The Limits To Acceptable Irrationality

[David Sklansky]

Hopefully this short post makes clear the gist of where I am going with many of my statements here.

I understand that no one wants to be Spock. No one believes that every decision has to be put into mathematical terms and calculated. But there are limits.

To illustrate my point, take my post about whether you will accept your boss spitting in your face if it means you can keep your parents out of a nursing home. There is no right answer to that. UNLESS you have previously come to conclusions that logically force one. For instance if you claim that you won't accept the spitting for your parents sake, but you will accept it to avoid a second job, and you also claim that will accept a second job to keep your parents out of a nursing home, you must change one of those positions. (No nitpicks please, as they would be off the subject.)

Now I don't claim that people wouldn't be able to see this if it was explained to them. They would. And only the most argumentative would deny that they have to change one of those stances. I don't even claim that people have to have something like this explained to them at all if they happened to be thinking about all the issues at once. That would spur them to reexamine things.

The only thing that bothers me is that when confronting an issue like this, most people don't even bother to search their own mind to look for possible contradictions of this sort. They fall back on the idea that their instinct or gut feelings will serve them well and to think otherwise makes them too Spockish. That attitude, often spurred on by people who should know better, is really just an excuse to be intellectually lazy.

[Borodog]

David,

It's ok. The market, like the cards, punishes intellectual laziness.

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
David,

It's ok. The market, like the cards, punishes intellectual laziness.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know. But in spite of what some people think about me, I'd rather help them then punish them.

[ruken]

This is a surprisingly topical thread title given the ruckus in NVG. Props.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

That attitude, often spurred on by people who should know better, is really just an excuse to be intellectually lazy.


[/ QUOTE ]

Is that at all like the attitude that if smart people say something others don't have to question it or examine the facts for themselves? Especially if the issue involved is the biggest possible issue there could be?

[PairTheBoard]

There is also a limit to your ability to recognize what is and is not "rational".

PairTheBoard

[chezlaw]

I used to agree with this but am far less sure its true than i used to be. Is it the case that the morons (your definition) are less happy (on any scale) then those who think? If anything they seem happier in general, maybe because they aren't bothered by the morons like the non-morons are, or maybe because its important for people to think they're as good as or better than others - something only available to the elite few and the morons.

[ QUOTE ]
The only thing that bothers me is that when confronting an issue like this, most people don't even bother to search their own mind to look for possible contradictions of this sort. They fall back on the idea that their instinct or gut feelings will serve them well and to think otherwise makes them too Spockish. That attitude, often spurred on by people who should know better, is really just an excuse to be intellectually lazy.

[/ QUOTE ] So maybe its not lazyness (not that lazyness isn't a virtue) but a form of denial that increases their satisfaction.

and if it does increase their satisfaction then its rational, isn't it?

chez

[Duke]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
David,

It's ok. The market, like the cards, punishes intellectual laziness.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know. But in spite of what some people think about me, I'd rather help them then punish them.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is one of my favorite typos ever.

So you're saying that people think you would rather punish them first?

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
David,

It's ok. The market, like the cards, punishes intellectual laziness.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know. But in spite of what some people think about me, I'd rather help them then punish them.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is one of my favorite typos ever.

So you're saying that people think you would rather punish them first?

[/ QUOTE ]

He punishes them out of spite for what they think of him.

PairTheBoard

[Siegmund]

[ QUOTE ]
I understand that no one wants to be Spock.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you sure?

I can think of a lot of characters less worthy of emulating.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I understand that no one wants to be Spock.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you sure?

I can think of a lot of characters less worthy of emulating.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not if one's trying to be rational.

chez

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I understand that no one wants to be Spock.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you sure?

I can think of a lot of characters less worthy of emulating.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not if one's trying to be rational.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

spock was particularly irrational?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I understand that no one wants to be Spock.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you sure?

I can think of a lot of characters less worthy of emulating.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not if one's trying to be rational.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

spock was particularly irrational?

