Comments
Bl4nkface t1_j4v5bdu wrote
That's the argument of Daniel Kahneman's Thinking fast and slow.
tyco_brahe t1_j4vza5j wrote
That's what I thought too. System 1 is dumb, System 2 is lazy. Take your pick!
TheNotSoGreatPumpkin t1_j4wktsk wrote
My takeaway was it’s not really system two being lazy, it’s the whole brain trying to economize. System two is metabolically way more expensive than system one.
He admits in the book that the two systems don’t really exist independently of each other, but it’s a useful conceptual model for better understanding how our brains operate.
tyco_brahe t1_j4x8oso wrote
Necessity is the Mother of invention. Laziness is the Father.
I don't view "lazy" as a pejorative when describing system 2. To me, it means that it's efficient... it won't be engaged unless is has to, because it's expensive (metabolically).
Mostly I was just making a joke about 'lazy' system 2.
1bunch t1_j4wc41q wrote
Kahneman was inspired by Stanovich:
>”Among the pioneers [of my field] are.. Keith Stanovich, and Richard West. I borrow the terms System 1 and System 2 from early writings of Stanovich and West that greatly influenced my thinking..” > >—‘Thinking Fast and Slow’ p. 450
He made sure to give Stanovich credit in his public talks too. just off the top I think there was a GoogleTalk Q&A when someone asked Kahneman if “the 2 systems are literal systems that map onto the brain,” and he said something like “no, and to make it even worse, the idea wasn’t even my idea, it was Stanovich’s. I just tweaked his metaphor by making it into an image of ‘2 entities inside you’, but they don’t exist! For some reason I thought it would just be easier to grasp these abstract metaphors about cognitive processes if we imagined these processes as 2 quasi-entities in ourselves”
Kahneman often makes himself seem like a mess in his public q&A’s but he’s just hilariously self-deprecating, he’s quite intelligent and accomplished lol 😆
aspartame_junky t1_j4we484 wrote
An essential aspect of academia that I miss (having moved to industry) is the value of giving credit where due.
Yes, there are credit usurpers in academia too, but as a disciple, academia generally values citing your sources and giving credit where due, rather than taking credit for others' work (e.g., Elon)
[deleted] t1_j4wg5fw wrote
[deleted]
VoraciousTrees t1_j4wd27y wrote
Pair that book with "The Righteous Mind", which deals with morality as a framework for the "fast" system.
doireallyneedone11 t1_j4vcwg4 wrote
What's the definition of 'rationality' we're going with here?
SocraticMethadone t1_j4vmrdm wrote
In this literature, a rational strategy is one that's suited to your goals. So a rational belief is a belief the holding of which will tend to better position you to achieve your goals.
Now, the fun part is that for a very long time, folks just assumed that true beliefs would further their goals, whereas false ones would not. "Rational," then took up a secondary definition something along the lines of "following truth-preserving rules." So on that secondary definition, it's rational to hold a belief if that belief -- objectively -- follows from your previous beliefs.
WhatsTheHoldup t1_j4wksik wrote
>In this literature, a rational strategy is one that's suited to your goals. So a rational belief is a belief the holding of which will tend to better position you to achieve your goals.
Is it then rational for an oil exec to downplay climate change?
It suits their conscious goals of expanding their business, but they presumably have subconscious goals like legacy, happiness and survival which they are adversely affecting.
>for a very long time, folks just assumed that true beliefs would further their goals, whereas false ones would not. "Rational," then took up a secondary definition something along the lines of "following truth-preserving rules."
By this definition I still don't know. It's true that denying climate change helps their business so in that sense it's rational, but it also depends upon believing in untruths and sacrificing their other goals.
But you could also lie to others while not lying to yourself?
Is it better to say it's rational to understand climate change but lie about it, but it's irrational to actually believe the things you say?
>So on that secondary definition, it's rational to hold a belief if that belief -- objectively -- follows from your previous beliefs.
So this is now implying it's rational to be irrational as long as being irrational serves your singularly important goal?
SocraticMethadone t1_j4x6kks wrote
In practice, all of us have goals, some of which conflict. This is no less true of oil executives than it is of everyone else. It might well be the case that a certain belief best contributes to a goal that I have but not to the full set of goals. For instance, the executive may want to leave (usable) property to their grandchildren or endow a museum or whatever.
But the answer to your last question is definitely yes. I have lots and lots and lots of false beliefs that simply aren't worth the trouble of rooting out: it would be actively irrational of me to invest the time it would take to find them. In fact, I'd have fewer true beliefs if I tried. That much is mathematically demonstrable. (Take a look at the literature on satisfisizing as a maximization strategy.)
