Here's a good book dealing with a process if irrationality.

http://www.amazon.com/Mistakes-Were-Made-But-Not/dp/0156033909/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1284217423&sr=8-1-fkmr0

A must read for any skeptic

I think that "Agnostic" thread set you off a little Blake...hahaha... rightfully so though. Personally, I believe that as a species, we are not at the stage of emotional development that will allow for "prevailing wisdom" to accord rationality.

Fear remains a more powerful motivator than the thirst for knowledge for most. As a "relationship" educator, I see people fall into self destructive patterns because they are afraid to expose themselves emotionally ...and the fear of rejection/betrayal/broken heart in their minds is not worth risking emotional exposure. Many only know the painful side of "love", and settle into the confortability of  their dysfunctional cycle because subconciously they either don't believe themselves worthy of love, or have been hurt so badly that they close off to the possibility... (quick over-simplified summation)

Regarding theism, and other forms of irrational or unreasonable decision making... it may even come down to most people being followers, and adhering to common thought... and fear of the unknown is what keeps them from breaking away... to use a matrix reference... most people would take the "blue" pill...

As someone who still has a lot of learning to do, I'll just say that IMHO, the few reachable members of the matrix are worth the struggle.... 

I would say so.  My sister and I are totally opposite.  We are close to the same height, hair type and color, eye color.  We do not wear clothes in similar colors or styles.  We do not have similar hair styles.  We don't do the same makeup.  And we are polar opposites on rationality.  Raised in the same family, full sisters (with the same parents), only 2 1/2 years difference in age.  My sister will believe anything her Jehovah Witness elders tell her to believe without even trying to examine the claim.  She will believe anything her church friends tell her without researching any part of the story.  If you attempt to tell her about science - to her, it's all BS.

I can't talk to her for long without having severe tooth marks on my tongue as I am continually biting my tongue during our conversations.

Maybe it is because I am oldest and I have always been good at school.  And maybe she hasn't grown out of that need to rebel.  Maybe she is just stubborn and deliberately ignorant.  I have always suspected she isn't stupid, but I could never really be certain.  I have never been able to figure her out.

Bottled water - buy a plastic bottle that is low in out-gasses, and fill it with tap water.  And continue to refill it.  Try to keep it out of the sun as that breaks down the plastic.  Red, blue - why do you need to buy very expensive bottled water when you can get it out of a water faucet or fountain for free?

As an aside - here in the North West US, there are drinking fountains downtown that run continuously.  They don't even have handles to turn them off.  Since I grew up in the desert South West, this always amazes me.  You could refill your bottles from these drinking fountains all day long for free.

My experience with my sister leans me towards, yes, if you are irrational about what you put in the grocery cart, you will be irrational in other aspects of your life.

The stubborn and deliberately ignorant seems to have something to do with it; even when these people are cornered into admitting that they are being irrational, they don't want to change.

Given the genetic relationship, I'd also suspect your sister isn't stupid... it's tricky to figure these people out.

Actually, the tap water here tastes like metal with a hint of processed sewage.  One probably shouldn't drink it without boiling, and even then I can't drink it without mixing in something to cover up the taste.

In the states, and definitely in Portland where the water quality is great, I completely agree.

Thanks cj,

What I think I'm trying to find is a litmus test that will save me frustration.  If I can't convince somebody out of something stupid like buying over-priced bottled water, which should be easy, they probably aren't going to be inclined to listen to rational argument about anything else.

One person in particular (with the water), I did talk out of Christianity, but it was a serious pain in the ass (it took several hours, when it should have taken no more than five or ten minutes IMO).  In every instance, the irrationality has seemed to be habitual and willful.

Self justification.  Never forget - we all need to justify to ourselves that what we believe is right.  Once we have completed that internal justification - regardless of the rationality or irrationality of the justification - we seldom reexamine it.  From the book - it is a pyramid.  You start at the apex and going any direction is but a short step away.  Get to the bottom of the pyramid, and you have to hike all the way around the bottom or go back to the top and back down.  A long trip, either direction.

Do people have a tendency to take similar "sides" of the pyramid?  Seems to be.  Studies with orangutans show that they repeat behavior that has worked for them in the past.  Even if it isn't working for them now.  And people seem to be the same way.  We are all insane in some respects of our lives, repeating the same behavior, expecting different outcomes.

