink called it 'passive aggressive' behavior.

One model that I liked was the Myer-Briggs temperament indicator or MBTI. You can check it here, but I prefer the more commercial version here.

They show the 2 distinctive functions: the irrational (how we perceive the world), and rational (how we judge what we perceived). They split the perceiving function into Intuitive (N) and sensory (S), and the judging function into Thinking (T) and Feeling (F). There are online free tests you can do to find out what is your type.

So why all of that ? well, just to show that according to this model we all have the rational and irrational sides, and they necessarily work together. We perceive, we judge, all the time! nothing to do with theism or atheism.

LaMond's theory that scientists are also irrational resonates with me.

On the other hand, I think the title for this thread does not make sense. Rationality is sexy, and so is irrationality.

ML.

[LaMont Cranston]

ML, When I came up with the title of this thread, what I meant was that, in my opinion, rationality doesn't have a lot of sizzle to it. There seem to be certain types of people who talk about it more than others, and some of them come across as yawners. Others (i.e. Dawkins) claim that they are rational thinkers and tout the wonderfulness of rationality...and I'm all for rationality...but they have a way of exposing themselves as far less than being clear and rational by their actions.

I'm interested in the power of ideas and how they work. I think the writings of Dawkins about memes are some of his best work. If some people have the goal of having rationality have a wider appeal...and I happen to think that's a pretty reasonable goal to have...I'm interested in using this thread to considering that.

OK, I'm back home now, and I've got a lot of catching up to do. I slept for 13 hrs. after making it back from the Mainland. Take care...

[LaMont Cranston]

Surendra, It could be that there are other options available in life than contrarianism and cronyism that could achieve rationality...or at least more things in that direction. For a guy who claims he doesn't make all that many assumptions, you seem to make a lot of them about "the law of unintended consequences" and lots of other things.

Scientists and others who consider themselves to be rational thinkers often find themselves considering things that might be unknowable, but the only way that anybody can know they are unknowable is to consider them as best they can. Will be actually ever know anything for certain that proves anything about, say, string theory and the existence of other dimensions? Does that mean that some of the best minds on the planet should not consider it?

When is comes to so-called unintended consequences, does that law apply equally to everybody? Simply because we say that something was unintended, does that make it so? In my experience, some people are much more intentional and deliberate than others, and those people, very likely, experience many fewer unintended consequences than those people who perceive the world as being in a state of chaos. There's another very time-honored concept called "self-fulfilling prophecy" that goes back to the Greeks. The way it works is that people hope or expect that something will happen, and they do what it takes to make it so. People sometime "forget" that the fact they expected something to happen and did what it took to make it happen were part of the process.

There's a lot more that we can talk about regarding this subject. I look forward to hearing from you...

[Surendra Darathy]

In my experience, some people are much more intentional and deliberate than others, and those people, very likely, experience many fewer unintended consequences than those people who perceive the world as being in a state of chaos.

I'm not interested in your personal experience. Anecdotes are only a means of personalising an argument in the first person. I'm interested in any evidence you can cite that people who exercise their "intentionality" experience fewer incidences of unintended consequences. This is not to say that people cannot formulate a business plan and try to execute it. I don't think such studies of "intentionality" have been done scientifically, and anecdotal reports don't carry much weight with me. People do well with short term plans that include attainable goals.

There's another very time-honored concept called "self-fulfilling prophecy" that goes back to the Greeks. The way it works is that people hope or expect that something will happen, and they do what it takes to make it so. People sometime "forget" that the fact they expected something to happen and did what it took to make it happen were part of the process.

We hear much lately of confirmation bias. We hear very little of people's unfulfilled expectations when they have anything to do with woo. Self-fulfilling prophecy is folk wisdom, and again, it is anecdotal in nature. When you do what it takes to make something happen, the actions are invariably empirical, or else they don't get much credence. Except in folk wisdom, but that makes it kind of a recursion on the a posteriori.

When is comes to so-called unintended consequences, does that law apply equally to everybody?

The law of unintended consequences is completely de-personalised. It's sort of like the opposite of karma.

Simply because we say that something was unintended, does that make it so?

Tell her lies, but feed her candy.

It could be that there are other options available in life than contrarianism and cronyism that could achieve rationality...or at least more things in that direction.

It could be that Bigfoot is tramping around in the north woods.

Scientists and others who consider themselves to be rational thinkers often find themselves considering things that might be unknowable, but the only way that anybody can know they are unknowable is to consider them as best they can.

It's unknowable whether this or that is unknowable. It could be that Bigfoot is tramping around in the north woods.

Will be actually ever know anything for certain that proves anything about, say, string theory and the existence of other dimensions? Does that mean that some of the best minds on the planet should not consider it?

In the end, whatever they do, they will only be able to cite their results. Remember what Yoda said: "There is no try."

Surendra, For a guy who claims he doesn't make all that many assumptions, you seem to make a lot of them about "the law of unintended consequences" and lots of other things.

Okay, if you can point out the assumptions I've made. The law of unintended consequences is mainly about chaos theory. Otherwise, you have just personalised the argument in the second person. That's all I'll say about it.