More broadly, though, yeah. A parent believing that their child is particularly adorable or talented might lead to a better relationship than would a more clinical belief set. If you belief a closer relationship to be a valuable thing, then you probably should hold the beliefs you need to form it.
Of course none of this is all-or-nothing. ("Belief the very best thing about your children or you'll die alone.") The point is just that evidence captures only one very narrow dimension of the the things we are doing when we believe.
generalmandrake t1_j4zut8a wrote
I think climate change is more of an individual vs the collective thing. Collectively barreling towards major climate change is suicidal, institutions like governments are especially at risk because major turmoil historically normally involves the collapse of regimes.
Individually the story is different. From a purely individualistic perspective the contemporary benefits of fossil fuels can outweigh costs that won’t be borne until after you are dead. Even when you consider things like genetic legacy, the economic wealth you accumulate from fossil fuels could actually put your descendants at an advantage in the future world, their survival may actually be improved. Also, there is a free rider problem as well, no one individual is the deciding factor in how much emissions we emit and how severe climate change will be. The lifetime CO2 output of a given person is marginal. If voluntarily economically hamstringing yourself and your family is not going to make a difference as far as the existential threats of climate change goes then it really is not rational to take that course of action.
DrumstickTruffleclub t1_j59h81x wrote
I agree it is a collective problem. But I feel guilty if I don't try to limit my emissions (reasonably, because I AM contributing to the problem) and so it's rational in a way to try to limit that feeling by acting to conserve energy. But there are situations where I feel the benefit to me of doing something (e.g. I would suffer health consequences and significant discomfort if I never turned the heating on in winter) outweighs the guilt. I guess everyone's calculation is different, depending on their circumstances and conditioning.
snoringpuppy5 t1_j5h3u7e wrote
Thank you for that
antiquemule t1_j4v2my2 wrote
Interesting. Reminds me of the excellent Gerd Gigerenzer's Gut Feelings.
ronin1066 t1_j4wj26z wrote
Sounds similar to the idea that our brains are geared to survival and often pure reason can be a hindrance to that. So our senses are not necessarily geared to give us a completely accurate model of the world, but rather one that will keep us alive.
I think it would be interesting if an AI had a more accurate version of reality but we didn't believe it and considered it a failed experiment. Not that I think we're that far off of reality, just an idea for a novel maybe.
WhatsTheHoldup t1_j4ws0mo wrote
>Not that I think we're that far off of reality, just an idea for a novel maybe.
I think we're pretty far off.
Why do humans deserve higher consideration than a rock? Than a single celled organism? Than a plant? Than a cow?
Because the reality we live in is that we do deserve it. All our structures of law, morality, ethics, etc reinforce this.
We can exclude a lot of those by creating a concept of "sentience/sapience/consciousness" which no one can actually properly define. But we're still left with the cow, dolphin, octopus, crow and many other species who we can't rationally justify not having rights.
We may have inadvertently just created ai that now fit those categories and made the problem worse. When the ai tells us it's sapient and deserves the same considerations we do, will we believe it or reject it?
(I'm not claiming Google's ai is actually sentient, but one day an ai might be and what happens if they engineers are fired who point that out?)
The only answer is that we are humans so we care about what happens to humans. We aren't cows and we never will be, so we don't care about rationally answering the question for cows nor ai.
An AI can either cut through this bullshit, or perhaps scarier, learn it and encourage us.
generalmandrake t1_j4zt5hf wrote
I’m pretty sure I had that exact same thought once. Humans might build a super computer one day they can actually determine the true nature of existence. But because it involves concepts that the human brain can’t grasp it wouldn’t make any sense to us and people just assume that the computer is broken and turn it off.
I like the analogy of trying to explain to a dog how a car engine works. You could sit there all day for years explaining it to the dog and you’ll never get through to them because the dog brain simply isn’t built to understand something like that since it involves concepts and processes that are beyond a dog’s reach cognitively.
For some reason many people seem to think that humans are capable of understanding almost anything, but this doesn’t really make much sense. We are just a more sophisticated version of dogs when it comes to cognition, but it is downright illogical to think that the human brain doesn’t have a ceiling when every other animal brain on earth has a ceiling. I mean, just ask anyone what physical reality actually is or where everything came from and you’ll never get a logical answer from anyone. I don’t necessarily think it’s even due to a lack of information and scientific data, I think the answer to the big question most likely involves certain concepts which the human brain had no evolutionary reason for being able to comprehend. Maybe we could build a computer that could do it, but like I said, the answer may not make any sense to us. I guess that is basically H.P. Lovecraft’s theory as well.