The rational responder who clung to the "super nano-thermite bomb" theory had me in a puzzle.  Irrationality can strike anyone at any time.  We must all be on the look out for it in ourselves and others.

But we (as in those who want to be rational) certainly do learn certain skills and thought processes associated with being rational.

So, could I say that if they want rationality, then they can learn critical thinking, and logic, and then apply that to be more rational- just like I'm sure all of us learned certain methods of critical thinking now and then throughout our lives and then began applying them- but if they don't want to be rational, then even though they may learn those methods, they won't bother using them?

The trick here seems to be how one can tell if somebody wants rationality or not- If I ask people (and I have), they pretty much always say they want to be rational.  How do we know, or how could we know, if somebody actually wants to be rational, or if they just like to think they want to be rational, but don't actually want to follow through?

So, if they don't want to be rational, they can still be forced through social conditioning- and yet they will revert?  That makes sense in the context of my experiences. 

When I'm there laying out the points clearly, and with my force of personality, they'll be rational... and then after I leave they'll promptly revert and forget everything I've said.

Do you think somebody could be reconditioned, though, to change from a person who doesn't want to be rational, to a person who does?  What makes us want to be rational?  Is it early childhood experiences?  Is it genetics?  Is it something hormonal?

Could I medicate somebody with anti-psychotics to make them want to be rational?  Could I use some extreme emotional shock therapy to force their brains into an about face?  Or is it just outright impossible to catalyze a fundamental change like that in a person? (I'm not talking about doing anything illegal, of course)

But some people seem inclined to re-examine it, and others don't.  Do some people just, inherently, like or dislike hiking on pyramids?

What is that fundamental nature or nurture that dictates whether or not we will tend to re-examine, or hike?

What was the "super nano-thermite bomb" about?  Sounds like something I could have debunked.  I've talked people out of a bunch of different conspiracy theories- it's easier than religion, I think.

Certainly, we must be vigilant, but do you think there's something to be said for a fundamental character trait?

I know we talked about the training, etc. before, but while it works in a way, people keep rebounding in terms of rationality; I haven't seen anybody become more rational.  They just keep displaying the same tendencies again and again (in different subjects).

In person, anyway, I can convince most people of just about anything given a little time and rapport, but that doesn't seem to be of any use in making people more rational.  It would be fine if I were a car salesman, because the only point of that is to sell the one car at that particular time- but I'm trying to inspire rationality in general.

Can it be done?  Of course people can be taught logical fallacies and practice, but can somebody be taught or trained to want to be rational?  Not just thoroughly convinced of one particular meme, but of a nature of experiencing and filtering everything, and how they feel about themselves with regards to rationality?

I've always been of the same mind as Kapkao, but a few years ago a friend told me that people just need to be educated in critical thinking- I was skeptical, but I thought it was worth a try.  It seems like he was wrong in the cases that those people don't want to be rational.  I agree that if they do, at heart, want that then it could work- but those people seem to need to want to be rational to have a hope.  Can that core desire be implanted in any lasting and sincere way?  And how?

Wha?  We're talking about something like a 10% - 20% markup in cost.  Applying the same behavior across the board, that's at least a 10% - 20% increase in savings (and generally much more considering what percentage of income is usually spent vs. saved).  Given a rough approximation of how much people work to save for retirement, that has to be almost a decade of your life.

A decade of your life is trivial? @_@

I don't know, if I were a working class Joe, I'd rather be playing bingo and watching my grandchildren than hanging out in a cubicle all day when I was 55.  But maybe that's just me... maybe some people don't really care (or like their jobs and don't mind spending frivolously; and if that's the case, the more power to them).

As to the acquiescing; how can one know if a person is just being non-confrontational and giving up, or if said person actually agrees and is being rational?

Do I need to deliberately question things that are clearly rational and suggest irrational alternatives and see if the person goes for it anyway to find out?

Okay, for you "bottled water" is a trivial point because you don't buy it.

I'm not talking about addressing strangers about bottled water (or addressing strangers about anything at all), and the bottle of water I'm talking about is an example; I don't literally mean just a bottle of water.  In the context of my example, bottled water is all that is really drinkable.  I buy bottled water almost every day, and the cost is significantly up there with food- I just mean some kind of that is regularly purchased, but I'll just simplify my example.

