Rationality is overrated

One of the comments about this review:

Yeah, really. The reviewer seems to have some personal issues spilling onto the page.

I’m now tempted to read the book just to see if it’s that bad.

That is exactly the same as saying, “What I meant by health is overrated is that we seem to think that we have to be healthy, that if we aren’t that’s something to be ashamed of”.

Of course, it might take an actual rational mind to see that.

The consequences of irrationality depend on the exact situation.

But those who praise irrationality tend to want to apply it in situations when when rationality is the preferred approach. And just by suggesting that there is a “preferred approach” is “forcing” rationality on them against their will.

Please, give an example, Gib.

It is impossible for a human being to go through life not thinking irrationally even if they think of themselves as rational
Also just as irrational decisions are not always bad then rational ones are not always good no matter what the intention

Irrationality is the absence of rationality.

If you are thinking in a wrong way, you aren’t necessarily thinking in an irrational way.

So irrationality doesn’t mean wrong thinking. It means “not thinking” but “bringing some instinctive or emotional drives into thinking”.

I agree. See…we can agree. :mrgreen:

Or someone stuck in a rationalist’s frame of mind. Your analogy doesn’t hold… at all. When is it ever to one’s benefit to not be healthy?

Whereas striving for health is more or less synonymous with striving for survival, striving for rationality is not. 99% of animals on this planet survive quite well without a mechanism in their brain for “rational thinking”. Most of the human brain helps us survive without having to constantly employ “rational thinking”. 90% of the time, we are governed by instinct, intuition, emotion, fantasy, and a lot of irrational thinking–and for the most part it gets us by. I don’t think we can say the same for being unhealthy.

Playing with your kids.

And seeing as how 99% of animals throughout 99% of our collective evolutionary history have employed that approach, I’d say it can (sometimes) be effective.

Funny, the way that people know what animals are thinking. :laughing:

I think there is more to it James

To rate is to consider to be of a certain quality or standard. The rating of rationality can be higher and always is higher than the person trying to be rational.
Rationality is less emotional than the person delivering it.

I am thinking that perhaps, rationality is over the rating of some people . . .

. . . therefore overrated for those who are not rational.

To rate is to consider to be of a certain quality or standard.

Rationality can be rated as higher than its opposite IE irrationality.

Rationality is overrated in a world full of irrational people - perhaps always.

You are not rational when you are playing with your kids?

How much rational thinking do you think animals do, phyllo? (Besides humans).

For what it’s worth, being human myself, I can tell you (from first-hand introspective subjective experience) that rational thinking isn’t the rule across the board for all animal intelligence.

^ Wow, good enough for a quote! Mind if I quote you in my sig, encode?

^ This too. Is this another way of saying the same thing?

So if I am to translate this, you mean to say: rationality is deemed to be of a certain quality or standard in a world full of irrational people? And if it’s overrated, that means its deemed to be such… in excess? Or perhaps deemed to be of a higher quality or standard than it really is? And why by irrational people in particular? Are you saying that the reason rationality is overrated is because the people doing the rating are irrational? That if they were more rational, then rationality would be rated more accurately?

Must decode your encoding, encode. :laughing:

No… I’m not… am I supposed to feel some kind of cognitive dissonance now? What do you imagine an ir/rational parent doing with their children?

And while I’m at it, I think surreptitious deserves to be quoted for this:

^ So much wisdom packed into such simple words. If you’re reading this surreptitious, mind if I quote you in my sig?

It’s hard to say because we can’t examine their thinking process. All we can do is look at their behavior and deduce how they may have arrived at it.
So if one looks at some behaviors … animals build shelters, the seek out food when hungry, they take steps to avoid predators … those seem to be rational behaviors. Why are the thoughts which produced the behavior not called rational? Simply because they are classified as “instinctive” behaviors and therefore we are saying that they required no thought. I’m not sure if that logic is legitimate.

If you look at Zen, there is a concept of “no-mind”. Once you free yourself of illusions of life and dualistic thinking, you will be able to “see” clearly and respond appropriately in every situation. It seem possible to call this “instinctive”. But the person in this state is not emotional or irrational. He is fully integrated with his environment. That could be called the most rational state.

So perhaps, animals are also fully integrated into their environments and acting more rationally than humans … and consequently thinking more rationally than humans.

You are playing with Arminius’ kids?

He is playing without using his brain - with your kids, Arminius. :open_mouth:

Meditation is a right-brained activity. Thinking is left-brained. The state of “no-mind” makes you calm, better focused, but not necessarily rational. Unless emotional stability is what you mean by being rational. Which I don’t think it’s what it means to be rational. Rationality has to do with the degree to which your decisions are informed (by evidence, facts, etc.) You can be perfectly calm and still be delusional (e.g. you can believe in the existence of God.)

The problem with this discussion is that we are not being consistent with out definition of “rational”. Most of the time, when someone here on ILP is charged with being irrational, it means the person is not sticking to logic or reason according to the one bringing up the charge. But then if an animal eats because it is hungry, and we call that rational, we are suddenly switching to another definition. ← In this case, it means something like: doing what an organism must do to survive. Or perhaps: doing what anyone else would do if they were in that situation. Or maybe: doing whatever fulfills a desire. That has nothing to do with thinking with proper logic or using proper reasoning. Almost any kind of behavior could be considered rational in that case, any state of mind. The dog, when he is hungry, eats because of an urge, a drive. He doesn’t need to think in his head first: “Hmm, I have these urges to consume food. Now, usually, in the past, whenever I’ve had these urges, I would eat and they would be satisfied. Therefore, it seems rational that this is what I should do in this case. Okay, I’ll do it.”

In this thread, I’m sticking to a particular definition of rationality: the application of well-formed logic and reasoning in one’s thoughts. The move from this to that of: “animals seem to do whatever’s conducive to survival or to satisfy their urges” is cheating in my books. It’s a switch from one definition to another so as to obfuscate examples of how irrationality (or should I say non-rationality?) can sometimes be effective in surviving or getting what you want.

:open_mouth:

Quick! Take your sister and come home!

Since we don’t have access to animal thinking, we can’t actually say if they are using “well-formed logic and reasoning” or not. We don’t know what they think. The situation is further complicated by the fact that “animals” is a word that covers many species with a variety of brains.

But you did bring up animals and you did say that they don’t use rational thinking. Right?

It seems that you were trying to strengthen your argument by bringing animals into it.

We may not know precisely how animals think but we can deduct that to a certain degree from how they behave
Granted it is not an exact science but there must be some correlation between how they think and what they do

Yes, I was. And you’re right, I did say 99% of the animal kingdom use non-rational methods to surviving 99% of the time. No I can’t prove this but I’m highly certain of it. I don’t think every time an chimp scratches his ass, he has to go through a rational thought process in order to justify the action. I think most animals just do what they feel like doing without thinking.

I also brought up the point that we can all easily verify that rational thinking is not always the guiding principle that determines every one of our actions just by doing a little introspection. So even though we can’t scan the mind of an animal in order to verify the presence of rational think, we can do something equivalent with ourselves.