Rationality Ain't Sexy

[Tigger]

I dislike the modern tendency to conflate the term "sexy" with the extended term "appealing to mindless, immediate gratification, good for the advertising business and generally celebrity-worthy"

That is all.

Good. I'm pleased you said that, because now I understand the point of the OP.

[LaMont Cranston]

JimC, I am not real crazy about the term being used that way either. Rationality is about being mindful, about using your intelligence to make correct decisions for yourself and others. I suippose I could have titled the thread something like "Rationality doesn't have much appeal to large parts of the population," but I assumed, and I think correctly, that most people would get the point of what we're talking about.

[FBM]

One thing's for sure: woo sells. How much money finds its way to religions, superstitions, conspiracy theories and other such irrational trash? A carefully-crafted, feel-good bullshit story will outsell boring, difficult rationality any day, as long as the majority of sheeple are dim and gullible enough. Therefore, god.

[LaMont Cranston]

FBM, OK, I think most of us would agree with you that there's a considerable amount of woo that sells rather nicely. Woo that is well-crafted can have considerable appeal to certain segments of the society. That's just a description of the way things are. Do you just want to bitch about it during those times when you're not with the hotties, or do you actually have any real ideas?

You are the one who used the words "boring" and "difficult" to describe rationality. Is that what you think rational thinking is like? Let's face it, difficult might have an element of "sexy" to it, especially if it looks as if the effort expended might enhance the life of the doer or others. However, there's nothing "sexy" about boring.

One of the things I've asked people to consider in this thread is to consider the possibility of having rationality be more "sexy." I've also suggested that people who really are rational thinkers can use their capacities to be rational to apply rational principles to other parts of their lives, including better relationships, better understandings of business and money, etc.

Let me ask you this...do you think that the sexiness quotient of ideas, concepts, etc. is a constant, or do certain things get more or less sexy over time? I'd say it's pretty obvious that the appeal that something has can and does change over time. There was a time when Communism was a pretty sexy idea for many Americans. Capitalism, with all its faults, seems to have more appeal to billions of people in countries such as China, India and Russia. Communism didn't work very well. Once again, that's merely a description of the way things are.

So, do you have any real ideas, or do you just want to bitch and moan about the state of the world?

[FBM]

FBM, OK, I think most of us would agree with you that there's a considerable amount of woo that sells rather nicely. Woo that is well-crafted can have considerable appeal to certain segments of the society. That's just a description of the way things are. Do you just want to bitch about it during those times when you're not with the hotties, or do you actually have any real ideas?

You are the one who used the words "boring" and "difficult" to describe rationality. Is that what you think rational thinking is like? Let's face it, difficult might have an element of "sexy" to it, especially if it looks as if the effort expended might enhance the life of the doer or others. However, there's nothing "sexy" about boring.

One of the things I've asked people to consider in this thread is to consider the possibility of having rationality be more "sexy." I've also suggested that people who really are rational thinkers can use their capacities to be rational to apply rational principles to other parts of their lives, including better relationships, better understandings of business and money, etc.

Let me ask you this...do you think that the sexiness quotient of ideas, concepts, etc. is a constant, or do certain things get more or less sexy over time? I'd say it's pretty obvious that the appeal that something has can and does change over time. There was a time when Communism was a pretty sexy idea for many Americans. Capitalism, with all its faults, seems to have more appeal to billions of people in countries such as China, India and Russia. Communism didn't work very well. Once again, that's merely a description of the way things are.

So, do you have any real ideas, or do you just want to bitch and moan about the state of the world?