One needs to buy item type X every day, and it makes up a substantial portion of one's daily expenses.  Item Y and Item Z are types of item X that one may chose between; Item Y and Z are of the same quality in ever respect except for the brand label, for which item Z has more advertising and as a consequence is 10% more expensive.

I make the argument that one should purchase item Y instead of item Z, because they have the same desired quality, and Y is less expensive, all other relevant factors to the purchasing decision being equal.  I only make this argument to people I know. (And actually, the last time I made the argument, it was my money that was being spent on said item)

But anyway, my point is just an example of a situation with all things being the same now, and with potential advantages later, where it would seem prudent to go with the more rational option.

What country is that, the states?

Do you refill?  I mean if you don't, it is completely irrational.

It is a day to day battle even for those who think critically to remain rational. Humans by nature do not need to be rational to survive.  They can reproduce just fine.  It's work to go against our initial childhood programming. Just takes times and practice like any other skill.

Like I said, this wouldn't be an address to a stranger- and in that particular example, it was my money that was being spent.

Where would I refill from?  I would not buy bottled water if the tap water were potable with the exception of needing a bottle.

Taste is another thing in my opinion; of course there will be kinds of sensory stimuli that we can't stand, but sensation is a real thing.

However, lets say that there are two kinds of dessert, X and Y. 

X is made from sugar and fat, and Y is a carefully engineered dessert made from, let say, broccoli which in a blind taste test is absolutely indistinguishable from X, with numerous peer reviewed scientific studies proving the positive health value.  X and Y cost the same, with the same availability and convenience- and they even look the same, short of ingredients on the label.  Which do you choose?

I think there are things that inform our perceptions (like taste in food or music- they can change, but there's a certain barrier to that [time]) and then things that shouldn't have anything to do with them, but alter them anyway (like brand labeling, which rationality can overcome).

Raspberry chocolate mousse just isn't equivalent in taste to broccoli.  Given enough time, you could adapt your tastes to prefer broccoli (and it wouldn't be an easy task), but that in itself is an effort- I can understand why you opt for dessert; you're feeding sensation, granting yourself an experience- that is a real thing that informs the pleasure you get out of an event. 

If broccoli was equal in taste, however, without that effort of conditioning yourself to it, and was the same price, and shared every deciding trait- then it would come down to a question of rationality.

Those matters where only rationality is the deciding factor- that's what I'm curious about.

There is a theory that people are evolved to prefer the taste of carbohydrates and fat as these were harder to obtain for our diets when we were hunter gatherers.  I can sort of see it - veggies and meat were relatively easy to get.  Fat and carbs were scarcer then without modern factory farms and agriculture.  Having a craving for them meant the proto-civilized human would gorge when s/he did get a hold of some.  And those who could store the carbs as fat had a rung up on the evolution ladder.  Sigh.

I don't think there is an easy answer as I think it is too complex.  Some is innate - some is environmental - some is ingrained in childhood. 

So I paraphrased it and not intentionally, we just happen to agree this time.  Big deal.

But if you insist....

Pssssssssssstttttttttttt.....................

If somebody expressed a reason to the effect of "I don't care about wasting money" I would accept that that person was just picking something, more or less, at random- though the fact of them not caring about the money could be irrational in itself.

Aside from some obscenely rich people, or those who distinctly have more money than they want or need, that's not a typical attitude indicative of rationality.  If over spending in one area has the potential to result in an inadequacy in another, one that would cause concern, then it is irrational to waste money (that is, really wasting- meaning expending without reason or practical end to suit the expenditure).

There is one other category of potential logical exception, but I won't get into it as it's even more rare (and maybe even just theoretical, as I've never heard of it before).

People who don't fit into those rare exceptions and have limited funds, and who are wasteful with money, are behaving irrationally in their use of money if they don't care for it- so, the poor choice of item X inherits criticism of irrationality from the behavior the person has towards money if they don't fall under one of those extremely rare exceptions.

That is an irrational response to criticism, and a red herring.  It doesn't matter why I care; the rationality or irrationality of the action stands independent of my motivations.