[LaMont Cranston]

Surendra, First of all, I doubt that's all that you'll say about it. I am familiar with chaos theory, but, by using my rational thinking, I'd say that you've done much more research about it, and you assign much more imortance to it than I do. (Isn't that where the word "ergodic" comes from?"

Chaos theory is exactly that, a theory. You are not interested in my personal experiences...or, I assume, the first person experiences of others...but based on your first person experiences, you accept many of the concepts involved with chaos theory. Hey, that's all well and good, but we're talking about your subjectivity.

Even you admit that people can formulate business plans, attain short term goals, etc. Excuse me, but how long is "short term?" What are the limitations to that kind of intentional thinking? If you know of any limitations, I'd love to see the evidence you have to support your arguments.

The biggest assumption I can see that you've made is that you've assumed that there might be more validity to chaos theory than it deserves. OK, the so-called law of unintended consequences is completely depersonalized...or so you think. From what I can tell, you have rejected certain ideas and are convinced they are woo-based or whatever. Fine, but you have also clung to certain ideas (i.e the law of unintended consequences) that you cannot prove. While we're on the subject, do you have any evidence that the law of unintended consequences is based on rational thinking?

I do remember what Yoda said. I also remember what Hamlet said "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy..."

[Xamonas Chegwé]

I can't believe you just trotted out the 'only a theory' argument, LaMont. I am sure you are familiar with the difference between of a scientific theory and the use of the word in its more mundane context to mean 'a guess'.

According to the United States National Academy of Sciences,

Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena,

[LaMont Cranston]

Xamonas, Believe it! As I said, I have a life-long love of science, and I'm all for theories. I get it that there are applications for chaos theory and the law of unintended consequences, and those are valid ways of looking at the world and describing things that happen. I also happen to think that many of those way are rather limited, or that they offer, at best, partial explanations.

For example, if somebody wants to dismiss self-fulfilling prophecy as woo, that's fine, but it describes what Surendra is talking about. He thinks the world is a certain way, but there's no way he can prove it. He sees shit that happens, and it fits into his subjective conception of the world. He even backs up that conception with viewpoints from others that agree with his pre-conceptions and calls them evidence. It still comes down to his first person perceptions.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Xamonas, Believe it! As I said, I have a life-long love of science, and I'm all for theories. I get it that there are applications for chaos theory and the law of unintended consequences, and those are valid ways of looking at the world and describing things that happen. I also happen to think that many of those way are rather limited, or that they offer, at best, partial explanations.

What do you mean by "all for theories"? That says nothing to me about whether you understand the difference between a scientific theory - which is pretty much equivalent to 'accepted scientific fact' - and the use of the word in common parlance.

The law of unintended consequences is not a scientific theory. It is merely an illustrative adage, similar to Murphy's Law. It has no basis in Chaos theory, although chaos can, in some cases, explain particular unexpected results. TLOUC is no real explanation of anything. It is merely another way of saying, "The best laid schemes o' mice an' men..."

Chaos Theory, on the other hand, offers definite, mathematical reasons for why certain dynamic systems behave in an unpredictable manner. Where it applies, it is neither vague, nor partial. It would help if you didn't confuse the two in a way that implies some wooish, vagueness to CT.

For example, if somebody wants to dismiss self-fulfilling prophecy as woo, that's fine, but it describes what Surendra is talking about. He thinks the world is a certain way, but there's no way he can prove it. He sees shit that happens, and it fits into his subjective conception of the world. He even backs up that conception with viewpoints from others that agree with his pre-conceptions and calls them evidence. It still comes down to his first person perceptions.

I can't see how anything in this paragraph is related to the one above. How is somebody dismissing self-fulfilling prophecies as woo related to Chaos Theory in any way? Why is this an example of anything? You seem to have made a huge non sequitur here.

[LaMont Cranston]

Xamonas, You are quite right about that thing with scientific theories and me making a non sequitur. I just got home from two weeks travelling, and I realized, after reading your post, that I was hardly at the height of my rational thinking. Hey, at least I'm rational enough to recognize that I'm not completely rational. By me, that's a good place to start.

I do understand the difference between an accepted scientific theory and how the word is used in common practice. I was a science and math whiz as a young man and fell in love with chemistry. I started my freshman year in college as a chem major, but upon finding that it was the hardest major at the University of California and much less interesting than quite a few other things, including tits (and the lovely women who are walking around with them), cheese, wine and a lot of other things, I changed majors...quite a few times, actually...and never looked back.

It did seem to me that Surendra was mixing chaos theory and TLOUC, but I'm sure he will clarify his position on those things. Right now, laying down and taking a nap feels like the most fun and rational thing to do. See you later...

[Surendra Darathy]

The law of unintended consequences is not a scientific theory. It is merely an illustrative adage, similar to Murphy's Law. It has no basis in Chaos theory, although chaos can, in some cases, explain particular unexpected results. TLOUC is no real explanation of anything. It is merely another way of saying, "The best laid schemes o' mice an' men..."

Chaos Theory, on the other hand, offers definite, mathematical reasons for why certain dynamic systems behave in an unpredictable manner.