[/ QUOTE ]
Total emotional wreck. He desperately wanted to supress his emotional side in an effort to be totally logical but this want was purely emotional.

Plus dozens of episodes, 20 odd years of repeats and they had to make a film before he realised that if he didn't have any emotions then there would be no point to anything.

chez

[m_the0ry]

Because (ir)rationality is based on decisions with less than perfect knowledge - and we are no more capable of acting against our own knowledge than we are capable of acting with free will - I would say that irrationality can be generalized best as resistance to new information. In your hypothetical I don't see an issue of rationality, rather an issue of ethics (the careful weighing of pros and cons).

Irrationality is a vice like greed or sloth. Everyone commits it to various degrees ranging from none (unrealistic but possible) to some (realistic and probable). All anyone can do is seek to optimize their rationality by having no inherent distrust for new knowledge. That said, the acceptable irrationality is zero irrationality. We should 'accept' no irrationality. Rather ideal rationality should be thought of as a philosophy rather than an attainable status.

[remi983]

[ QUOTE ]
I used to agree with this but am far less sure its true than i used to be. Is it the case that the morons (your definition) are less happy (on any scale) then those who think? 1 )If anything they seem happier in general, maybe because they aren't bothered by the morons like the non-morons are, or maybe because its important for people to think they're as good as or better than others - something only available to the elite few and the morons.
[ QUOTE ]
The only thing that bothers me is that when confronting an issue like this, most people don't even bother to search their own mind to look for possible contradictions of this sort. They fall back on the idea that their instinct or gut feelings will serve them well and to think otherwise makes them too Spockish. That attitude, often spurred on by people who should know better, is really just an excuse to be intellectually lazy.

[/ QUOTE ] 2) So maybe its not lazyness (not that lazyness isn't a virtue) but a form of denial that increases their satisfaction.
and if it does increase their satisfaction then its rational, isn't it?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

1)The morons are happy in the same way that a child who skips school is happy. Ditching is enjoyable in a hollow way, but can never really be fulfilling. The child who cuts class will relish the freedom and independence of no school, but in the end will not be happy because of it. He's happy in a short term sense. In the long run,though, his grades will suffer, he will be deemed an outcast by his peers, may get into trouble with the law, might join a gang, try drugs or otherwise become a sinister deviant. Even if he's not enjoying himself while at school, his long term happiness depends on it. The child's happiness would be much better served if he recieves a basic education. In short, Chez, I disagree with your implacations that, "Ignorance is bliss," and "Apathy is Freedom"

2) This isn't rational in any meanigful way. Any argument or chain of reasoning which starts out with a false premise can only lead to trivially valid conclusions. Consider this:

Premis: All snow is green.

Argument: -It is snowing outside right now, therefore the snow must be green.

This is an example of a valid, but not sound argument. The flaw lies in the premis. It is obviously false, therefore any conclusions derived from it are vacuously true.

I believe that b/c the morons' premises are flawed, their thinking cannot be rational in meaningful way.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
1)The morons are happy in the same way that a child who skips school is happy. Ditching is enjoyable in a hollow way, but can never really be fulfilling. The child who cuts class will relish the freedom and independence of no school, but in the end will not be happy because of it. He's happy in a short term sense. In the long run,though, his grades will suffer, he will be deemed an outcast by his peers, may get into trouble with the law, might join a gang, try drugs or otherwise become a sinister deviant. Even if he's not enjoying himself while at school, his long term happiness depends on it. The child's happiness would be much better served if he recieves a basic education.

[/ QUOTE ]
Its not particularly like skipping school but you're making a mistake if you think that because skipping school can have bad consequences then it follows that no-one is happier for skipping school. (Sure made by teachers happier when I skipped school so I'll claim I did it for moral reasons).

but its a diversion because this is adults leading their lives, not kids preparing for adult life.

[ QUOTE ]
In short, Chez, I disagree with your implacations that, "Ignorance is bliss," and "Apathy is Freedom"


[/ QUOTE ] That wasn't exactly my conclusion, just for some people, particularly DS's Moron class, I'd like to see some evidence that they are less happy then similar ability people who think logically - my experience suggest they are generally happier.