[deleted] t1_j4vehb9 wrote
[removed]
Re-lar-Kvothe t1_j4w7zml wrote
I had this conversation with friends that are less "philosophically" inclined. They believe I am a lunatic for seeing the world the way I do. I can only shrug my shoulders. They are my friends after all...
PostModernCombat t1_j4wewug wrote
Oh wow that sounds so hard, how do you cope?
Re-lar-Kvothe t1_j4wy69s wrote
Simple, because though we don't see the world through the same color eyes, they will defend me to the death if necessary, as I woukd them.
Or were you being sarcastic?
PostModernCombat t1_j4wyqrc wrote
Do you often find yourselves in potentially lethal standoffs? Tell me about this iris pigment based defence pact you have going there.
Re-lar-Kvothe t1_j4x48f6 wrote
Never in "potentially lethal standoffs." We argue vehemently about topics we are.passionate about but when all is said and done we realize we are not going to solve world hunger and recognize we are all in this together. We are striving for the same.goals and have different paths in mind to achieve thise goals.
We joke about the "philosophical bullshit" that seems to control our lives. We realized long ago it's just that, bullshit. And unless one of becomes POTUS there is nothing are arguments will change. We.chose different ways to address problems beyond our control. Rather than argue and hate we chose to empathize and understand each other. We have been a tight knit group for more than 45 years. Even though we have different philosophies on life and how to live it.
PostModernCombat t1_j4xabir wrote
So your friends actually do like to talk about philosophy and even macroeconomics with you, they just find your point of view at times problematic, and you’ve never had to defend each other “to the death…” I gotta say this whole thing has been kind of anticlimactic.
AConcernedCoder t1_j53x46d wrote
Interesting. In software development, you're forced to learn very quickly that there isn't enough time to not default to being a cognitive miser, to rule out possibilities, often referred to "rabbit holes," which could each require more concentration and cognitive effort than we have to spend on the task at hand.
dsgifj t1_j4us4l9 wrote
Explains his commitment to optimism in the face of a social order that seeks to undermine it's ecological survival
Laser_Fusion t1_j4v3aor wrote
Irrationality is a great defense against people with good arguments and none of your best interest in mind.
HoneydewInMyAss t1_j4v865o wrote
Also, we have an economic system based on self-interest. It's not necessarily "irrational" in that context.
So spending 4 hours of your day riding public transportation isn't necessarily more rational than your 30 minute commute.
the benefits are collective and long-term, but the sacrifices are individual and instantaneous.
It's hard saying one is necessarily more rational than the other, especially when the individual won't live long enough to see the fruits of their sacrifices.
That's why individualist answers to collectivist/systemic problems will never work, imo.
K0stroun t1_j4v2vzi wrote
Commitment and apologia riddled with lies and misrepresentations.
dsgifj t1_j4v7nx1 wrote
I mean that and participation in Epstein's legal defence for soliciting underage prostitutes.
The guy is one of the many prominent vanguards of centrism,
Which is basically just deluding yourself into thinking the status quo is working.
It's a market, people want their fear placated by educated men dressed in formal suits, that's their job.
[deleted] t1_j4wcv5k wrote
[deleted]
kevinzvilt t1_j4vf153 wrote
The argument here seems to be "Cultivate self-awareness for rational decision making" rather than "choose irrationality"
limpingpixel t1_j4wrti0 wrote
When I read I thought it was trying to argue, cultivate self-awareness so you can make a rational decision about when to choose irrationality.
Prosthemadera t1_j4vn4po wrote
I wouldn't consider falling in love irrational. I think he's conflating rationality with being stoic or having no emotions? One could argue that falling in love is actually very rational because it helps promote survival of the human species.
Either way, yes being silly or watching an exciting sports match can be "irrational" and fun but is that worthy of an article?
> While Odysseus had himself tied to the mast and rationally relinquished his option to act, his sailors plugged their ears with wax and rationally relinquished their option to know. At first this seems puzzling. One might think that knowledge is power, and you can never know too much. Just as it’s better to be rich than poor, because if you’re rich you can always give away your money and be poor, you might think it’s always better to know something, because you can always choose not to act on it. But in one of the paradoxes of rationality, that turns out not to be true. Sometimes it really is rational to plug your ears with wax [2]. Ignorance can be bliss, and sometimes what you don’t know can’t hurt you.
