"Rational" Thinking Theory

Post Reply New Topic

I have to say simply... The human animal is not capable of truly rational thought (by your definition)... We are not objective... in any way... even those with a clinically defined need and ability for rationality... We cannot be objective...

Let's start with the fact that we live in the past.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTOODPf-iuc[/youtube]

Then there is the fact that we don't process EVERY piece of information when we are experiencing the world.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGQmdoK_ZfY[/youtube]

Now... We have to think about the mechanical, chemical and neurological aspects of visual processing... Light waves pass through the eyes... which are not standard issue... they are different sizes and the ratios of width, depth and focal length... Then they go through the retina... each retina is different, different patterns of blood cells, and light receptors... Then down the optic nerve and into the brain... which is formatted by experience, life, trauma, joy, genetics and chemistry...

Add to that the fact that we live in a world that is bathed in quantum packets (i.e. photons/light) that respond to the very act of observation... All of this is to say that there can be no objectivity... We all view the world through the warped lens of our own perceptions... Since your definition of rationality relies on the objectivity of the observer, and no such objectivity can exist... There is not one rational thinker on the planet

That is, except for the person who has reached your own (ahem) rational conclusion?

One way of getting out of this contradictory paradox is to allow for some objective rationality to be obtainable by reason. Even quantum mechanics operates according to rules which explain (to some degree) the phenomena. We can't just throw out reason entirely. I think that would be unreasonable.

I would just like to clarify two points in your example above.

Are you working with the assumption that someone giving a gift card is acting irrationally by picking a store and therefore restricting their recipient to one type of gift?

If so, that is rarely the case. The idea behind gift cards is to give someone a gift that shows you genuinely know their taste and want to give them something they will appreciate but also to allow them some choice and minimize the room for error in choosing for them. For example, I like books, very much so, and anyone who knows me well is most certainly assured that I do. However, someone buying me a gift may not be confident in choosing a specific title as a present for me; worrying that I may already have it, might find the level inappropriate in relation to my understanding of the subject, might dislike the author or another similar consideration. Therefore buying me a giftcard for a bookstore is their way of demonstrating that they know me well enough to narrow down their gift to books, yet demonstrating the understanding that my taste might not be exactly the same as theirs and showing they wish to give me the final choice. If they were to give me money instead it would not be as likely to demonstrate their thought and understanding of me, so it would not be as meaningful as they intend. Giving a gift is not about giving someone whatever they want, it is primarily an exercise in communication. If someone were capable of choosing exactly the book I would personally choose and giving me that, I would be elated that they appeared to know me so very well or at least to have listened to me if I had once remarked that I wanted that particular book. Failing that, giving me a giftcard for a bookstore, particularly my favourite online bookstore would be a much more meaningful gift than cash, despite the flexibility in giving money. A gift of money can come across as lazy and lacking in personal communication to most people. Perhaps if someone gave you money you would prefer it as you do not seem to appreciate someone trying to give a thoughtful token and instead would consider it thoughtful to leave you to choose for yourself. Not everyone thinks the same way as you, that does not necessarily make them irrational. A giftcard is a compromise of convenience for the gift-giver who is lacking in confidence or time to work out which specific gift is best. The purpose of gift giving is, for most people, less about the specific material item and more about the act of acknowledging what someone enjoys or needs and demonstrating it through the gift of a suitable item.

Are you also assuming that the recipient would not buy the gift item themselves and that if they had the money instead of the giftcard, that they would spend it on something else - Perhaps something less indulgent and more practical?

If so then you appear to be making an assumption that the person giving the giftcard is unaware of the recipient's purchasing habits. Adding to my example above, I adore books and will purchase them regardless. Someone giving me a giftcard for a bookstore is saving me money by giving me the gift of the funds to purchase something I always want to buy (as my collection can never be complete) and making a fairly normal purchase into a more meaningful one as it is then connected to them. This is in line with what giftcards are primarily intended for.

There's a reason we call the logic behind self destructive behaviors "rationalizations", and that's because that while the conclusion has been logically deduced, the premises are usually wrong.

