Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

doireallyneedone11 t1_j4vcwg4 wrote

Reply to comment by 1bunch in Steven Pinker on the power of irrationality | Choosing ignorance, incapacity, or irrationality can at times be the most rational thing to do. by IAI_Admin

What's the definition of 'rationality' we're going with here?

16

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.

30

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?

6

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.

5

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.

1

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.

1