To call this rational ignorance is technically correct but a bit overly dramatic. Wearing sunglasses in sunlight would also be rational ignorance or wearing earplugs to protect from loud noises. Or a swimsuit to protect from the colder water because it "relinquishes" your option to feel the environment.
> Threats are another arena in which a lack of control can afford a paradoxical advantage. The problem with threatening to attack, strike, or punish is that the threat may be costly to carry out, rendering it a bluff that the target of the threat could call. To make it credible, the threatener must be committed to carrying it out, forfeiting the control that would give his target the leverage to threaten him right back by refusing to comply. A hijacker who wears an explosive belt that goes off with the slightest jostle, or protesters who chain themselves to the tracks in front of a train carrying fuel to a nuclear plant, cannot be scared away from their mission.
What is paradoxical about it? That's how threats work. It's rational to take a hijacker seriously.
To be honest, the article isn't very interesting. It's pop psychology you read on the toilet, like a longer version of a motivational poster. Did he write this because he has a quota to fulfill?
zhibr t1_j4zomfn wrote
>One could argue that falling in love is actually very rational because it helps promote survival of the human species.
Anything is rational or irrational depending on your assumptions of the goals. I think what's relevant is to explain why some specific goals should be assumed. You jumped to goals of a "selfish gene", while the example of falling in love is about immediate personal goals.
Prosthemadera t1_j4zxbjz wrote
> You jumped to goals of a "selfish gene", while the example of falling in love is about immediate personal goals.
Those personal goals are related to evolution.
zhibr t1_j4zxtsg wrote
Of course they are related, but they are not identical.
Prosthemadera t1_j500hg7 wrote
I never made such a distinction. You did. And what difference does it make? What insights are we getting that lead us to a better understanding? It's a discussion that goes nowhere and that ends up being about semantics.
zhibr t1_j51qefl wrote
ok
Prosthemadera t1_j51yhhw wrote
Do you know what sub you're in? Either argue your point or find something else to do. I am.
> 2. Argue your Position
> Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may be removed.
> 3. Be Respectful
> Comments which blatantly do not contribute to the discussion may be removed
generalmandrake t1_j4zvhkd wrote
You are confusing irrational with non rational. Irrational actions are normally ones that are actually harming you are frustrating your goals. You are going against all reason. Non-rational can either be effectively rational or irrational depending on the outcome, the key feature is that those things are driven more by instinct and mental shortcuts rather than higher order rationality.
Things like falling in love or following a sports team are non-rational, not irrational. Evolution has fine tuned the brain so that non-rational actions are often in line with rational goals, or at least won’t interfere with rational goals, but obviously this is not foolproof and is on a case by case basis.
Prosthemadera t1_j4zx52s wrote
I don't quite see the distinction you are making. Irrational means non-rational. The prefix ir- means not or non.
generalmandrake t1_j50z4k3 wrote
Prefixes aside, the definition of the word "irrational" is normally taken to mean unreasonable and illogical, whereas non-rational is normally taken to mean not based in reason. There is an important distinction between the two. One goes against reason, while the other is not rooted in reason, but is not necessarily unreasonable in nature.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irrational https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nonrational
Prosthemadera t1_j514w4p wrote
I'm not interested in discussing word meanings, let alone what a word is "normally taken to mean". It's a total waste of time and I'd rather read Pinker's article again.
generalmandrake t1_j5175rj wrote
No, wasting time is looking up the Latin prefixes instead of the actual dictionary definitions(which I provided the links to in my response).
Non-rational and irrational are two different words with two different meanings. I’m not sure what to say other than if you are maintaining that they mean the same thing you are simply wrong.
Zacthronax t1_j4x5hcx wrote
>I wouldn't consider falling in love irrational. I think he's conflating rationality with being stoic or having no emotions?
My interpretation is it's more to do with monogamy and the things we do and say to prove we're loyal to our partners and won't abandon them as soon as anyone even slightly more appealing appears in our lives. Things like "There's no one in the world I could ever love more than you". How would I know that? Have I met everyone?
The obvious answer is no but I say those things because of how I feel, it makes me and my partner feel great and it provides assurance that I'm loyal to my partner.
>Either way, yes being silly or watching an exciting sports match can be "irrational" and fun but is that worthy of an article?
I didn't realize articles are a limited resource we need to mindful of spending.
>What is paradoxical about it? That's how threats work. It's rational to take a hijacker seriously.
It's irrational because if you get called on your bluff in those examples you have to do something that is drastically costly to yourself beyond the point of doing it.
If I tell you that I want your money or I'll blow you and I up, and then you say "You won't do it." I then have to blow myself up which isn't optimal as that means I'm dead and can't get money anymore. If I'm very serious about that threat then generally that makes me irrational, and that's what makes the threat actually work in the first place.