[ QUOTE ]
2) This isn't rational in any meanigful way. Any argument or chain of reasoning which starts out with a false premise can only lead to trivially valid conclusions. Consider this:

Premis: All snow is green.

Argument: -It is snowing outside right now, therefore the snow must be green.

This is an example of a valid, but not sound argument. The flaw lies in the premis. It is obviously false, therefore any conclusions derived from it are vacuously true.

I believe that b/c the morons' premises are flawed, their thinking cannot be rational in meaningful way.


[/ QUOTE ]
That's not the right way to look at it. They aren't drawing conclusions from a premise but learning from experience (no need for them even to realise they're doing it). You could claim that that's nothing to do with being rational, fair enough. However it wouldn't be rational for them to follow DS's program if it made them less happy. Clear logical thinking is not its own reward for many people so they should only do it if its to their overall benefit.

chez

[remi983]

1) I may have used an imperfect analogy, but the point still holds. If oblivious morons might be happier in the short term because they don't think critically, then long term they are doomed to a life of mediocrity. Their lot in life and happiness will improve if they would start using their brain, attempt to learn abstract thinking, try to understand the world, etc. Yes, this takes work and means short term discomfort, but the payoff is huge. Increased thinking will lead them to better handle their finances, get better jobs, maybe start a successful business, understand the world around them, raise healthier children, enjoy art more, etc.

Morons are morons because they choose comfort over happiness. Read <u>Brave New World</u> , you'll see my point.

2) Point taken, as long as you realise that their beliefs/worldviews aren't rationally held.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
1) I may have used an imperfect analogy, but the point still holds. If oblivious morons might be happier in the short term because they don't think critically, then long term they are doomed to a life of mediocrity.

[/ QUOTE ]
So you insist but unless there's evidence that the moron class is generally less happy than non-morons with similar ability then it makes no difference that you judge their lives mediocre. Surely you don't want them to sacrifice their happiness so you can feel better about them?

[ QUOTE ]
Morons are morons because they choose comfort over happiness. Read Brave New World , you'll see my point.

[/ QUOTE ]
Hmmm, read it many years ago and as comfort makes me happy I wont suffer it again.

chez

[David Sklansky]

Please stop using the term "morons" in this way. It offends me. Seriously. I personally would never use such a term to describe the people you speak of. People who might well be happier if they can avoid the thinking process.

I only use the term to rile up people who are most assuredly NOT morons. And to elicit posts from Pair The Board.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
Please stop using the term "morons" in this way. It offends me. Seriously. I personally would never use such a term to describe the people you speak of. People who might well be happier if they can avoid the thinking process.

I only use the term to rile up people who are most assuredly NOT morons. And to elicit posts from Pair The Board.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you are Trolling with use of that term.

PairTheBoard

[PairTheBoard]

It's a question of processing time. Some people Overthink everything. They are not much fun to be around and I don't believe they enjoy being that way. They just can't seem to help it.

We could all devote more time to rationally processing everything. There is no end to how much processing you can do. I used to have a girlfriend who would call me every night and go through every single little god damned detail of her boring f-ing day because she needed to "process" it all to make sure she was in complete Control of her life situation. Damn. I'd rather watch TV.

PairTheBoard

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Please stop using the term "morons" in this way. It offends me. Seriously. I personally would never use such a term to describe the people you speak of. People who might well be happier if they can avoid the thinking process.


[/ QUOTE ]
/images/graemlins/grin.gif, but

[ QUOTE ]
Is it the case that the morons (your definition) ...

[/ QUOTE ]

The point I raise is whether they would be happier? would anyone but a moron claim they should become non-morons if that would make them less happy?

chez

[remi983]

Chez, I have offered several ways in which thinking can, at least viscerally, improve someone's life, but you haven't itemized any reasons for the other position. You deem evidence neccessary for my contention, but offer no evidence for your own contention. This is a double standard. Also, sorry you didn't like <u>BNW</u> .