My motivation, if you care, is curiosity; I'm trying to evaluate human rationality.  In the case that this is a friend whom I know to have limited funds, then a secondary motivation might be to help said friend save money in ways he or she may not have thought of before.

What are you on about?

Whether something is absolutely rational or irrational is quite objective- that has nothing whatsoever to do with my opinion.  When two things are both irrational, however, which one of those things is more or less irrational is a subjective matter. 

It would be opinion, for example, to say that X religion is more rational and Y religion, wherein they both contain some element of objective irrationality.

It's like comparative possibility.  If something is logically possible or impossible, that is a matter of fact; once it verges into the realm of impossibility, though, it is mere opinion as to which is "more impossible"; the notion of something being more or less impossible is rather incoherent from an objective standpoint.

From an objective stance, once can only say that, taken as a whole, humans do not behave rationally in everything.  While one person may be rational in some facets of action, other facets may be irrational, and it is only opinion which can give weight to the significance of those various areas when action is taken as a whole.  Any particular action, however, taken in the appropriate context, can be judged rational or irrational in that context an an objective and qualitative way- it just can't be measured beyond the assertion of presence or absence without bringing in a subjective metric to do so.

I already explained this to you.  No, it is dependent on logic.  Only an evaluation of greater or lesser degrees of irrationality is subjective.

You are completely failing to consider context.

If you are seeking to optimize pleasure and minimize pain, and you do not get more pleasure than pain out of an event, then it would be irrational to engage in that event without some reason associated with future gain.

It would be irrational for *you* to jump out of an airplane like that without any good reason- it's also irrational for them to jump out without a good reason.  The difference is that they DO have a good reason- they enjoy it.  As such, it's perfectly rational for them to jump out of airplanes, as a means to an end (entertainment).

Taken in a larger context, though, other factors come in- with too many variables to analyze- which will certainly turn up something irrational *eventually*.  That is why we can only very reliably examine very specific situations and tendencies with the context limited to those situations.

For example, the sky diver may in fact prefer scuba diving, and may have been able to get more enjoyment out of diving for the same cost or opportunity cost- but perhaps the sky diver chose sly diving because of some advertisement that biased his unconscious mind to chose it without critically evaluating the decision.

In that case, the act of sky diving wasn't irrational- but his choice of sky diving over scuba diving was.

Obviously, though, if he enjoyed sky diving more than scuba diving for the same cost or opportunity cost, then he made the rational choice in that matter.

We can keep expanding the scope to include more associated actions, and more variables- and as I said we will eventually come into something irrational if we "zoom out" far enough.  That is why we can only very reliably examine very specific situations and tendencies with the context limited to those situations- and that is exactly, and only, what I'm doing.

I have done no such thing, and I strain to refrain from calling you an idiot at this point (after I have already explained this all quite clearly for you).  I think I'm doing pretty well at being patient with you considering how hard you're trying to antagonize me.  I'm *trying* to give you the benefit of the doubt here, and hoping that you'll be able to learn.

"Is not!" "Is to!" Ad Infinitum  rears its ugly head on the internet again...

Jesus Christ people, if you don't like his water bottle example just pick something else to use in your own thought experiment.

-----------------------

I think it can be taught...however, I think most people are just content to live as is.  If, for example, people were suddenly in a situation where the had to be rational or someone would shoot them in the head, I'd say most people would be rational, or accept the education to become rational.  I you kept that up for a long enough time it would stick.

I don't have many anecdotes...most of the people who I have converted to rationality are still around, so I can't be sure if it is my influence still keeping them straight or not.

But since that is not the case, and since most people do just fine without rationality, there is no motivation.  To top it off, capitalism (and many other things) preys on irrationality.  But you know that already.

Nature vs. nurture is an interesting concept in regard to this topic.

Jcgadfly,  *Context* is all I'm talking about; I suggest you re-read my posts on the subject.

1. oh, alright.

2. ?

3. Rationality is relative to the conditions and circumstances, which include the core motivations or premises behind the actions- it is not relative in any absolute sense, though.  Given all of the information, it is a process of behaving in a logically consistent way in the context of the provided premises to reach the desired ends.

The rationality price gun was a joke, of course- there's almost no way it could pick up on all of those variables that might be present.