Prosthemadera t1_j4x9edg wrote
> The obvious answer is no but I say those things because of how I feel, it makes me and my partner feel great and it provides assurance that I'm loyal to my partner.
Which is rational if you want stability and a partner in your life. And it's also evolutionary advantageous, as I said.
> I didn't realize articles are a limited resource we need to mindful of spending.
Not what I said. I will say, though, that I am mindful of how I spend my time and reading philosophical articles that are boring and too long for its message and don't provide me any interesting ideas are a waste of time.
> It's irrational because if you get called on your bluff in those examples you have to do something that is drastically costly to yourself beyond the point of doing it.
Risky doesn't mean irrational and you don't have to do only one thing if someone calls your bluff.
> If I tell you that I want your money or I'll blow you and I up, and then you say "You won't do it." I then have to blow myself up which isn't optimal as that means I'm dead and can't get money anymore.
Yeah, you won't. So why do you "have" to blow yourself up? It's your choice, no one is forcing you. If you blow yourself up then you won't have another chance to try again either.
heroicgamer44 t1_j4uybgu wrote
We see it constantly with reality shows. That kind of performative stupidity can be very useful at concealing someone’s true abilities
snoringpuppy5 t1_j4v1mdl wrote
Or motives.
heroicgamer44 t1_j4v1tul wrote
Precisely. I don’t think most “ ditzy girls” have intelligence in the academic sense (academics are far too egotistical) but I do think they’re incredibly socially intelligent
snoringpuppy5 t1_j4vbd9z wrote
As a woman my experience has been that some are true ditzes. Many are very smart women who are dumbing themselves down intentionally in order to appeal (socially in a variety of ways) to certain men perceived -- usually correctly -- to have power. Thank God for all the smart good men.
heroicgamer44 t1_j4vd8si wrote
Thank god for all the intentionally dumb women for allowing our egos to dance
snoringpuppy5 t1_j4vdgjd wrote
Hahahaha fair enough. I just ahhh I try to be genuine and clear. Anything else is a waste of energy.
heroicgamer44 t1_j4ve07u wrote
I’m the exact same. If you’re going to treat life like a performance is might as well be a genuine one
snoringpuppy5 t1_j4w8esh wrote
How have you seen people treat life as a performance? Who are they performing for usually, their parents?
heroicgamer44 t1_j4wiwfy wrote
Many people. Their parents, their friends etc. In some cases, people perform for people they have have yet to know, people they aspire to be aquatinted with.
The “fake it til you make it” sentiment comes to mind. Many will construct an exterior image of the person they’d like to be and gradually apply more personalised touches to that image until it feels truly real to them.
I think a lot of people have issue with this. They persue a job that will ordained by a parent, they find a wife based on the wishes of their parent or the recommendations of someone else, they have a child and fashion their house as convention would dictate.
Something like the fountainhead led me to question the nature of originality and what , of the many things we take pride in and label as uniquely “us”, merely comes from the mind and governance of someone else
snoringpuppy5 t1_j59jhg8 wrote
I tend to agree
EricFromOuterSpace t1_j4xpkzx wrote
This guy was on the Epstein flight logs.
GulfChippy t1_j4y0gfv wrote
And has a script that auto blocks anyone posting a tweet with both his and Epsteins name in it.
Had to test the theory when I first heard, posted such a tweet and checked back a few days later, sure enough, blocked.
rungenies t1_j4wucdy wrote
Pinker is a gamergater apologist. Anything he has to say is obsolete at this point
[deleted] t1_j4v8rdo wrote
[removed]
BernardJOrtcutt t1_j4vw712 wrote
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:
>Argue your Position
>Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may be removed.
Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
BernardJOrtcutt t1_j4v9e2d wrote
Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:
> Read the Post Before You Reply
> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.
This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
mdeceiver79 t1_j4vm6pr wrote
The behavioural economist Dan Ariely is much better at exploring this topic imo
Valuable_Table_2454 t1_j4wyo3p wrote
Is his book “Predictably Irrational” a good exploration of his ideas?
I generally avoid NYT Bestsellers as I’ve found them to be excessively simplifying (and often with misleading representations of studies and/or statistics).
[deleted] t1_j4v9dao wrote
[removed]
BernardJOrtcutt t1_j4vwalx wrote
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:
>Argue your Position
>Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may be removed.
Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
fjaoaoaoao t1_j4v1so9 wrote
Yes. Our mind regularly occludes information in order to operate. It can become too cognitively taxing otherwise. And in a social world, sometimes trying to be more rational has zero payoff other than for your own pursuit of truth or whatever.
Basically saying what’s already known but I appreciate the different angle.
Prosthemadera t1_j4vntng wrote
That's not what he's saying, though. He gives the examples of falling in love and violent threats which I don't think come from wanting to reduce cognitive loads.
WhosaWhatsa t1_j4x1ipi wrote
One could reasonably argue that "falling" in love is a non-cognitive way to address loneliness. Sustaining a relationship takes more cognitive load, I'd suggest, after all. Many aren't prepared for this irony upon falling in love.
Violence goes the same way. Rather than find an agreement which includes complex tradeoffs and emotional intelligence, many choose physical manifestation of grappling with confusion.
str8_rippin123 t1_j4v4y8a wrote
Isn’t this from the guy who wrote a whole book praising enlightenment values? Lol
gortlank t1_j4v9i93 wrote
Pinker is a charlatan and an embarrassment, albeit an extremely popular one.
gee_gra t1_j4vxuta wrote
He's an odd guy, but he's clearly still mourning the loss of his pal Jeffrey.
PostModernCombat t1_j4wfca0 wrote
He is what happens when you let a psychologist start talking about the thing they’re ironically least qualified to discuss — thinking.
Some_Marionberry8088 t1_j4x43gm wrote
As someone who has been in the academic world for quite some time, I can assure you that reason is not always the be-all and end-all of decision-making. There are certainly instances in which it may be beneficial to act irrationally, such as in the examples provided in the article you referenced. However, it is important to note that this is a higher-order rationality, and one must possess a certain level of knowledge and understanding in order to make the decision to act irrationally. It is not simply a matter of "going crazy" or "being silly." One must also take into consideration the potential consequences of one's actions and weigh them against the potential benefits. So, do not be fooled by the idea that irrationality is a free pass to act without thought or consequence.
cosmotosed t1_j4uqwms wrote
I was ignorantly incapacitated which caused my irrationality 🫠
[deleted] t1_j4v1l6o wrote
[removed]
BernardJOrtcutt t1_j4vagnt wrote
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:
>Argue your Position
>Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may be removed.
Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
zman0313 t1_j4vpgzu wrote
I read this as ignorance is bliss, and it’s easier to live life and do all the day to day stuff you have to do if you’re blissful. So you should choose ignorance.
Is that the gist of it
[deleted] t1_j4vqov3 wrote
[removed]
BernardJOrtcutt t1_j4vw6tn wrote
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:
>Argue your Position
>Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may be removed.
Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
[deleted] t1_j4v1dh6 wrote
[removed]
BernardJOrtcutt t1_j4vw77a wrote
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:
>Read the Post Before You Reply
>Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.
Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
arch1ter t1_j4w3kwg wrote
Okay, so we have here multiple examples of irrational and rational approaches in equivalent situations. And that’s all. He finishes with the same as he starts.
Maximus-53 t1_j4wn5z4 wrote
I find that most of his first examples are just stating situations in which we may rationally decide to withhold information from ourselves or others in order to procure a better outcome in the particular situation. Not necessarily choosing a sort of irrational school of thought over a rational one. Similar to the whole difference of semantics between wisdom and intelligence. Wisely choosing to have less intelligence on a certain subject.
After that he gives examples of different real world examples of the chicken game, in which the person who irrationally gives up control is the winner. But every example he gives of this is slightly different in some aspect and would almost all benefit from rational decision making. The Chicken game, sure you'll win the game by putting a brick on the gas pedal, but you're likely to also loose your life, it's rational to keep control in order to minimize your chance of dying.
In the case of threats and bluffs, it's never a case of "be irrational and people will know you mean business", it's always a rational consideration between how advantageous you are, how advantageous the opposition is, and how likely it is they will call your bluff. It's better to threaten a much smaller person than it is to threaten a much bigger one, because it's more likely you will win the confrontation, if that confrontation makes sense to participate in at any rate.
ammonium_bot t1_j4xz2uf wrote
> also loose your life,
Did you mean to say "lose"?
Explanation: Loose is an adjective meaning the opposite of tight, while lose is a verb.
Total mistakes found: 693
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot ^^that ^^corrects ^^grammar/spelling ^^mistakes.
^^PM ^^me ^^if ^^I'm ^^wrong ^^or ^^if ^^you ^^have ^^any ^^suggestions.
^^Github
^^Patreon
[deleted] t1_j4w6gg6 wrote
[removed]
IlIFreneticIlI t1_j4xbazz wrote
Or to borrow a quote: Nuts!