PairtheBoard, I agree that overcontemplation can lead to unhappiness, but the alternative of surface level, non-thinking, happiness is an incredibly trite form of happiness. I'd prefer someone who overthinks rather than someone not thinking at all.

[soon2bepro]

There are other reasons than just lazyness why people choose to do this.

There's the social pressure against thinking.

There's the feeling of failure when they try to think and realize they're really bad at it.

I can't think of another right now but I'm sure they must be some more.

In any case, I understand where you're going. You want to stimulate people to think. And you're pretty good at it too. Maybe if you stopped trying to fight the zealots in these forums you could get to more people who you actually have a chance of getting to.

Seriously, I have yet to see any of the people that strongly disagree with you come up with good arguments to criticize your statements. The only one that comes close is chezlaw, but he's often using straw man arguments or just plain talking about something entirely different. I get the idea he's just doing it to bug you. As for the others, they're beyond salvation. Why do you care so much what they think? You won't be able to show them they're wrong.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Chez, I have offered several ways in which thinking can, at least viscerally, improve someone's life, but you haven't itemized any reasons for the other position. You deem evidence neccessary for my contention, but offer no evidence for your own contention. This is a double standard. Also, sorry you didn't like BNW .

[/ QUOTE ]
No just a single standard. its my experience that these morons are no less happy and if anything happier in general, though its very hard to judge and I'd happily change my views if someone could demonstrate they were less happy. You haven't offered any evidence at all so that's not going to cut the mustard.

However, as long as its possible that they are no less happy then DS is overstating the case.

chez

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
PairtheBoard, I agree that overcontemplation can lead to unhappiness, but the alternative of surface level, non-thinking, happiness is an incredibly trite form of happiness. I'd prefer someone who overthinks rather than someone not thinking at all

[/ QUOTE ]

Who's talking about "not thinking at all"? Also, the process most people apply to most things in their lives is an intuitive evaluation which incorporates a lot of life experience. The process may not conform to your idea of proper linear deductive reasoning, ie "Thinking". Yet it usually works quite well for people and in many cases may be far superior to what you might accomplish with proper "thinking". It might even be considered more "rational" than you "think".

There is a limit to your ability to determine what is and is not "rational". This limit makes your broad generalizations suspect. We will consider your generalizations on a case by case basis if you don't mind.

PairTheBoard

[remi983]

Didn't want to fight a two front war. It seems our arguments are missing each other. Neither of you properly address my contentions. Chez- you're merely restating your position. Your aruments are circular at best.

Pairtheboard- You are misstating my position. I never said that linear logic is the only proper/rational way to think. Sure, intuitive evaluation on life experiences can be conducive to rational thought. But, if someone misinterprets a situation and then forms their beliefs based on that misinterretation, they are doing themselves a disservice.

Soon2bepro- thanks for the kind words. I'm starting law school soon.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Didn't want to fight a two front war. It seems our arguments are missing each other. Neither of you properly address my contentions. Chez- you're merely restating your position. Your aruments are circular at best.

[/ QUOTE ]
One last attempt to explain as it can't possibly be circular so you haven't understood.

1) If a moron is happier not thinking about things then DS is mistaken to claim that the only reason for them to behave this way is intellectual lazyness.

2) its possible a moron is happier not thinking about things

3) therefore DS is mistaken to claim that the only possible reason for them to behave this way is intellectual lazyness

That's a straightforward (highly non-circular) argument that is a slam-dunk unless you can prove that morons are necessarily no more happy than they would be if they thought (which no-one could possibly prove).

Okay so far?

chez

[reup]

[ QUOTE ]
and if it does increase their satisfaction then its rational, isn't it?

[/ QUOTE ]

a druggie hitting the crack pipe is increasing his satisfaction and acting irrationally. are you saying that rationality is doing whatever you want to do?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
and if it does increase their satisfaction then its rational, isn't it?

[/ QUOTE ]

a druggie hitting the crack pipe is increasing his satisfaction and acting irrationally. are you saying that rationality is doing whatever you want to do?

[/ QUOTE ]
Overall not just at that point in time.

chez

[remi983]

1) sure
2) Short term yes, but overall I do not think so. In the long run, they will enjoy more benefits bc of increased thinking. I've itemized a few possibilities and you have done nothing to retort them other than mistakenly saying that I have not offered evidence.
3)absolutely
Conclusion) No, people who, for instance go back to school and get a high school/college diploma generally enjoy higher paying jobs, a better understanding of the world, are more influential in their peer groups, etc.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
2) Short term yes, but overall I do not think so.

[/ QUOTE ]
know you don't think so but that doesn't make it impossible so the arguments a slam-dunk.

[ QUOTE ]
I've itemized a few possibilities and you have done nothing to retort them other than mistakenly saying that I have not offered evidence.


[/ QUOTE ]
You've offered some possibilities as to why they may not be happier but that's not evidence that in fact they aren't happier.

Although I think your points were misguided they agree with my intuition they these people would be less happy. However my middle-aged experience is that they are as happy if not happier and I await any evidence to the contrary.

chez

[remi983]

How exactly does that make your argument a slam dunk? It does not. You just said that without any basis...Let me clarify my position: Overall, thinking will improve people'e lot in life which makes them happier.

"However my middle-aged experience is that they are as happy if not happier and I await any evidence to the contrary." Please explain your experience. How is it that you think people are happy not thinking? What is your experience? And, I've offerred possibilites which show how they would be happier.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
How exactly does that make your argument a slam dunk? It does not. You just said that without any basis...

[/ QUOTE ]
1) If a moron is happier not thinking about things then DS is mistaken to claim that the only reason for them to behave this way is intellectual lazyness.

2) its possible a moron is happier not thinking about things

3) therefore DS is mistaken to claim that the only possible reason for them to behave this way is intellectual lazyness

is a slam-dunk however many times you say here's a reason why people might be happier if they think. Its valid and sound unless its impossible that someone might be less happy for not thinking - which you haven't even hinted at.

[ QUOTE ]
Please explain your experience. How is it that you think people are happy not thinking? What is your experience?

[/ QUOTE ]
Just when you know people who are morons they don't seem less happy then their intellectual equivilents who think things through. They make horrible logical mistakes but don't seem in the bothered by them (or even notice).

[ QUOTE ]
And, I've offerred possibilites which show how they would be happier

[/ QUOTE ]
What you've done is claim for reason X that you think a moron would be happier if they thought. That's not evidence you are correct, its just evidence of your intuition about what makes people happy. You can appeal to evidence that they are more successful by some achievement type metric but that a very different result.

chez

[remi983]

Our arguments are still missing each other. I am certain that I have taken the more intellectual route. You have merely stuck to your position without explaining it adequately at all. Your mentioned experiences are still not tangible. You have said that my position requires evidence, but you can offer any evidence yourself. Again, this is a double standard. Face it, you are an inarticulate Brit.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Our arguments are still missing each other. I am certain that I have taken the more intellectual route. You have merely stuck to your position without explaining it adequately at all. Your mentioned experiences are still not tangible. You have said that my position requires evidence, but you can offer any evidence yourself. Again, this is a double standard. Face it, you are an inarticulate Brit.

[/ QUOTE ]
oh dear, forget it.

BTW do you think you would be happier if you thought it through?


chez

[mojed]

[ QUOTE ]
PairtheBoard, I agree that overcontemplation can lead to unhappiness, but the alternative of surface level, non-thinking, happiness is an incredibly trite form of happiness. I'd prefer someone who overthinks rather than someone not thinking at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

While I tend to agree that non-thinking happiness is trite, I cannot justify that rationally, it is my gut feeling - a slight contradiction. Who are we to define what a trite form of happiness is and what a respectable form of happiness is (or a trite vs. respectable means of obtaining happiness), and how can we define it without resorting to our instincts, or some sort of ungrounded assumption about happiness.

I struggle to justify why the happiness obtained from watching tv all day is any more trite than the happiness gained from philosophical thought. Each is just a means to an end, happiness.

[govman6767]

[ QUOTE ]
1) Morons are morons because they choose comfort over happiness. Read <u>Brave New World</u> , you'll see my point.



[/ QUOTE ]

I argue that comfort is happiness. Which makes the people you call morons geniuses in my book

[guesswest]

[ QUOTE ]
I used to agree with this but am far less sure its true than i used to be. Is it the case that the morons (your definition) are less happy (on any scale) then those who think? If anything they seem happier in general, maybe because they aren't bothered by the morons like the non-morons are, or maybe because its important for people to think they're as good as or better than others - something only available to the elite few and the morons.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think what's missing in this analysis is instinct. We've spent much more time developing instinct than we have deconstructing ethics rationally. Instincts are conditioned by our environment - if you believe logical process is floating around out there in the world (I'm pretty sure I do), and you likewise believe in a marketplace of conditioning forces is human evolution, you have to assume that the instincts we do have actually are rational. Instinct may be misplaced from time to time, and where that becomes apparent it's crucial to temper instinct with the rationale, but by enlarge our instincts have not evolved as sporadic non-sensical emotions - they're there for a reason.

So the idea that 'non-rational' decision making is inferior/superior to rational (and in DS's case utilitarian to boot) analysis is a red herring. It's more a question of whether our conscious application of rational thought does a better job than our conditioned application of instinct at answering questions that require rational analysis. Obviously the answer will vary from person to person - some have a more developed capacity for rational analysis, some probably have better instincts. But this 'spock syndrome' that sees gifted rational minds making terrible decisions and serves as the punchline to most jokes about geeks, may just highlight the fact that our rationale hasn't caught up with our instincts. Maybe these 'morons' are making better decisions.

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
They fall back on the idea that their instinct or gut feelings will serve them well

[/ QUOTE ]
That is because a person's instincts and gut feelings serve them extremely well in most cases. There is a reason that man evolved to be so instinctual. To call someone intellectually lazy for relying on the very tool that has helped his survive and thrive is misguided.

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They fall back on the idea that their instinct or gut feelings will serve them well

[/ QUOTE ]
That is because a person's instincts and gut feelings serve them extremely well in most cases. There is a reason that man evolved to be so instinctual. To call someone intellectually lazy for relying on the very tool that has helped his survive and thrive is misguided.

[/ QUOTE ]

It served them well in distinguishing them from apes. It has had almost nothing to do with our progress from the time of Ancient Egyptians. Then again, 99% of the population has had nothing to do with that progress either. They are just along for the ride.

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They fall back on the idea that their instinct or gut feelings will serve them well

[/ QUOTE ]
That is because a person's instincts and gut feelings serve them extremely well in most cases. There is a reason that man evolved to be so instinctual. To call someone intellectually lazy for relying on the very tool that has helped his survive and thrive is misguided.

[/ QUOTE ]

It served them well in distinguishing them from apes. It has had almost nothing to do with our progress from the time of Ancient Egyptians. Then again, 99% of the population has had nothing to do with that progress either. They are just along for the ride.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are some many angles from which to attack that statement that I am unsure where to begin. Why do you put so much reliance on rationality? So much progress is the result of the creative visionary type. It is the dreamer that irrationally says, "hey, we should do that". They throw caution to the wind, fail to analyze the problem carefully, and simply "do". Too often, the rational types are completely paralyzed by all the inconsistencies and problems they see. The rational type may be great at making things better once put in motion but I think they hardly ever come up with the original ideas that trigger revolutions of thinking or create paradigms in the way things are done.

Simply put, I think it is rare for the purely rational type to ever set the world on fire. In most cases, the rational type grossly overvalues his existence.