OK, let me start by clarifying that I have nothing against you personally. I do make harsh comments in an effort to emphasize what I see as weak points is your position, but it isn't meant as a personal affront. I'm not bitching and moaning about the state of the world, just your woo-driven arguments. I think everything in the universe is just as it ought to be, human confusion included. I agree with you that rationality - and subsequently humanity - would benefit from a bit of sexing-up. What I don't think you appreciate is that such would result in a huge dimunition of popularity of the woo-filled theistic, irrational propositions that you espouse. Once rationality becomes the norm, far-flung, Bronze-age, childish, ungrounded beliefs in supernatural super-beings with magical powers that nevertheless remain undetectable will suffer for lack of rational adherents. Correct me if I'm wrong on this, or have you forsaken the central role that faith takes in theism?

[LaMont Cranston]

FBM, I didn't think that you necessarily had anything against me personally, but it did feel as if you took a few cheap shots at me. I've said that I'm not one of those namby-pamby fundie types that show up on some of this fora; I have a bit more of a "street" mentality. On other fora I've had some non-believers lecture me about what I should do if I really believed what Jesus was talking about. It's very obvious to me that these people had neither any understanding of my take on Jesus or what Jesus was really talking about.

I have not gotten into the reasons why I'm a theist or much of my take on the teachings of Jesus, etc., and I'll probably do more of that, in other threads, as we go along. This thread is about the appeal of rationality and the possibilities of increasing that appeal. The fact that I'm a theist, and you're an atheist doesn't mean that you, I and others can't have this discussion. I believe that one thing we have in common is that we both place a high value on rational thinking. Where we tend to differ is about how we determine what is rational. Whether you can get next to the idea or not, I think that believing there's a high probability that God exists is the most rational position for me to take based on my life experiences, research and every other source I can find.

I happen to agree with you that everything in the universe is just as it ought to be, human confusion, doubt, love, hate, compassion, fear, etc. all included. There are a number of philosophies that believe that the state of existence in perfect the way it presently exists, and the concept of perfection includes the potential for change. (i.e. Things, including rational thinking, can get more or less "sexy.")

You make several references to my woo-driven arguments and the woo-filled, theistic irrational propositions I espouse. Excuse me, but could you list those arguments and propositions. Once again, the fact that I'm a theist doesn't prevent me from recognizing the value of rationality and being able to utilize rational principles in my life. Or, do you think that the only use of rational thinking is to engage in endless arguments with believers about the existence of God?

You are absolutely wrong that I don't appreciate the implications of living in a more rational world, and I'd like to see that happen. What I see is that many self-proclaimed rational thinkers (i.e. Richard Dawkins) aren't anything close to being that. I do have to take issue with your words "Once rationality becomes the norm..." Just what leads you to believe that rationality is ever going to be the norm? You've already indicated that you think rationality is boring and difficult, not very sexy at all. Can you describe a scenario where something that is boring and difficult is going to have the kind of mass appeal that it becomes the norm?
Just how is that going to happen, and how rational is it for you to think that it might? Is that clear thinking or wishful thinking?

As for faith, yes, I have faith in a lot of things. If, as you said, the universe is just as it ought to be, then faith is where it ought to be. I have faith that when I get on an airplane that it's going to have a safe landing at its destination. I have faith that when I cross the street, I'm going to make it to the other side. That doesn't mean that I don't look both ways before crossing. Rational thinkers do things like that, and it doesn't much matter if they are atheists or theists.

[Surendra Darathy]

Rationality is about being mindful, about using your intelligence to make correct decisions for yourself and others.

Wrong. Rationality is about making decisions under constraints, such as evidence, or adherence to reasoning from a clearly-defined, non-arbitrary set of axioms, as in mathematics.

The reason that rationality is not appealing to some people is that it entails the notion of operating under constraints that are not decided upon arbitrarily, an example of the latter being the stipulations of moral absolutes pulled out of the arse of some authority figure. Sure, to an unsophisticated person, the axioms of mathematics may seem arbitrary, but when you examine them carefully, they are not.

Look at how a copying machine works: A + A = 2 A; if B = A, then A + B = 2 A.

Nobody who looks both ways before crossing the street is employing "faith" as a pedestrian. Your "faith" in airline travel is based on reliability statistics. Yours is the kind of equivocation for which theists are justifiably infamous. Faith is about asserting things you can't check.

It's very obvious to me that these people had neither any understanding of my take on Jesus or what Jesus was really talking about.

Hint: Nobody gives a fuck about your "take" on Jesus, which has been arrived at as arbitrarily as any of the rest of your woo. What's another word for "a take on something"? It's a fucking opinion.

Rationality already operates under constraints; the constraint of being made "sexy" may or may not conflict with the existing constraints. If you tell us what you think is entailed in "sexy", then we can evaluate the consistency. Is operating under constraints appealing in general? No? Why do you think not? Most people are sick of the constraints under which they know goddamn well they operate. Such as crossing the street after looking both ways.

Just what leads you to believe that rationality is ever going to be the norm?

If you just want to demonstrate your mastery of the fallacy of "argumentum ad populam", why don't you just say so?

Or, do you think that the only use of rational thinking is to engage in endless arguments with believers about the existence of God?

What we really will be examining is how an argument that "rationality isn't sexy" becomes a justification for belief in woo.

Let's face it, difficult might have an element of "sexy" to it, especially if it looks as if the effort expended might enhance the life of the doer or others.

Let's face it, some people think doing something that everyone can do ("rolling off a log") is not a mark of distinction. The exercise of faith is something one may do without expenditure of effort. Talk is cheap, Lamont. Unless you can bend a spoon with it, professing faith is nothing more than talk.

[LaMont Cranston]

Surenda, I was wondering when you were going to bring up bending a spoon. As I remember, we've already been through this on RDF.

Sorry, Dude, but most people are not sick of constraints such as looking both ways before crossing the street. Most people have it be a normal part of their lives, and the idea that they have some sort of negative feeling toward the act is patently absurd. In fact, some people are quite happy and grateful that they can live lives where they have figured out ways to successfully cross the street, stay out of jail, function with pieces of metal, paper and plastic so that they can buy and sell goods and services, etc. In real life, the everyday world, people can and do apply rational principles to have more pleasurable and successful interactions with their fellow human beings. At least most of us do. Some people go around mad at the world, uptight and angry with rather large axes to grind.

If you noticed...and, obviously, you didn't...FBM brought up the thing about rationality being the norm. I still like to know how, why and when he thinks that might ever happened, "argumentum ad populam" can go fuck itself.

No, what "we" will not be examining is how an examination of the idea that "rationality ain't sexy" is justification for belief in woo. At least, "we" will not be doing that if I am included in your idea of "we." I intend to have some of "us," and, yes, I'm included in that "us," consider the possibility that rationality might have greater appeal to more people, that it can be more "sexy." If that doesn't interest you, you can go back to "holding your own."

[Surendra Darathy]

most people are not sick of constraints such as looking both ways before crossing the street. Most people have it be a normal part of their lives, and the idea that they have some sort of negative feeling toward the act is patently absurd.

It's not patently absurd, because many of them spend several hours a week putting their brains on "hold" and partaking of their favorite brand of woo. In general, though, they're not so sick of it as to run blindly into heavy traffic hoping that the good lord will provide.

Naturally, then, I will be ever so grateful if you can reconcile the statements you made, above, with the following:

I do have to take issue with your words "Once rationality becomes the norm..." Just what leads you to believe that rationality is ever going to be the norm? You've already indicated that you think rationality is boring and difficult, not very sexy at all.

Since you do assert that "most people are not sick of (those) constraints", making their willingness to heed those constraints something we could reasonably call "the norm", I'm having trouble seeing just what sort of point you thought you might make by provocatively suggesting that "rationality ain't sexy".

Rationality may not, in fact, be sexy, but then what's your point? Rationality is necessary, and that makes it a moot point as to whether or not it is sexy. Most people who are unable to deploy rationality are basically ignorant of any facts.

what "we" will not be examining is how an examination of the idea that "rationality ain't sexy" is justification for belief in woo

No? And your point in writing your OP would be what? Poking a little fun at necessary but stodgy rationality? How about inquiring as to the excuses that people give for checking their all-too-normative rationality at the door of their favorite church/mosque?

[JimC]

JimC, I am not real crazy about the term being used that way either. Rationality is about being mindful, about using your intelligence to make correct decisions for yourself and others. I suippose I could have titled the thread something like "Rationality doesn't have much appeal to large parts of the population," but I assumed, and I think correctly, that most people would get the point of what we're talking about.

If you were using the word "sexy" in the way I described earlier (appealing to mindless, immediate gratification, good for the advertising business and generally celebrity-worthy), then I don't think that rationality could or even should be given that sort of spin.

If, on the other hand, you are implying that it would be a good thing if more people were both capable and interested in using rationality, then I would agree. Most of the debate would then devolve on reforming pedagogical methods within schools that are currently failing to adequately develop such a capacity in the young.

[FBM]

FBM, I didn't think that you necessarily had anything against me personally, but it did feel as if you took a few cheap shots at me... and it doesn't much matter if they are atheists or theists.

Actually, I have to agree with much of that post. I was becoming sarcastic and taking cheap shots at you. I hope you'll forgive me for that. I don't like that aspect of my behavior, but it tends to come out late at night when I'm tired and sleepy. I characterized your reasoning as "woo-driven" because I suspected a hidden agenda behind your motivations for this thread. Regardless of my suspicion, I should wait until that motive presents itself, rather than making a pre-emptive strike. I suspected that this thread was an end-around attack on rationality, as I can't see any way to characterize theism as rational, but I have to take into consideration that you, apparently, do. I can understand that position because I used to hold it, also. Also, yes, I should have said 'if rationality were ever to become the norm", emphasizing the subjunctive mood, rather than the predictive. I don't really expect things to change radically, and don't see why I should.

Mainly, I want to apologize and say that I look forward to continuing this discussion without the snark. Please remind me of this post if, late at night, I start getting snotty and taking cheap shots at you again.

[LaMont Cranston]

FBM, By me, there are no problems between us. If there was anything to forgive on either side, it is forgiven.

I have not planned any end around attack on rationality. I've done the best that I can to make it clear that I'm a fan of rationality and science; I believe that evolution happened and is still happening, although discoveries in the biological sciences may have changed the rules of the game. It's funny, but I find that I have more in common with what we might consider to be the atheist view of the world than I do with most of the true believer types I run into. It just so happens that, everything considered, I'm still a theist. I get it that it's difficult for quite a few people to get next to the idea that somebody can be a theist and embrace rational thinking, but I have no intention of trying to sneak in my ideas about God into this thread. I'd rather consider rational thinking for what it is, and how rational principles might be better utilized in the world...if that's possible.

You might have noticed that some people seem to have rather strong and angry reactions to even considering this idea. I consider that to be irrational behavior on the part of those people.

I believe I suggested earlier in this thread that we put certain emotions and actions under the microscope to see how rational they really are if our objective is to succeed at certain goals. For instance, how rational is it to be angry? In my experience playing poker, tennis, boxing, etc....and watching others do the same...if you can get other players angry, they become more mistake prone. It would appear that, at least much of the time, anger increases the potential for failure. Therefore, if a person has the goal of succeeding, getting angry may be an irrational way to behave.

Or, in these last few posts, we've considered forgiveness. One of the problems with forgiveness is that every time somebody mentions it, other people think "Oh, shit, here it comes...he's going to start talking to me about Jesus." For the sake of this discussion, let's leave Jesus and all of the other religious window dressing out of the mix. Jesus didn't invent forgiveness; it something that all human beings are capable of doing. What I'm suggesting is that we look at the act for what it is and what people get out of it.

OK, I look forward to hearing from you...

