People are irrational, yes. But should they be?

[Silent3]

Poll question: People are irrational, yes. But should they be?

Please take "irrational" to mean "contrary to rational", as opposed to merely not supported by rationality, e.g, your favorite flavor being chocolate is not rational, but it's not irrational either.

[RandomThoughts]

1. My signature compels me to respond to this.

I live in a constant state of paradox, and in that I have found order.

Irrationality is part of that, I am irrational only after years of rationally concluding that is the most rational choice of thought.

[zeemike]

3. I love that response

And I promise not to plagiarize it.

[Silent3]

4. What exactly are "the limitations of rational thought"?

Can you provide an example of an irrational thought that somehow makes you more free?

[RandomThoughts]

8. I believe I am free

Therefore I am, even if I am not by rational standards.

[Silent3]

12. So the benefit of irrational thinking...

...is comforting fantasy? Can it really be a comforting fantasy if you're aware that you're trying to fool yourself?

[zeemike]

2. It is really all of the above. n/t

[Why Syzygy]

5. I need more help.

Can you elaborate on "contrary to rational"?

At this very moment, I think rational vs. irrational (emotional) is a characteristic of personality.
But, it looks like that might not be the intention of the question.

[Silent3]

6. Emotional and irrational aren't the same thing.

There's just a lot of overlap between emotional and irrational responses since many people get carried away by their emotions.

Something that's "contrary to rational" isn't merely unfounded in rationality and logic, but something that would contradict the conclusions of a rational thought process.

There's nothing inherently rational nor irrational about, say, wanting to win a game of baseball. Given the context of wanting to win it is rational to practice to improve your game. It isn't rational, however, to conclude that the socks you wore the last time you won must be "lucky socks" which will help you will again. Then again, if you know that socks really can't be "lucky", but you're also are aware of yourself as an emotional human being susceptible to magical thinking, and there's no particular reason to wear a different pair of socks, then maybe as a mind game you play on yourself the "lucky socks" aren't such a bad idea after all.

Even wanting to live isn't inherently rational nor irrational. The context of wanting to live is, however, so commonplace that it can usually be assumed. Given that you want to live, but you're facing a deadly disease which is easily treated by modern Western medicine, taking advantage of modern Western medicine is rational. Wearing your lucky socks when you go see the doctor is probably irrational, but at least harmlessly so.

Deciding that the disease is a "test of your faith" and counting on prayer alone to save you -- that's irrational.

[Why Syzygy]

7. LOL.

I'm pretty sure I still don't catch your meaning. Exactly.

I'm still getting that it's a function of personality type. My former roommates are people who cannot negotiate in a rational, problem solving way. It is dysfunctional from my perspective. A personality test showed them all to be "feeling", and I am more "thinking". That was the excuse given as to why I should put up with all their dramas and chaos. I'm actually more balanced, falling right near the edge of both traits.

I don't believe they possess the capacity to: strive to reduce it, or even the motivation.
I think they would choose #1.

I can't go along with #3 because the assumption is that rational is better than irrational, and should be eliminated. There isn't much one can do to alter their personality. And, what kind of world would it be if there were no *magic*? Wonderment is a good thing.

So, that means I'll choose #2, despite lingering confusion.

Interesting food for thought.

[Silent3]

10. I don't disagree that some people have a greater capacity for rational...

...thinking than other people. What does that have to do, however, with what I'm asking?

A thing can be better as a general idea even if it's difficult or unlikely for some people to achieve. Some people might be genetically predisposed to obesity, it might not even be healthy for them to try to be skinny, but it's still probably a good idea for them to strive to keep their weight down -- whether they can or will is a moot point.

I personally think that rational thinking is generally a good thing, and I'd like to see more people to engaged in it. For instance, I don't the a more rational public ever would have elected George Bush (or given him anywhere near enough votes for the election to end up in the hands of the Supreme Court).

And, what kind of world would it be if there were no *magic*? Wonderment is a good thing.

What on earth are you talking about? Wonderment and "magic" aren't the same thing, except maybe poetically speaking. Being rational certainly does not mean giving up a sense of wonder.

[Why Syzygy]

15. Excuse me for

mistaking you for someone interested in conversation. OAO

[Silent3]

16. So, I would demonstrate interest in conversation...

...by what? Not challenging the conflation of emotion with irrationality? By blithely accepting that rationality means the end of wonderment? By playing along with something else that I either disagree with or which simply didn't make sense to me?

[Occam Bandage]

9. People should definitely pretend that human cognition is rooted in logic.

Only through deliberate, studied ignorance of the human brain can we truly call ourselves enlightened.

[Silent3]

11. What does being striving to be more rational have to do...

...with "pretend(ing) that (the) human condition is rooted in logic"?

[struggle4progress]

13. "The heart has its reasons, which reason does not know. We feel it in a thousand things"

Pascal, Pensées 277

[SidneyCarton]

14. One must know one's irrationality.

Where possible, one must confront it and hold it back. But assuming that one can live life as a fully rational being, is to deny one's nature.

[Silent3]

17. There's a difference between...

...accepting that irrationality will happen, any actively deciding to be irrational out of some fear that if you don't make sure that you act irrationally you'll somehow become "less human".

[Odin2005]

18. People should make themselves aware of their irrational side so it doesn't damage anything.

High-Functioning Autistics/People with Asperger's like myself all know through painful experience the destructiveness of a disturbing irrationality in other people that makes us shudder in absolute terror.

[SarahJohn]

19. I would think

"rational" is a very relative term.

[Silent3]

20. True, but there are some people who reject rationality no matter how...

...they define it. Sometimes I think the rejection of rationality comes from badly defining it, defining it as rejection of emotions, rejection of intuition, narrow-minded acceptance of the status quo, etc.

[Taitertots]

21. People tend to be rational

Much more than irrational, even if you don't understand their rationality.
Much or what most people consider to be irrational is just decisions made with imperfect data.

It is totally rational to believe in lucky socks. What is irrational about wanting to maintain the conditions of a previous win? If you have very few aspects you can control going into a game, you should select the things you can control based on situations that resulted in previous wins.

It is totally rational to believe in religion. There are many things we don't know and some people come to different conclusions based on the same data. Even if I believe the conclusion is wrong a rational process went into deciding.

It is totally rational to refuse western medicine if your religion prohibits it. Just because I believe something is wrong doesn't mean an irrational process went into the decision. If you believe god doesn't want you to do it, then it is rational not to.