+1


In a thread entitled "Rationality Ain't Sexy", one can almost anticipate seeing TLOUC turn out like a generalised Murphy's Law suggesting that you can't even get things to go wrong in just the right way. I more or less was thinking about the unpredictable failures of socioeconomic systems and the predictable failures of social engineering schemes. It wasn't intended as an argument that rationality is generally sexy, since that is more a matter of individual taste.

The perversity of human intentionality knows no limit.

[mm_ll]

I'm interested in the power of ideas and how they work. I think the writings of Dawkins about memes are some of his best work.

Power of ideas & memes... interesting correlation. Some ideas survive the times just because they fit to a certain purpose. That does not make them true thought, but it also do not make them less important. God is a very powerful idea and can also make people do very bad things, specially the ones that don't know the difference between an idea and a proven theory.
ML.

[LaMont Cranston]

mm, Yes, God is a very powerful idea. Is it the idea that makes people do "bad" things, or is it the people who take that idea and claim they are doing it in the name of God, Jesus, country, success, money, old, fame or whatever? What you failed to mention is that the idea of God...whether or not God exists...is that idea can also have people do many good things. The fact that people do good or bad things based on that idea is really a separate issue from whether or not God exists.

Yes, I'm interested in the power of ideas and how they evolve. Let's consider an idea such as "All men are created equal." The concept as a pretty long history, but on July 3, 1776, there were, to the best of my knowledge, zero democracies on the planet. Since July 4, 1776, there are lots of them, no matter how corrupt those democracies turn out to be or however flawed. I'd say that's a pretty powerful idea.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

mm, Yes, God is a very powerful idea. Is it the idea that makes people do "bad" things, or is it the people who take that idea and claim they are doing it in the name of God, Jesus, country, success, money, old, fame or whatever? What you failed to mention is that the idea of God...whether or not God exists...is that idea can also have people do many good things. The fact that people do good or bad things based on that idea is really a separate issue from whether or not God exists.

Yes, I'm interested in the power of ideas and how they evolve. Let's consider an idea such as "All men are created equal." The concept as a pretty long history, but on July 3, 1776, there were, to the best of my knowledge, zero democracies on the planet. Since July 4, 1776, there are lots of them, no matter how corrupt those democracies turn out to be or however flawed. I'd say that's a pretty powerful idea.

Powerful ideas are not necessarily good ideas. National Socialism, for example.

[LaMont Cranston]

Gawdzilla, Nobody said that powerful ideas are good ideas. What I did say is that I am interested in the power of ideas and how they work. When we know to be true is that throughout human history, there can be a status quo, and certain people come along with ideas, concepts, inventions, etc. and change the way that people perceive the world. Among the people who have had these ideas, regardless of what you or I think of them, are people such as Moses, Jesus, Gutenberg, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Jefferson, Marx, Darwin, Freud and Einstein to name just a few. As somebody who is interested in such things as religion, history, philosophy, spirituality, the nature of consciousness and quite a few other things, I am enthusiastically interested in how current ideas are doing in the context of the greater society and the impact they might have on the future of our species.

What's also true is that some ideas make it, some of them on a global scale. Without question, Hitler had a large impact on the world, but national socialism itself had a relatively short run. From what I can tell, communism might have seemed like a pretty reasonable idea, at least reasonable enough for the leaders of some countries to try it out, but it has not worked very well in places like the former Soviet Union and China. I have not suggested, so far, that any specific ideas, other than "All men are created equal" are powerful ideas, much less good or bad.

[Surendra Darathy]

Gawdzilla, Nobody said that powerful ideas are good ideas. What I did say is that I am interested in the power of ideas and how they work.

Well, that is as much to say you think "big ideas are sexy", which would get you back on track to discussing the OP.

When we know to be true is that throughout human history, there can be a status quo, and certain people come along with ideas, concepts, inventions, etc. and change the way that people perceive the world. Among the people who have had these ideas, regardless of what you or I think of them, are people such as Moses, Jesus, Gutenberg, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Jefferson, Marx, Darwin, Freud and Einstein to name just a few.

Oh, wait. "Making history is sexy."

As somebody who is interested in such things as religion, history, philosophy, spirituality, the nature of consciousness and quite a few other things, I am enthusiastically interested in how current ideas are doing in the context of the greater society and the impact they might have on the future of our species.

Thus exposing the limp tautology at the core of this thread: "Big ideas are big." "People care about what people care about." Generating tautologies like these is not a practice enjoyed by those who think rationality is sexy.

What's also true is that some ideas make it, some of them on a global scale. Without question, Hitler had a large impact on the world, but national socialism itself had a relatively short run. From what I can tell, communism might have seemed like a pretty reasonable idea, at least reasonable enough for the leaders of some countries to try it out, but it has not worked very well in places like the former Soviet Union and China. I have not suggested, so far, that any specific ideas, other than "All men are created equal" are powerful ideas, much less good or bad.

Actually, if we grade on a curve, all Gaussian distributions are created equal.

We can compare apples and oranges and say that all fruit is created equal. Some fruits are more average than others.

There's no accounting for platitudes. Horses for courses; platitudes for platypi. Hobgoblins are the consistency of small minds.