Slewfooty t1_j4xnfb9 wrote
Everyone's too damn self-serving to admit they don't know something; Turning down the opportunity to learn to preserve their terribly built social persona that anyone who knows even the littlest bit of anything can see right through. "I don't know" is my favorite thing to hear from new people; We can adventure, learn, and discover the secrets of the universe together.
chrisbeck1313 t1_j4xruif wrote
Brute force and ignorance is my default setting.
d0rsett t1_j4y0lhh wrote
Ignorance, incapacity and irrationality are three distinct things that have very little in common.
WriggleNightbug t1_j4y4oin wrote
I have a class that focuses on sociology, health, and the environment, I took a similar class with the same prof last semester. She always opens the class with excerpts from Pinkers 2018 book (preface, chapter 1, chapter 10). I felt far more viscerally opposed to his POV last semester. This semester I kinda see things from his POV more. it still feels really couched in enlightenment/capitalistic optimism while also dismissing what feels like justified alarmism regarding the environment.
I think the worst thing is it's such a cut and dry position built on an assumption that everyone IS rational and WANTS TO BE rational that misses the steps needed to bring people with you. It misses that change requires facts and emotions to settle into the zeitgeist. For example, one cannot say "we fixed the ozone layer, why were you so angry about it" when one of the steps to fixing the ozone layer is making people understand why there are changes in refrigerants and aerosolizers. We can't get "here" from "there" without taking the journey together.
Similarly, with the environment, there are people who are bad faith actors (i.e. ExxonMobil and their highly accurate climate change science they refused to acknowledge or change under) or people who have been convinced that the bad faith position is tenable. No amount of rational argument is going to change their position. The ecopessimists, as Pinker calls them, have to be able to make the case or join forces with optimists, or ecomodernists (as Pinker calls them) to be able to effect change.
It's really easy to adopt a stance of "some of you may die, but that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make" if it's not your people on the sacrificial community.
[deleted] t1_j4y9ote wrote
[deleted]
hacktheself t1_j4ycyd9 wrote
I’m fascinated by the sports analogy and the concept of unknowing.
I’ve befriended an elite level athlete. (I’m forced to take as a premise that my life is absurd as a first principle after rationally reflecting on all the improbable i’ve survived.)
I asked them, “If you knew the outcome, would the game still be worth playing?”
They said it would, actually. The end isn’t what matters. It’s how you get there.
Similarly, i disagree that it is not rationally possible to unknow information one has been exposed to. Dissociation, in my understanding, is a rational protective measure of a mind to an irrationally dangerous scenario such as extended and/or extreme trauma.
Dissociation is closely related to the well documented phenomenon that trauma survivors are the most suggestible cohort regarding hypnosis.
Absent these two premises it would make no sense how a person can rationally unknow information.
But, well, what do i know. I’m just a hacker.
In that vein there are multiple persons in the hacker community that go by nyms rather than their actual name. Adjacent to the hacker community are several other communities where nyms are de rigour. I know the legal names of certain individuals that prefer that information not be disclosed, for example. And thanks to the ability to dissociate, that information is deliberately inaccessible to me unless the very rare occasion pops up where I need it, such as a call for bail.
In other words, compartmentalization, which is merely another form dissociation takes. In my case, it is a conscious and conscientious effort to not know what i allegedly know, like i even know anything.
In the vein of the article, knowing someone by a preferred name except when a legal name needs to be known is a highly rational form of seeming irrationality.
It’s a kosher bacon cheeseburger because the bacon is tempeh, the burger is soya, the cheese is made cashews. (I’m just a hacker, as i mentioned before, not a Talmudic scholar, and every analogy breaks down at a certain point.)
Aghara t1_j4z0h4r wrote
Exactly what I expected to hear from one of Epstein’s closest friends tbh
MythicPilgrim t1_j4z33cs wrote
This also reminds me of the use of deception and disinformation strategies during World War II comes to mind. These strategies were used by both the Axis and the Allied powers to confuse and trick their enemies.
For instance, the Germans employed a strategy known as "Operation Bodyguard," which was a concerted attempt to spread misleading information about their plans for the Normandy assault. To give the impression that the invasion would occur in Calais rather than Normandy, they went to great lengths to fabricate fake army units and equipment. They even went so far as to stage fake radio transmissions. This deception was successful in keeping the Allies in the dark about the invasion's true location and kept them from properly preparing.
