Are humans rational? (2 Viewers)

[loquasagacious]

Simple question do you believe that humans are rational?

The idea of a rational human underpins economics and indeed the concepts of a free society and a free market generally, so I think it is worth debating.

What are your thoughts?





Off the cuff my thoughts are that on the interventionist side of the fence the argument is typically that humans are not rational creatures because all of the time people make bad choices. However I reject this because people can quite rationally make bad choices.

For a start, what is a bad choice? I think that this is largely a subjective concept which involves people making normative assumptions about what a good choice is, and the good choices are conveniently the ones which align with their world view. Having children, not having children, choice of university, choice of career, choice of a partner, having sex, having unprotected sex, choice to drink/smoke/take drugs.... all seemingly fraught with bad choices - and often contradictory ones depending on the politics of whoever is judging.

On this basis I think that the concept of other people making bad choices reeks of an ivory-tower paternalism.

In addition to this even where a seemingly objective choice is presented and someone makes a bad choice this does not prove irrationality. Say for example that there are two bank accounts, A and B. A pays higher interest and has lower fees, it is objectively the better of the two. The customer choses B, are they irrational? No.

They may simply not have sufficient information, such as not knowing that A existed. Or they may have more information that our ivory-towered observer, such as knowing that bank A is going to go bankrupt.

From the ivory tower we can never know all of the information that a person uses to make decisions, we can never know the importance that they place on the various pieces of information. We can only guess. The inclination when guessing is to assume that everyone has the information that we have and makes the choices that we do. When people don't make the same choices we then label them as bad choices and the person as irrational.

And of course an irrational person can not be trusted to make decisions for themselves and therefore we, through the state, should make them for them.

 

[greekgun]

It's near impossible to tell whether a human being is rational or not, as the definition of what is rational and what is irrational changes from person to person according the their morals, beliefs, religion etc.

However, according to what i think being rational is - as a collective set, the human race is very irrational - we are instinctive, we do what we do to make us happy and indulge in things which satisfy us, and we usually dont compromise ourselves for anyone else. For example, if we were rational, all countries would meet together to tackle all the battles/wars occurring between countries. But because we are somewhat irrational, we put our induldges infront of rational decisions. Thats what i think anyways.

 

[Silver Persian]

I think Cass Sunstein has some interesting thoughts about this issue - which is, at base, what do we do when people freely do things that seem to be bad for them. She points out that we always make decisions within social contexts that will promote some decisions, while discouraging others. Rather than banning particular behaviours, or directly intervening in decisions made by individuals through the state, she suggests adjusting the social architecture that people encounter to encourage particular choices, rather than enforcing them. Here is a chunk of text from an essay I wrote as an example of how this might work:

For instance, Redelmeier, Rozin and Kahneman note that patients are much more likely to agree to surgery when told that 90% of the procedures are successful, and much less likely to agree when told that 10% of the procedures result in death. Neither statement is particularly untruthful or manipulative, but they will have different implications for how patients behave. If evidence demonstrates that the surgery is, on average, beneficial, it might be reasonable to frame the issue in such a way that will encourage patients to agree to the operation. This will promote the best option in terms of happiness, but simultaneously, there is no burden or excessive cost placed upon an individual who chooses not to have the surgery performed.

Obviously, this kind of "soft paternalism" immediately runs into issues surrounding line drawing - at what point does adjusting the institutional structures within which decisions are made become outright manipulation? Because this kind of logic could be taken to some Brave New Worldesque extremes.

 

[moll.]

The poll options are fundementally flawed. Who is going to intervene? Another human? What makes this human anymore rational?
On another note, even the most basic and amateur study of the differences between economic theory and practice reveals fundemental flaws in the assumption of human rationality.

 

[Aquawhite]

We're irrational... we break everything and can't measure things properly based on what is good for us. Why do you think there were wars? Today's humans are becoming more civillised though and hence we have more rationale. But, we still suck as a species because we bicker and fight over every small bit of shit we can think of.

 

[Jeee]

Rationality is relative.

 

[Sarebs]

If I was rational, I would be studying or asleep, rather than chatting to people over MSN who have nothing to contribute to my future. But hey, I'm just one human.

 

[eye ov azazel]

If I was rational, I would be studying or asleep, rather than chatting to people over MSN who have nothing to contribute to my future.

u sound like my dad

 

[eye ov azazel]

some humans are rational, others are clouded with irrational thoughts, thoughts that dont concern them, which make them do things that arent worth doing/shouldnt be doing.

no such thing as a perfect human, everyone has their flaws.

i guess its how we act upon our thoughts that determines how rational/successful we are/become.

 

[mitchy_boy]

We're not rational, thousands of people die everyday for pointless reasons.

