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.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments