Rationality is overrated

I think in the modern world, there is a tendency to expect progress as we head towards the future. We tend to think of ourselves as a society in a constant state of advancement. Whenever one is asked to think about the future, say 100 or 200 years from now, one usually imagines a world of super-advanced technology and scientific understanding. But in my mind, it’s just as probable that it might end up being more like Planet of the Apes.

I had a thread a while back called Reforming Democracy in which I ended on an absolutely dismal note (I essentially “cursed” America). It was in that thread that I became certain that we are on the cusp of another Dark Age–except that this Dark Age would be characterized by too much information rather than not enough. I came to the conclusion that we are inundated with too much conflicting information out of we cannot make heads or tails, and moreover all information we get (from media, from teachers, from acquaintances) is, to one degree or another, tainted. In that thread (and through other experiences in my life) I learnt how much the world runs on lies and deception, not truth and honesty, and therefore one is better off doubting the information one receive than believing it. Thus, as much as we are flooded with information, as much as it’s all available at our finger tips (via Google, wikipedia, etc.), it’s all useless, and thus equivalent to a total lack of information, just like any other Dark Age.

But I have a bad habit of being overly cynical.

I agree that change is inevitable, but I don’t think it’s always for the better. Half the problem is who is driving change. If you take left-wing politics vs. right-wing politics, for example, you see a tug-o-war between two factions trying to pull the world in opposite directions. “Advanced” to the right means less government, to the left means more government. Advancement is simply moving further along in the direction you’re already going, but for those who think we ought to be going in the opposite direction, that’s “devancement”.

Sometimes it feels like I am on the Planet of the Apes already(not to take what you said out of context) but then I touch my code and I feel grateful to be alive; other times I come to places like this forum - read all the different things - and whether they show negative or positive tendencies realize there are still intelligent, thinking beings in existence.

There sure is too much information but I still wonder whether it could be put to good use. Me and Politics(intentional bad syntax) are not friends; too much rhetoric and not enough results. Don’t get me wrong I still keep my eye on the filthy, lying, cheating , . . . . . . , rotting mental corpses(oops). Now where was I? Seriously though, I see potential in good leadership.

All knowledge is beneficial I think - if you know how to differentiate between the good and the bad. Adding an extra layer of individuality to our conscience where spirituality used to exist just leaves the gap unfilled. I don’t see why people insist on having something that is already there. Maybe it is a sign that we want to evolve mentally.

I have an infinity is zero rule - it goes like this(and it is not up for debate(I ignore you(lol))) - where you have infinity :: you have zero.

With the aforementioned rule the only place to be is in the middle and the middle is always somewhat messy. Maybe the politics of today is just outdated, obsolete, not applicable to the modern world , . . . . . . , garbage(yep I did it again).

:laughing:

I find the best place to be between zero and infinity is not in the middle but on the outside where one substitutes participation for mere observance
It is not entirely practical but the sense of detachment can provide peace of mind which is necessary any time one feels they have to take a position
on an issue. Now information overload is a problem in the digital era but over time one can develop the skills required to sort the good from the bad

I love it - I love it so much - because it illustrates very well the title of the thread. To be on the outside of zero and infinity - that I said I was not going to debate it - I don’t have to debate it - because you placed yourself outside of it. This “problem in the digital era” we deal with through multiple mechanisms - not just the mechanism of rationality.
=D>

I think, there is always enough room for instinct and Intuition.

gib

I was nearly going to resurrect this thread myself but it seems I do not have to. I have reused a quote that reminded me of something in the meaning thread and added the surrounding information for it to illustrate what you are saying about too much information rather than not enough.

I also think there is a lot of corruption in science and this corruption is on purpose - not so much conspiracy by a small group but a natural feedback that occurs when we as a race move too fast. There is just so much knowledge we do not need to know - but it seems to be a law that to get something you have to pay more than it is worth - I am not talking about money now either.

As you know I have a theory that there is a natural feedback loop for too much information.

I kind of do mean science working too fast - and I kind of mean that we have accumulated too much information up to 2017 - an information overload - the scales have been broken, so to speak. I still think there is plenty of quality there but to a degree, yes, sacrificing quality for quantity. I imagine that it is the reason why we hear so many science reports only to be refuted or exposed for their sloppy methods a few years later. I would say for every bad report there is plenty more science going on. Some of that science of course would be sloppy. It is probably fair to say that the quality of science has dimished, but by how much? Well we know it was never up to 100% quality, so where would that leave us - lets just play with made up figures to illustrate. If the optimum degree of quality(ODoQ) is usually 92% then I guess taking into consideration the bad science that has not been exposed plus the bad science that has been exposed would drop the ODoQ down to lets say, 83%. Can we afford this level of ODoQ with too much information(aka information overload), am I imagining things, I do not think I am imagining things even as hard as it might be to prove my claim. We know quality in general in life has dropped - not to be confused with quality of life - so why would science be immune?

You know the old saying though - what goes up must come down - there has to be some sort of ceiling for science before it collapses. Many people have been educated in science in recent decades - not everybody can be a scientist for Pete’s sake.

I am now thinking about the argument for not enough information.

:-k

Peace!

Rationality isn’t overrated. Maybe it was overrated in the past.

Irrationality has more and more taken over.

Unfortunately.

Unfortunately.

Exactly.

And you have to manage the integration rightly. :sunglasses:

I’m curious as to the rationality that supports the sentiment that rationality is overrated. Rationally, one can assume that irrationality is overrated if it can not irrationally rationalize itself.

Look no further than the OP.

I am thinking that perhaps, rationality is over the rating of some people . . .

. . . therefore overrated for those who are not rational.

To rate is to consider to be of a certain quality or standard.

Rationality can be rated as higher than its opposite IE irrationality.

Rationality is overrated in a world full of irrational people - perhaps always.

What I meant by rationality is overrated is that we seem to think that we have to be rational, that if we aren’t that’s something to be ashamed of. It’s like we live in a culture where rationality rules over us rather than we ruling over our rationality (I wonder if this goes all the way back to the Greeks). I tried to argue in this thread that being irrational can have its advantages, and one should not be afraid to be irrational if it seems effective sometimes.

It is irrational to think we should only be rational all the time because we are not machines but human beings
Furthermore there is nothing wrong with being irrational as long as it does not negatively impact upon anyone

It’s a drive-by posting, but I thought perhaps OP might appreciate this:

medium.com/@alexanderdouglas/th … 195ab1a5bc

…^^ The liberal racist’s view of rationality, “He is only trying to explain rationality because he is an insecure, untalented white male”. :icon-rolleyes:

One of the comments about this review:

Yeah, really. The reviewer seems to have some personal issues spilling onto the page.

I’m now tempted to read the book just to see if it’s that bad.

That is exactly the same as saying, “What I meant by health is overrated is that we seem to think that we have to be healthy, that if we aren’t that’s something to be ashamed of”.

Of course, it might take an actual rational mind to see that.

The consequences of irrationality depend on the exact situation.

But those who praise irrationality tend to want to apply it in situations when when rationality is the preferred approach. And just by suggesting that there is a “preferred approach” is “forcing” rationality on them against their will.