 

[Tangent]

We're not rational, thousands of people die everyday for pointless reasons.

The people who are calling the shots think they are rational, therefore are rational in their eyes, therefore:

Rationality is relative.

 

[loquasagacious]

However, according to what i think being rational is - as a collective set, the human race is very irrational - we are instinctive, we do what we do to make us happy and indulge in things which satisfy us, and we usually dont compromise ourselves for anyone else. For example, if we were rational, all countries would meet together to tackle all the battles/wars occurring between countries. But because we are somewhat irrational, we put our induldges infront of rational decisions. Thats what i think anyways.

Seems pretty rational to me.

The rest of it starts to touch on game theory. Without cooperation rational self-interest can result in sub-optimal outcomes for a group.

If I was rational, I would be studying or asleep, rather than chatting to people over MSN who have nothing to contribute to my future. But hey, I'm just one human.

This just shows that you making rational choices but that you are valuing short-term enjoyment over longer-term outcomes.

We're not rational, thousands of people die everyday for pointless reasons.

Not pointless for them.

 

[greekgun]

Seems pretty rational to me.

The rest of it starts to touch on game theory. Without cooperation rational self-interest can result in sub-optimal outcomes for a group.

It all comes down to the definition of rational.

 

[David Spade]

If I was rational, I would be studying or asleep, rather than chatting to people over MSN who have nothing to contribute to my future. But hey, I'm just one human.

if you were rational you wouldnt give out gobbies as a way of paying back someone for giving their brother a gobbie

 

[KFunk]

You have left out a key element in the debate over rationality and the operation of the market - this issue of knowledge / epistemic status (which ought to be separated out from rationality, per se). In particular, free/efficient market economics makes fairly strong assumptions about the knowledge of economic agents, in the face of which I would posit uncertainty of varying degree.

For a start, what is a bad choice? I think that this is largely a subjective concept which involves people making normative assumptions about what a good choice is, and the good choices are conveniently the ones which align with their world view. Having children, not having children, choice of university, choice of career, choice of a partner, having sex, having unprotected sex, choice to drink/smoke/take drugs.... all seemingly fraught with bad choices - and often contradictory ones depending on the politics of whoever is judging.

On this basis I think that the concept of other people making bad choices reeks of an ivory-tower paternalism.

In much the same way most conceptions of rationality assume some notion of a good choice which is equally paternalistic.

---
I am inclined to say that you can't really talk about rationality in the classical sense without appealing to some kind of normative ideal. In general I feel that this ideal is too strong and for the most part, if not always, is unattained.

In the last couple decades, especially given the level of sophistication of the brain sciences, it has become increasingly clear that rationality is at best imperfect. Our decision processes are riddled with emotions, heuristics and biases, socially cultivated delusions and so forth.

A book which comes to mind, which takes a reasonable middle-ground, is minimal rationality by Cherniak which criticises certain ideal forms of rationality but posits an attenuated conception in their place.

 

[KFunk]

For instance, Redelmeier, Rozin and Kahneman note that patients are much more likely to agree to surgery when told that 90% of the procedures are successful, and much less likely to agree when told that 10% of the procedures result in death. Neither statement is particularly untruthful or manipulative, but they will have different implications for how patients behave. If evidence demonstrates that the surgery is, on average, beneficial, it might be reasonable to frame the issue in such a way that will encourage patients to agree to the operation. This will promote the best option in terms of happiness, but simultaneously, there is no burden or excessive cost placed upon an individual who chooses not to have the surgery performed.

Something of a case in point I would think.

 

[Napstar]

I'd hardly call it rape, having sex with your husband when you don't feel like it. I mean this is your HUSBAND, not some random guy off the street.

Example: my little brother wants to see some kids movie. I really don't feel like it.

but, I am the only one who is available to take him and so, despite having a million better things to do, I see the movie with him, because I love and care for my little brother.

Example 2: my pregnant friend's husband goes out at 3am in the morning to try and find her some ice cream. why? not because he feels like interrupting a good night;s sleep but because he loves and cares for her.

In my solid opinion, after careful consideration of this quote and given that it is probably a sentiment shared by many people (mostly Muslaaaaaaaams), then yeah, no.

 

[eye ov azazel]

In my solid opinion, after careful consideration of this quote and given that it is probably a sentiment shared by many people (mostly Muslaaaaaaaams), then yeah, no.

which sorry excuse for a Homo sapien said that?

 

[Napstar]

which sorry excuse for a Homo sapien said that?

some muslam chick in the atheist thread

 

[Iron]

If you agree that theyre irrational, how can we do anything other than let 'them' make mistakes?? Are we referring to a new super class of computers who could free us from the tyranny of free will if we flick their switches and let them??