[LaMont Cranston]

Surendra, Speaking of angry people, how are you doing? You are correct when you say that "*(You) are having trouble seeing" what we're talking about. Hey, at least we agree on something.

As for you being "ever so grateful" if I can reconcile those statements, I don't much care if you are "ever so grateful" or not. In fact, I don't think that there's anything to reconcile. You, by your own admission, are the one who is having "trouble" understanding what we're talking about, and it's not particularly complicated. With your mathematical formulas, Latin references and constant mentions of woo, etc., you obviously think that you are more ratiional than thou. If you're so fucking rational, reconcile it yourself.

If you'll examine your posts, I think you'll find that you asserted that people were sick of the constraints that are involved with crossing the street, etc. You now want me to prove that isn't true? Please show what evidence you had to make that statement about people being sick of doing those things in the first place. It's not my fault that you say things like that, get called on them and can't back them up. I'd say that's irrational behavior on your part.

There's something else we agree on, and that is that rationality is necessary. Dude, there are a lot of things in life that are necessary...or at least appear to be that way. The fact that rationality (and some other things) are necessary doesn't make it a moot point whether or not they are sexy...or that their sexiness quotient can be increased or decreased. Some things that are necessary have a sexy appeal; some things don't.

If some people have the goal of even considering that it's possible to make rationality more appealing, is there some reason that rational people shouldn't do that?
Is that an unfit subject for consideration simply because somebody like you is having trouble understanding what we're discussing? How rational does that make your ass? As for yourapparent interest in what people do when they enter their favorite church/mosque, I'll leave that up to you.

[LaMont Cranston]

JimC, I am not implying...I am flat out saying...that it would be a good thing if more people were both capable and interested in better utilizing the principles of rational thinking. I have no doubt that everybody is capable of being rational, and we've already given some examples of how we utilize rational principles in our everyday lives. So, the problem is not capability, it's interest. The title of this thread say "Rationality Ain't Sexy." That's one way of saying that rationality isn't very interesting to large segments of the population.

You also say that you don't think rationality could be given that kind of spin. I must admit, I tend to lean in that direction too, but does that mean that we shouldn't even consider the possibilities? I don't know that anybody is ever going to prove anything about string theory, but what I see is that some of the brightest minds on the planet give it heavy consideration.

I've said that I'm interested in the power of ideas and how they grow and evolve through time. I can imagine that in 1650. there were a bunch of guys sitting around in pubs saying things like "Yeah, all men are created equal is a pretty sexy idea, but I doubt that it will ever catch on. It's just not that interesting." As people who place value on rational thinking...and even like to consider ourselves to be rational...is there any reason we shouldn't consider the possibilities of making it more interesting and appealing?

[mm_ll]

Rationality is about being mindful, about using your intelligence to make correct decisions for yourself and others.

LaMont and others, I think we are under different assumptions about what is rationality.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_choice_theory

The 'rationality' described by rational choice theory is different from the colloquial and most philosophical uses of rationality. 'Rationality' means in colloquial language 'sane' or 'in a thoughtful clear headed manner'.

In Rational Choice Theory 'rationality' simply means that a person reasons before taking an action. A person balances costs against benefits before taking any action, be it kissing someone, lighting up a cigarette or murdering an old man. In rational choice theory all decisions, crazy or sane, are arrived at by a 'rational' process of weighing costs against benefits.

I prefer the the second definition. That explains to me how you can make rational decisions and based on your [irrational] perceptions/experiences and believe in God. I've had different irrational perceptions/experiences, and therefore I make the rational decision of not believing in God.

Now it seems that your definition narrows the concept of rationality to
. the smart people (more rational = more use of the intelligence)
. the intention to maximize the outcomes in the benefit of people (yourself and others)
. the desired of the decision to be 'correct'

Now assuming "my" definition, there are people more skilled on weighting costs vs. benefits that others, and I think this skill is very sexy.

ML