So, basically, I just need to put them in life and death situations regularly (or situations that they think are life and death) with rationality saving them, and they will grow to be more rational out of self preservation; it rubbing off in other areas of their lives.

Kind of like building up a positive association with rationality.  Rationality = saves my life.  Irrationality = death.

But then... they'd be rational for an irrational reason?  Ah well, can't win them all.

Yeah, the commercial world really isn't helping at all.  All of these messy irrational memes and advertisements do a number on people, I'm sure.

It's really unfortunate that we can't experiment on human children more (nothing cruel, but it would be great to have some controlled upbringings to learn quite a bit more about this kind of psychology).

Maybe an animal model could help solve the problem.  Something like Skinner's pigeon superstition experiments; I could possibly use ravens (they may be intelligent enough to model the behavior). 

If there is a genetic predisposition to rationality or irrationality in other species of animals, it's almost certainly in humans too.  It might even be enough to see if there are any correlations to I.Q. and other personality traits.

Only to the extent that all language is subject to the effects of idiocy and poor communication.  The words "two" and "bread" are also relative to who invokes them as words; if somebody says he or she wants "two bread", that person might just mean that he or she wants five cans of pinto beans.

Yes, if you break language and make everything meaningless, everything is relative to who says it.

I'm not quite ready to do that, so I'll have to disagree with your philosophy of the uselessness of words to communicate.

Irrational and illogical are used synonymously and interchangeably for good reason.


Would you be one of the nutters who think logic is subjective too?  I didn't think you were...


Neither rationality, logic, irrationality, nor illogic are matters of opinion in their their binary sense- though they do depend on their premises, and in the case of rationality, the question is behavior and those premises involve the necessary human context.

Either the logic is sound given the premises, or it isn't.  Either the person's behavior is rational given the context, or it isn't.

Postulating a gradient of greater or lesser irrationality within the bounds or something that is strictly irrational is the only place you'll find legitimate opinion on the matter, and that's only because, objectively speaking, suggesting that there are different degrees of illogical is fallacious, and any seeming difference is just a matter of perception: the extent to which the illogical nature is obvious.

Naturally, and thanks for your comments; it's interesting.

How long do you think it would take, in general?  A computer game might be an interesting way to go about it; could be difficult to design though.

Michael Shermer did a sociological survey of college students that is sort of like this.  Test for beliefs before a college class that challenges their existing irrational beliefs, there was a slight shift to the more rational beliefs right after the class.  Test again just before graduation - back to the original irrational beliefs, very little stuck.  Can't remember the title of which book of his I read this in just now - apologies.

I don't know - I sort of stand out because I'm not an obvious fruit loop.  You have to hang around for awhile before you get my brand of fruitiness.

The problem with groups of like minded people is I am not a joiner.  Going to meetings of any kind is a hassle for me.  I hate socializing anymore.

Once had a guy from NYC move to Portland and was working in IT where I was also working at the time.  He moved back to NYC, said he couldn't stand us westerners.  Said we were all nice and polite but no one would go drinking with him after work.  No one would socialize.  Thinking about it, it's true.  I don't get buddy-buddy with my neighbors or my co-workers.  We go home and we keep to ourselves.  So do my neighbors.  I have a few friends I hang with occasionally.  The other day three of them came to visit one on the heels of another and I left the house.  Literally before the last one showed up.  I let my husband do the honors.

Even the big mega churches.  People around here contribute to the fund, and those monstrous buildings are built, but then they don't show up for services.  Hugh parking lots and hardly any people on Sunday unless it is Easter or Christmas.  So I think it may be that the NYC atheists groups are a lot more active than any you found around here.

I can use dictionaries as well:

The definition of "rationality" does not lie on a definite (objective and measurable) absolute, despite you wanting to believe otherwise. It is a generic, criteria-free descriptor. If you have specific criteria to illustrate otherwise, do share. I somehow doubt you do.

It's funny you bring up 'logic' as well, because (in the way you are using it, as an adjective) it is also subjective to the person invoking it.

Except in the absence of definite, quantitative criteria, they are precisely matters of opinion. In fact, most qualities of the mind are simply matters of opinion. All of the arm-flailing and fist-wringing in the world won't change that.