Irrational - What is it?

[Schillaci]

Its an easy question, really. You make a decision based on deductive reasoning of knowledge that you have ascertained which is widely accepted as truth. It doesn't make the knowledge true or the conclusion you have drawn from it, but its a widely accepted majority rule sorta thing.

If you agree with this assessment, then what is irrational?

 

[Buffy Summers]

I think I speak for the room when I say, huh?

😛

 

[Schillaci]

Hmm.

As a child, you have an open mind, you are born with a clean slate, some have bigger slates than others but that's unimportant. You are taught basic truths of 'life', and you will believe them for the rest of your life. No matter that you don't understand, you do believe. You take these basic truths and you use them to expand your knowledge base, along with this you gain more experience. As a child, what you learn in a textbook you believe, no matter what, often you don't understand basic principles of this knowledge, or even for a second bother to comprehend why you believe it, other than "the book said so". This continues like an outwarding spiral until later in life you will get to a point where it stops expanding.

Your mind is like a canvas and knowledge(whether it is right or wrong) is like paint. With an open mind each time you pick a colour you are limiting what colours you could have used and to a lesser extent, what location. Say you do pick the wrong colour, you don't know that you are limiting your mind with falsehood. Its all just knowledge. When you believe, you limit understanding.


A rational decision involves using analytical knowledge that you have learned, and a smattering of your exerience. Its deemed rational, even though it is often wrong. The answer you get is wrong, you believe your knowledge is correct, but you don't know, you don't understand it. You base everything you know on basic truths you believed when you couldn't understand them either.

This is rational thought.

So what is irrational?

 

[Jill_Valentine]

If we take "Rational" to be the result of an assumed truth, false or otherwise, then it has to follow a certain logical flow. Like in school maths, you have to be able to show your workings. If you skip some of the steps, if somebody else can't follow your workings, then that's irrational.

Fire burns wood, therefore it will burn me. I can say that and say that it's a rational conclusion.

If I were to say that sausage rolls can imbue me with the power of flight, that would be irrational. Sausage rolls have done nothing to suggest they're possessed of that quality, which is not to diminish the general brilliance of sausage rolls. Maybe if sausage rolls flew wild and free in their natural habitat, then it wouldn't be an entirely irrational conclusion, but since there's very little animal in a sausage roll there's no suggestive evidence or results to point in the "Power of Flight" direction. If you had a very specific form of madness that was centred around sausage rolls, then maybe it would make sense to you, but without any A-follows-B reasoning apparent to anybody else, you'll still just be a weirdo with a thing for pork/ pastry combinations.

I'm hungry.

 

[Buffy Summers]

freakydorky agrees: Man U F.C. .... way better that C. F. C.

Now there's some irrationality.

 

[Schillaci]

Fire burns wood, therefore it will burn me. I can say that and say that it's a rational conclusion.

I wouldn't say that's logical. I would say that's jumping several points, but whatever.

If we take "Rational" to be the result of an assumed truth, false or otherwise, then it has to follow a certain logical flow. Like in school maths, you have to be able to show your workings. If you skip some of the steps, if somebody else can't follow your workings, then that's irrational.

Belief in god, that would be irrational, right? (I think)More people believe in god than don't. The majority assume it to be true, yet there is no "logical flow" to their explanation. No empirical truth that we can investigate. falsehood passed down from generation to generation, irrationality tainting truth, causing problems, perpetuated by lack of childhood understanding.

 

[Jill_Valentine]

People who believe in God see God where others don't. To them there is a logic; one they share. I don't see it, so to me it is irrational, but I have to accept that my perception of reality is only as weighty as theirs. The question of God is unanswerable because we don't have all the information to lay out on the table. Until we understand the universe absolutely, we can't prove or disprove God/ Gods/ Flying Spaghetti Monsters in a demonstrable, scientific way. That shouldn't be the ultimate aim of science, by the way, all I mean is that God is an unusual example.

 

[Angel's vision]

Well this is meaty juicy topic, I must say Irrational/rational thought can sometimes be subject to interpretation, like the belief in God/ or evolution, to some evolution is irrational to some the belief in God, irrational. I must say irrational thought is the belief that Red Bull gives you wings.
:tongue: ::evil2::

 

[goldenboy]

And there's also the issue of culture. Like the idea of formal logic itself. That's Western (Greek) in origin, right?

Seems like the Eastern holistic, "intuitive" approach to things could seem irrational to a Westerner. You can see that in the skepticism towards acupunture, other Eastern methods of medicine, healing. Seems like East and West have been blending a bit more recently. Is acupuncture bunk? What's the latest on all that stuff? No idea, but anyways, seems like Western docs have been more accepting of Eastern approaches recently because of whatever demonstrable efficacy they have.

Rationality relates to experience and expectation, is that right? Seems like you can be intuitive and rational. You don't necessarily need formal logic...

 

[arabella]

very few human beliefs are rational. rational (maybe not correct but still rational, we must understand THAT difference) thought should be a deduction based on experience, like..i ate the red berries from the bush by the cave and got sick, if i eat them again i will probably get sick again...that is rational, but not necessarily correct (maybe a bug pooped on your berries that day).
God's not rational, but personally i don't see that as problematic. rationality is only good to guestimate the future, and is obviously flawed as you stated, by a lifetime of irrational (maybe correct, maybe not) beliefs.
that's a big ole question, but not so much well defined...i'm just saying..what does it help you figure out...cause that might be the better question.

 

[goldenboy]

OK, I think Dzhugashvili is basically asking a philosophical question, so I'm probably meandering away from the question here...but I think that personality, wiring as Arabella says, comes into play. You, Dzhugashvili, seem like one of the most aggressively rational people on these boards, which is fine with me.

I do like that (is it Jungian?) personality idea that some people are inclined towards feelings, others towards thinking"”in terms of how they understand, get along in the world, deal with others.

Seems like...some irrationality is based on fear, or an effort to maintain cohesion within a society, a group, between mates, etc. Just the idea that you distort reality, your own self-image, or the image of your mate, friends...maybe unconsciously overlook faults, shortcomings..tell white lies to others, yourself. Being meticulously rational and honest all the time can really piss people off, heh.

Seems like racism, conspiracy theories are mostly about fear, resentment...a sense of a lack of control, or a desire for control, maybe? And there's anger of course...murder/suicides, crimes of passion...irrational acts. Emotional.

Hormones, genetics, environmental stressors, the culture in which you find yourself...all that stuff affects someone's rationality, you'd think...

 

[Schillaci]

you are assuming we are born as clean slates, some like Jung would argue that we come with certain knowledge hardwired.

Interesting(I guess) that you replaced data(the generally accepted term in that phrase) for knowledge. There is a fundamental difference, perhaps not of definition, but of intent. I didn't actually assume anything. The burden of rationality that I spoke of, should never be placed on the integrity of the learner. I was not referring to traits that are created when a parents genes are mixed in the product of a new being. That two people are different, one with a tendency to believe religious hogwash and another to doubt it(culminated in part by their genetic makeup), was not the issue(actually it was so far removed from my actual intent, but whatever).

very few human beliefs are rational. rational (maybe not correct but still rational, we must understand THAT difference) thought should be a deduction based on experience, like..i ate the red berries from the bush by the cave and got sick, if i eat them again i will probably get sick again...that is rational, but not necessarily correct (maybe a bug pooped on your berries that day).
God's not rational, but personally i don't see that as problematic. rationality is only good to guestimate the future, and is obviously flawed as you stated, by a lifetime of irrational (maybe correct, maybe not) beliefs.
that's a big ole question, but not so much well defined...i'm just saying..what does it help you figure out...cause that might be the better question.

Sure, but "maybe correct, maybe not" is based on some sort of reasoning, following a pattern, observable 'data'. That there is no evidence, at all, is not a problem for so many people...

OK, I think Dzhugashvili is basically asking a philosophical question,

Nah. My actual intent was to start a silly topic(but still relevant), get a few people to commit, turn the topic toward god, builiding up to me submitting one long vicious diatribe about the concept of god, or perhaps about those that pass on that concept as fact, I hadn't specifially decided. But you've ambushed that idea.

so I'm probably meandering away from the question here...but I think that personality, wiring as Arabella says, comes into play. You, Dzhugashvili, seem like one of the most aggressively rational people on these boards, which is fine with me.

Karma will be forthcoming for that comment. "Aggressively rational"..:hehe: Unfortunately I can't give you enough karma for what that comment deserves.

I do like that (is it Jungian?) personality idea that some people are inclined towards feelings, others towards thinking—in terms of how they understand, get along in the world, deal with others.

Seems like...some irrationality is based on fear, or an effort to maintain cohesion within a society, a group, between mates, etc. Just the idea that you distort reality, your own self-image, or the image of your mate, friends...maybe unconsciously overlook faults, shortcomings..tell white lies to others, yourself.

An interesting facet of personality, no?:bandit:

Being meticulously rational and honest all the time can really piss people off, heh.

🙄

Seems like racism, conspiracy theories are mostly about fear, resentment...a sense of a lack of control, or a desire for control, maybe? And there's anger of course...murder/suicides, crimes of passion...irrational acts. Emotional.

Hormones, genetics, environmental stressors, the culture in which you find yourself...all that stuff affects someone's rationality, you'd think...

Life becomes more complex day by day. With all the 'knowledge' available, you have to figure that a rational decision is beyond any simple being that doesn't have the understanding necessary to explain the existence of a god. Or that for any decision to be rational it requires too many factors to take into account to fit the criteria of following reason, understanding all the patterns necessary.

 

[goldenboy]

So, I read what you're saying as...to be truly, absolutely rational, you'd need to be omnicient"”and also free of any interference from emotions, limitations of your own body, other people, etc...something like that. Ugh, I need coffee...

So, the civilization that produces formal logic based on reason, the scientific method (the West)...ends up increasing the world's knowledge exponentially"”continually increasing the world's technology, ethical, physical, social complexity"”which is actually making large-scale rational decisions more difficult?

Or is it just that the stakes are much higher now, cos people can destroy eachother quite easily now on a macro, global scale...irrationality becomes much more dangerous.

See, I'm thinking that"”since we aren't omnicient gods on earth"”reason, tempered by human emotion, empathy, humility is a good thing"”even if that comes in the form of religion.

 

[Frenchy Faith]

Does your questions include language too? like its lack of rationality? hehe... cause I like that... to think that we speak an non-rationnal lanuguage... and yet can't do otherwise if we wanna have a chance to interact "somehow" with other people... I'm sure if i start calling God: Table.. no one will understand me... :silly:

 

[Schillaci]

So, I read what you're saying as...to be truly, absolutely rational, you'd need to be omnicient"”and also free of any interference from emotions, limitations of your own body, other people, etc...something like that. Ugh, I need coffee...

So, the civilization that produces formal logic based on reason, the scientific method (the West)...ends up increasing the world's knowledge exponentially"”continually increasing the world's technology, ethical, physical, social complexity"”which is actually making large-scale rational decisions more difficult?

Or is it just that the stakes are much higher now, cos people can destroy eachother quite easily now on a macro, global scale...irrationality becomes much more dangerous.
See, I'm thinking that"”since we aren't omnicient gods on earth"”reason, tempered by human emotion, empathy, humility is a good thing"”even if that comes in the form of religion.

Rational is a human concept. It has requirements. There is a difference between 'knowing all' and 'all that is known'. Today 'all that is known' is much too expansive but a rational decision would be based on 'all that is known' not 'knowing all'.

Kennedy said this cool thing: The greater our knowledge increases, the greater our ignorance unfolds.

It is a great comment on where we have been, but I also believe it inadvertantly comments on where we are going. The more you know, the less you understand. That's why scientific breakthroughs(or of any kind really) are often made by younger minds.

 

[arabella]

again i ask, why do you care? what will it change/ effect? you don't strike me as the type to wax philosophical for absolutely no reason...

 

[goldenboy]

.Kennedy said this cool thing: The greater our knowledge increases, the greater our ignorance unfolds.

It is a great comment on where we have been, but I also believe it inadvertantly comments on where we are going. The more you know, the less you understand. That's why scientific breakthroughs(or of any kind really) are often made by younger minds.

Seems like it's an ever decreasing percentage of people that are even mentally equipped to understand the breakthroughs. I know I'm not among the chosen few, lol.

I can see how an abundance of knowledge, information could lead to a lack of focus, a lack of proper analysis. Also, people get set in their ways, begin to rely on certain assumptions. Fresh eyes are needed.

I guess the flip side is wisdom: coming with age, experience. I think "the wisdom of elders" has been an underappreciated, mocked concept in the culture...maybe that's from the 60s, not as extreme now...not sure. Maybe Western culture in particular is more naturally hostile to that.

You reminded me of that Rummy quote:

There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.

-Donald Rumsfeld