Icy_Collection_1396 t1_j50zhjv wrote
Steven Pinker argues that irrationality can be a powerful tool for achieving desired outcomes. He suggests that in some cases, it may be more rational to choose ignorance, incapacity, or irrationality than to try to understand the complexities and nuances of a situation. By avoiding the effort of trying to understand, we can save time and energy and focus on our desired outcome. This might be especially true in cases where the outcome is more important than the process, such as when making a decision quickly or when the risks of making a wrong decision are too great. Ultimately, Pinker argues, irrationality can be a valuable tool for achieving desired outcomes, and it can be more rational to choose it than to try to understand the complexities of a situation.
labreuer t1_j539198 wrote
What would be the 'rational' response of a member of the American lower middle class, to the following:
> Now that we have run through the history of inequality and seen the forces that push it around, we can evaluate the claim that the growing inequality of the past three decades means that the world is getting worse—that only the rich have prospered, while everyone else is stagnating or suffering. The rich certainly have prospered more than anyone else, perhaps more than they should have, but the claim about everyone else is not accurate, for a number of reasons.
> Most obviously, it’s false for the world as a whole: the majority of the human race has become much better off. The two-humped camel has become a one-humped dromedary; the elephant has a body the size of, well, an elephant; extreme poverty has plummeted and may disappear; and both international and global inequality coefficients are in decline. Now, it’s true that the world’s poor have gotten richer in part at the expense of the American lower middle class, and if I were an American politician I would not publicly say that the tradeoff was worth it. But as citizens of the world considering humanity as a whole, we have to say that the tradeoff is worth it. (Enlightenment Now, Chapter 9: Inequality)
What would an 'irrational' response be? Or perhaps Pinker's stuff just isn't meant for consumption by the American lower middle class?
BernardJOrtcutt t1_j5fmyv5 wrote
Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:
> Read the Post Before You Reply
> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.
This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
ddrcrono t1_j4wfwti wrote
Pinker always takes some interesting angles. My simplified version of this that I use to explain to my rationality-obsessed friends how humanity works is that, if there is a behaviour that is common, there is a situation in which it's rewarding. We are extremely highly evolved both genetically and socially, and much of what people think to be a game of "Who has the highest stats" is much more like a very complex game of rock, paper, scissors.
Alternatively I'll use my anime reference where there's a card game with 7 cards: 5 commoners, 1 king and 1 fool. The commoners tie, they beat the fool and lose to the king. The king ties the king, beats the commoner, and the only one he can lose to is the fool. I think there is a lot of truth to this and I've seen it myself in the dynamics of some social circles. (It's also why I think being able to adapt different strategies socially is the best tactic).
allsheknew t1_j4yk9yr wrote
I don’t think we’re rewarding behavior as much as there’s a lack of consequences and consistency for shitty behavior. It takes a lot of patience and self discipline from individuals in order to do so.
ddrcrono t1_j4yle0u wrote
Being illogical doesn't always mean being shitty. Many very logical people are very selfish.
allsheknew t1_j4zsjjo wrote
Then why is it problematic if it’s rewarded?
ddrcrono t1_j57dju0 wrote
I'm not sure what you're actually referring to with this sentence. I didn't say something was problematic. Saying something is problematic is a prescriptive (this is how things should be) judgement. I am making a descriptive (how things are) argument.
PNWSocialistSoldier t1_j4zatcn wrote
Are you fucking serious this guy is a fascist. Let’s go back to 1944 shall we wtf.
Read it. And I do know pinker.
1bunch t1_j4v0ues wrote
Professor Keith Stanovich’s metaphor of the “cognitive miser” made me appreciate how tiring it would be if someone wanted to be truly “rational” and “fully capable” at all times:
>…”we tend to be cognitive misers. When approaching a problem, we can choose from any of several cognitive mechanisms. Some mechanisms have great computational power, letting us solve many problems with great accuracy, but they are slow, require much concentration and can interfere with other cognitive tasks. Others are comparatively low in computational power, but they are fast, require little concentration and do not interfere with other ongoing cognition. Humans are cognitive misers because our basic tendency is to default to the processing mechanisms that require less computational effort, even when they are less accurate.” > >—Source, ‘Scientific American — Rational & Irrational Thought’ by Keith Stanovich
Edit: others have mentioned that this idea is basically the core argument of Daniel Kahneman’s “Thinking Fast & Slow”, but just an FYI Stanovich’s metaphor pre-dates Kahneman’s book , and in that book Kahneman openly says he took some of Stanovich’s terms & was “greatly influenced” by Stanovich’s early writings. Kahneman didn’t steal in some secretive way though, he has given Stanovich a lot of credit & speaks about him as a pioneer.