I trust my gut more these days when evaluating "rational" arguments, because if an argument feels intellectually dishonest or intentionally misleading, there's usually a shaky premise or a redefinition of terms. Sometimes the logical opposite of a word is intentionally confused with, or redefined as, its conceptual opposite ("not hot" vs "cold"). Sometimes a premise can be twisted into two negations that mean totally different things ("all indonesians are not green" vs. "no indonesians are green") and as long as both negations are observably true, people will use the negations interchangeably. Sometimes the person arguing will misrepresent how the terms are defined for the argument to mislead the opponent into making a faulty counterargument ("atheism is not a religion because it's the lack of belief" vs "atheism is not a religion and theism is not a religion").

1) I am included in my statements... As an Aspie, I have severely irrational tendencies on certain issues...
2) Just citing information presented by the scientific community with experimental and REPEATABLE evidence...
3) Never said that people can't be reasonable... but reasonable and rational are not mutually exclusive.

Functional value? I don't know, I'm not a particularly pragmatic person. I guess it's meant as an explanation to help people better understand each other and why they and other people do certain things, and why they may be bad at predicting behavior despite being good with other systems.

I was just clarifying. I don't even know what exact thread you are referring to because I didn't see any valley thread. Anyway, I fail to see any connection between the two ideas other than the fact the uncanny valley is an emotional response.



Okay, I didn't explain myself very well, but in the final part the model isn't a technical model that you are referencing like this one, it's a less concrete one that's subconsciously in your head while making a decision. When making a quick decision you are going to default to your emotional model, not your elaborate, refined one. Essentially what Janissy said. Remember, not even "rational" people are truly rational, only that they have the potential to be rational at times. And yes, it's my own theory, I consider myself fairly introspective and think over stuff a lot.





Rational thinking is possible in certain circumstances, generally people think rationally while solving math problems, but it's incomplete, the acquiring of sensory information is not rational, it's empirical. Philosophically I completely agree the sensation and perception are subjective, and thus we can never be truly certain of things. Ultimately the choice in trusting our senses is not rational, but there isn't really any other options. It's impossible to make truly rational decisions as you can't rationally get base information from which to make conclusions.



I'm not saying getting a giftcard is an irrational decision, just that on the surface it appears irrational, but it's a rational decision because people are irrational. Now, what you are saying about the purpose of gift giving is correct. If I was giving someone a gift I probably wouldn't give them cash unless I knew that they would prefer to make their own choice. When I was writing this I was half asleep and I forgot I was going to be talking about giftcards specifically and started talking about gifts, and then I realized my mistake and went back to giftcards as I intended. Yes, giftcards are essentially halfway between an actual gift and a gift of hard cash, mixing the advantages of the different gifts, but I figured the gift cards are different enough from final gifts that the gift aspect could be considered negligible enough for the rest of my reasoning to apply. "Are you also assuming that the recipient would not buy the gift item themselves and that if they had the money instead of the giftcard, that they would spend it on something else - Perhaps something less indulgent and more practical?

If so then you appear to be making an assumption that the person giving the giftcard is unaware of the recipient's purchasing habits. " Well, uh, it depends on their purchasing habits. The very fact it was framed as a gift may change their spending behavior, and for many people's spending behavior they would indulge themselves on a gift card but not otherwise. Okay, I admit based this mainly on a response to asking what's the point of giftcards long ago, not actually thinking it over enough myself and I neglected some key information even though I did say it was important. My example wasn't perfect, it's a less than rational conclusion that people rationally give giftcards because people are irrational (too many rationals), but I think the general idea works and shows the point. If you want a possibly better example, look at procrastination and addiction.

I agree about quick-decision making. Irrational (or more accurately: intuitive) people are certainly better at that. But it's hard to determine who is better at it "overall", which is why I say I'm not convinced. That's not to say I'm convinced of the opposite, either (ie. that rational people are better at it), but I'm leaning that way. One reason for this is: I think that the intuitive approach is inherently limited. It works for common real-life situations, but some situations are too complex to ever be correctly understood intuitively. With rational analysis there is no such inherent limit - it only depends on how rational the individual is and how much information they have. There is nothing stopping a rational person from getting better and better at modelling people's behaviour, which includes doing it faster.



Oh, I'm sure you do! Me too.

It's true that with time and practice, the rational person can get better and better at making accurate models of irrational behaviour. The field of marketing pretty much depends on that. Through decades of research and analysis, the marketing field has succesfully made rational models of irrational spending behaviour. However, getting to that point requires a commitment to studying it that many rational people are unwilling to make. Or worse yet, think that such commitment to studying it isn't necessary and mere rationality itself will yield a correct model.