Rationality is overrated

Huh? You mean it was useful because it got to be in the diagram?

It shows that the defining label of ‘completely useless’ should be considered to change to ‘mostly useless’, at the very least. Nothing likes to be ‘completely’ useless, especially when it exists anyway.

Well then, I don’t see why you would call that irrational if that’s precisely what you want to do. It’s irrational only in its appearance – it appears to the other that you are irrational – but not in itself.

Again, I would say you’re discussing goals here and not modes of judgment. You’re simply saying it’s sometimes better to be disrespectful towards others than to be respectful. You are NOT saying that there are times when it’s better to be irrational rather than rational.

There is, however, one sense in which trying to make your point clear to others, and in general perform some action, is irrational.

Suppose that it leads to frustration, to overwhelming emotional reaction. Wouldn’t then be rational to stop performing that action and irrational to keep performing it?

You are rational insofar your instincts work with each other rather than against each other. Reason isn’t opposed to instincts. It is only opposed to their confusion. Pretty sure that these people that you mention are rational.

What I’m calling “irrational” are the words you say to the other person, not necessarily what’s going on in your head. Take the example I gave above about going to a gay bar. If you say:

“I went to a gay bar.”

And just to push your buttons, I said: “So you’re gay?”

What I’m saying is not rational–it doesn’t follow from going to a gay bar that one is gay–though I may know it’s irrational in my head.

I’d use the word “cooperative”.

Sure, they can be just as rational as anyone else. But I’m saying that listening to the voice of one’s instincts or intuition is not the same thing as rationality–though I’ll agree that they aren’t opposed to it. I use the word “rationality” to denote a thought process–one thinks through something in a logical/rational manner; but sometimes one just “knows” the right answer, the correct course of action, by way of instinct or intuition, and in this case he is not using rationality (though again, it’s not necessarily incompatible with rationality). On the other hand, if one thought to one’s self: “I know my instincts have never lead me astray in the past; therefore, it seems reasonable that I can trust them in the present case; so then, I’ll trust my instincts.” ← That would be a rational thought process.

Like we need to sleep to stay alive so that we can wake up - I would say that we need some non-rational time to keep our rationality in good working order or something like that.

There was a time where everything I did had to be scientific, even the entertainment I watched and then one day I thought “wait a minute”. Wait a minute for what? It is the imagination that helps us to invent things not rationality. Ever since rationality became the big thing I have noticed a major drop in innovation - we just seem to be rehashing the same ideas. It has become a very repetitive world. Most people would disagree for reasons like “but it is the iPhone 7 not the iPhone 6” and I would say an iPhone is a bloomin iPhone.

Just saying.

:smiley:

:confused:
When do you think rationality “became the big thing”?

Yeah I know - I possibly should have even put in some parenthesis - (the exceptions). Either way innovation has dropped; “became the big thing” is most definitely overstating it. I say the majority of the population is actually crazy(colloquially speaking) and not rational at all however I do not see what the rational minority are doing that is actually fixing the worlds issues.

Tell me phyllo - do you think all of the research projects that are being funded are worth their money?

I also do not think some people deserve the jobs they have. As far as rationality is concerned, I see a lack of it at all levels. It is fairly important that rationality is employed where there are spending decisions that affect huge amounts of people.

So in essence phyllo, I may have made an error with what I was saying(which I am not going to lose sleep over) but I do not think that matters too much since that whole paragraph started out as a pointless anecdote. Also given the title of the thread I don’t think it hurts to play a little. I do not even know if the first sentence in my post is true. Just the same I am not even sure it is worth talking about. I could have said " Ever since extreme behavior became the big thing" but what is that anyhow?

:-k

I am just lost in a world that has a baffling amount of differing opinions.

Rationality became the big thing back in Ancient Greek times. It had a lull in the dark ages, then a resurgence in the Enlightenment, and now seems to be going into a lull again

I think it would take a bit more than a small handful of rational people to fix the world’s issues. Everybody needs to be on board. Otherwise, you’re just one rational man preaching to the deaf and the dumb.

Absolutely!

Hey Ed, this ties into some of my comments from your other thread–you know, about how the brain will use whatever strategy it must in order to get by. Rationality is just one strategy. Social tricks are another. Intuition is a third. The reason you see a disturbing lack of rationality all around you, and why you find yourself amidst a baffling amount of differing opinions, is because in today’s world, human brains are finding that strategies other than rationality work best for them. This may not have been the case a while back, say during the Enlightenment period, but it seems that anti-intellectualism is sweeping across the Western world in such awesome waves that many are doubting the utility of strict rationality.

I was not thinking real hard when I made the post - Socrates taught Plato who taught Aristotle if I am not mistaken and from what I remember reading, only Aristotle’s lecture notes survived, whereas writings of Plato survived. I am in fear of a modern dark ages and kind of figured an enlightenment of sorts was on the horizon for all of us a few years back but now I am not so sure.

Believe me, I totally agree.

I guess I am just a grumpy old brain and this was an occasion of selfish want - want for things to stay the same. It is strange though because I am always telling people that change is inevitable. You are correct that this ties into your other comments from the other thread and I also agree that the brain has strategies other than rationality. I actually read an interesting article on the social conscious that human seems to share which illustrated how most people imitate others if they see the benefit to their own lives . . . makes you think.

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: