Are Humans Rational by Nature
Offline This site is based on the assumption that there are irrational and rational beliefs. People on this site generally cite either fallacious, illogical, or just plain wrong beliefs from others in the world and then attempt to show how they are irrational. So the question that I want to put forward here is are humans rational?
There are two main camps on whether humans are rational or not. One group is the classical group. They propose that the crowning glory of humanity is that we are able to reason. That our brains have evolved to make complicated decisions using the power of logic and the laws of probability. So whenever someone is irrational, that is an exception rather than the rule, since humans are rational. Theodore Lipps was a proponent of this school and said that logic "is nothing if not the physics of thought."
The second camp says no way. It claims we aren't able to possibly deal with the vast amount of data necessary to even use the laws of probability, and that we make constant mistakes trying to attempt logic problems. This camp, known as the heuristics and biases camp, claims we use heuristics and experiential knowledge to make descisions. Further that these heuristics work pretty well, and make us appear to be logical and rational in our decision making, thus allowing for a post hoc explanation that we must be rational. Stephen J. Gould said, "Our minds are not built (for whatever reason) to work by the rules of probability."
So who's right? Well. One question to ask is if we're good at logic? The answer is pretty simple: not really. Our short term memory capacity is 7(+/- 2). So we're just not able to put that much into our workspace and manipulate it around before we lose track of information and lose it. In short, complicated logic problems wear us out and we most of the time can't finish them. And that's only with a logic problem. Once you get into real life the problems become much bigger.
Gilovitch in 1991 published a book that had the most common mistakes that humans make. There are the 5 most common:
1. Making something out of nothing
2. See what we expect to see
3. Too much from too little
4. Believe what we are told
5. Imagine agreements with others
I won't go into detail with these 5 mistakes, but it becomes clear that humans are not using logic and the laws of probability to make decisions once you read all of the studies. We make up systems where there is chaos, we look for evidence that confirms what we believe, we don't question assumptions, we think we're better than everyone else....etc. etc.
Our worst problem is that we can't understand uncertainty. In one experiment the only way experimenters could get subjects to treat a data set as random was to manipulate the data and make it look "random." So they would delete any random patterns out of it, like a series of letters. We just can't compete with a rat when it comes to maximizing on a random test....even Harvard students.
And we're definitely not fair. When presented with competing evidence. We choose the evidence that goes against our belief and try and refute it, but leave the confirmatory evidence unchallenged. This forum has seen a lot of that. If we we're logical, we'd give critiques of all evidence presented.
So if humans think highly of themselves, look for confirmatory evidence for their beliefs, aren't logical and don't use the laws of probability well at all, then what hope does that afford to a site that tries to sway people to another belief by using logic and the laws of probability? This is the question that I bring to the forum. As a follow up question, what else could be done? Second, I would ask, what is the problem in the first place?
I'm interested to hear responses.
- Login to post comments
This is the first time I've ever heard or seen another person mention Gilovitch's "How We Know What Isn't So" - I read that book a few years ago and thought it was great. Even though I've suggested the book to people, most don't seem to know who Gilovitch is. I think I read the book because I saw the reference to it in another book.
Anyway, I think you may have missed a school of thought in there. Forgive me for not knowing what the appropriate term would be, as I haven't formally studied it, however - there is a school of thought that claims that while we aren't naturally logical, we can train ourselves to think logically. This school of thought is the one that I would suggest is the most likely scenario.
Your questions might do better if they each had their own thread, but I'll address them as best as I can anyway.
Given that the thought patterns of some people can be altered through exposing them to new information and data, and that we can see this happening, then I would say that this site certainly has some hope of affecting (and indeed has affected) some people in a seemingly positive manner.
Lots more can be done to further the cause of this group. In fact, I often tend to advocate a different method of teaching people than the RRS guys do. I tend to point towards teaching people in a less confrontational manner, and in bringing out the more positive aspects of my stance. Offering social reinforcers as well as giving an outlet for the person to express not only their distaste for my point of view, but an open outlet for them to vent their frustrations about bein wrong in a comfortable manner is pretty helpful. Several interactions with a new idea is needed for people to be affected, as well. Displaying behaviors that others would do well to model, allowing for the passage of information in a way that the person will be exposed to it, but where it won't necesarily be a direct thing for them to deal with (utilizing latent learning tendencies), and continuing to socially reward them when they take small steps towards improved thinking patterns. In a way, this takes advantage of what we know helps us to manipulate human behavior, but it also helps us to teach others about a way of thinking that we consider to be healthier.
The problem that I think needs to be addressed is rooted in the way that people think - the tendency to lean towards social adherance and building a life around the social contexts in which we find ourselves. This means that the problem is not rooted just in religion, but rather in the behaviors that allow religion to exist. It is in the ease with which we can suspend the disbelief of others for long periods of time; the ease with which people can be molded through their life to conform to whatever context they find themselves. A child grows up to be a pastor, not because it was an innate drive that he had from birth, but because he wants to build his life on an ideology that he has been so exposed to that he thinks that it is a control in his life. The complex social networks that we build in life play a large role in how we conform to others. An individual can live their whole lives and interact with very few people more than those that he encounters in a chapel every sunday. Why would such a person have a motivation to leave such a situation? The same things that pull him also pull those who followed Hitler in Nazi Germany, and those who sacrificed themselves in the Heaven's Gate cult. Through social pressures, and even our reactions to those that we perceive as authority people become easy to manipulate, and even dangerous.
I'm sure you're familiar with the Milgram experiments and others like them, and the studies that have been done on Group Think and other related concepts. That's where our problems lie.
Even though I think people can be taught to think more rationally, I don't think that it is a dominant trait that allows us to do so.
I'm kinda rambling now, so maybe I will come back to this post later - I'm getting a bit tired.
-SilkyShrew
please visit www.SilkyShrewGoddess.com, www.FreeThoughtMedia.com, hillbillyatheist.com and
I fail to see how this came even remotely answers the question at hand: Are humans naturally irrational? Merely showing a possible limitation within our cognative faculty demonstrates our irrationality how? Am I mistaken, or does this merely demostrate that we need to work hard to understand certian concepts?
Irrationality would be rejecting a valid logical proof. For instance, if I gave you a proof demostrating that the truth of that 2 + 2 = 4, and you rejected it, you would be irrational. If I gave you a sound and valid argument for some position, and you rejected it...knowing full well that it was true, you would be irrational. However, what if you didn't even understand the proof? The proof for Fermat's Last Theorem is over 200 steps....I don't understand it. However, this hardly makes me irrational.
What does this even mean? How is logic the physics of thought? How is this claim, by this camp, anything but incoherent?
People don't finish logic problems NOT because they can't, but because they are lazy. I tutor students in logic. Most of them are just to fucking lazy to try and understand the material. The same is true for Linguistics. So often people bitch to me about how "hard" linguistics is. Alright, alright, I get it...its hard. However, do not confuse intellectual lazyness with inability.
Which is why it is necessary to instill the values of critical thinking into children. Furthermore, this is why most universities have Critical Thinking classes. Overal, I agree. We need to recognize that, as Nietzsche said: "people have no love for the truth, we have a love of being right." We need to conciously recognize this, and work toward changing it.
You answered you own question. Since people are not naturally good at these things, this forum is a tool for people to learn.
"In the high school halls, in the shopping malls, conform or be cast out" ~ Rush, from Subdivisions
I want to clarify what the two schools of thouht are, because I think there is some confusion. The first school claims that humans use logic and reason to solve problems. So if subject A wants to make a decision about say taking a medication, he would use logic and the laws of probability to make the decision. The other school says that the human mind isn't capable of making real life decisions using strictly logic and the laws of probability. So when subject A wants to make a decision about taking a medication, he uses a heuristic or experiential learning to make the decision.
The problem that the new school brings up is that it doesn't seem possible for humans to make real life decisions using logic and probability. The demands of such decisions would make the decision maker a "laplacean demon" (a being with limitless space and time to make decisions). So the question they then bring up, is how do we as humans make decisions?
One problem with your anecdote about tutoring logic and linguistics is that you admit that it's hard to do logic and linguistics. I never said that humans couldn't do logic; I said that it's hard for them. Therefore, it's most likely irrational to believe that people use logic to make decisions, when they're "too fucking lazy" anyways.
I tend to agree with the first response in regards to trying to change the way society projects itself on individuals. If religion is put in the spotlight as a path to "truth" then that sends the wrong message on the societal consciousness -- so to speak. It then allows for a social dialogue where religion can be equated to truth in a rational way. Then again, Feuerabend suggested that truth can come from anywhere, so who knows.
I've go to get going. But I want to finish up by stating that I do think that trying different avenues other than trying to "prove" to people that they're wrong, especially when it comes to matters so subjective as religion and personal belief. I am still interested in thoughts on this matter. I'm very open to suggestions. I do live in Texas.
My opinion is that rationalising is a skill like any other.
Some of us are better at it than others but anyone who's mastered basic language can surely reason to a basic degree.
I see two general uses for 'irrational'.
The more general use is for someone who's not thinking things through. They're acting purely on feelings without thinking it through properly.
The use in 'intellectual circles' seems to be similar on a more 'elitist' level. It's used for someone who ignores the conclusions come to through abstract methods because it contradicts their intuitive view of the world.
Personally, I've become very suspicious with the word 'irrational' lately. In my experience, people who are most likely to call a belief irrational are least likely to know the reasons why. (i.e. hold that conclusion rationally)
People who do have reasons for thinking a belief irrational spend more time presenting these reasons without feeling the need to comment on how 'rational' arguments are, just let their arguments do their talking.
i.e. if you can rationally show an argument to be irrational then the word 'irrational' should not be necessary and if you can't then perhaps the word 'irrational' ought not be used?
I tend to agree Strafio. To think rationally; employ logic or reason, is both a learned and acquired skill. One that improves from the study of logic and philosophy, the application of critical thinking to solve real life problems and using these skills to relate to the world around oneself. Critical thinking skills are not inherent in the individual, nor are they instinctual or genetically derived. It is a learned skill.
There is a definitive lack in critical thinking skills amongst not only a majority of American adults, but America's children. Nearly 40 percent of high school students in America "cannot draw inferences from written material; only one-fifth can write a persuasive essay; and only one-third can solve a mathematics problem requiring several steps." [A Nation at Risk; National Commission on Excellence in Education]
Bush's 'No Child Left Behind Act' has made the situation far worse leaving most children far 'behind' when it comes to critical thinking skills. Then of course, the same children as adults tend to vote for irrational buffoons like Bush with platforms supported by fallacious arguments, if they vote at all...
If there was a God, Man wouldn't have had to invent him [reversing Voltaire's famous quote].