Also, even assuming I am 100% wrong and regardless of whether there was some change in the advancement of civilization during the last couple of thousand years, we are still built with the same hardware and we are still hardwired to think the way we are. We cannot stop our instinctual method of decision making any more than we can stop our craving for sweets or control our sex drive. Given your current relationship, I think you are a great case study in that.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, even assuming I am 100% wrong and regardless of whether there was some change in the advancement of civilization during the last couple of thousand years, we are still built with the same hardware and we are still hardwired to think the way we are. We cannot stop our instinctual method of decision making any more than we can stop our craving for sweets or control our sex drive.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suspect you're not 100% wrong other than by normal rounding . I tried to think of civilization changing advancements - Printing Press. Electricity. Telephone. Democracy, penicillin, gunpowder, womens sufferage, sewage systems, running water, cultivated crops, geometry, flight, .. I'm struggling to come up with a 'dreamer' providing much other than in the arts, I'm sure there are some exceptions.

We may still get the urge to strangle our neighbor, eat all the Mars bars, and screw the gym teacher during lunch, but some seem to be able to think about it rationally and improve their outcomes. Cripes, we can even house break puppies.

Claiming the urge is still there and it had a function in gathererhunter times and before, doesn't mean it has any value in todays market. You need to make a case, " we have urge X, we follow it blindly because it leads to good result Y."

You claim is " we have the urge, therefore it is good.", that one we won't have to round off.

luckyme

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Claiming the urge is still there and it had a function in gathererhunter times and before, doesn't mean it has any value in todays market. You need to make a case, " we have urge X, we follow it blindly because it leads to good result Y."

[/ QUOTE ]
Scratching an itch is satisfying so its not doing it that requires making the case.

chez

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Claiming the urge is still there and it had a function in gathererhunter times and before, doesn't mean it has any value in todays market. You need to make a case, " we have urge X, we follow it blindly because it leads to good result Y."

[/ QUOTE ]
Scratching an itch is satisfying so its not doing it that requires making the case.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, you followed the formula I laid out.

You made the case -
I have an urge to scratch.
It'll feel good if I do.
Thus I do it.
iow, you justified carrying through with the urge. But I doubt that you pick your nose or scratch merely on the "it'll feel good" argument you made.

I have an urge to scratch. Whether I do it is not decided by that, it's by a rational assessment of other factors.
If my doctor told me it's spread the infection.
If my wife said, "not while you're on stage.", etc.

The concept that "our urges/instincts tell us what is good for us" doesn't work as well as it did on the savanna.

luckyme

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
I tried to think of civilization changing advancements - Printing Press. Electricity. Telephone. Democracy, penicillin, gunpowder, womens sufferage, sewage systems, running water, cultivated crops, geometry, flight, .. I'm struggling to come up with a 'dreamer' providing much other than in the arts, I'm sure there are some exceptions.

[/ QUOTE ]

You think all these advancements were the result of logical reasoning? Do you think man would ever have flown without first having the dream of flying? Do you think the early inventors in this realm were the rational types who thrived on logical deduction or were they the dreamer types who believed the impossible to be possible and who in their minds imagined themselves flying in their contraptions unbound by the constraints of the thinking of the time?

Heck, the rational type would have possibly deduced that it was way too hard to fly and that even if it were possible it would be far too expensive and dangerous. Enough men had already died. And, even if it could be done safely and even if it wasn't too expensive there was no real practical reason for flight in the first place and the impact of such an invention would be minimal. Certainly, large numbers of people and large cargos couldn't be handled. There was no practical way to use flight to get from one place and back of any real distance. It would be quite logical to assume that any attempt to learn to fly was a futile exercise given all the problems. It took the irrational dreamers to say, "I want to fly so I shall".

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
It would be quite logical to assume that any attempt to learn to fly was a futile exercise given all the problems. It took the irrational dreamers to say, "I want to fly so I shall".

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah. those. The ones we found at the bottom of the cliff.

[ QUOTE ]
You think all these advancements were the result of logical reasoning? Do you think man would ever have flown without first having the dream of flying?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes to the first one.
No to the second one.

Any ol' dreamer can have an urge. I was thinking more of the ones that put in the effort to design a device that would allow them to fly. As per your original claim - The ones that Did change civilization. Non-productive dreamers are a dime a dozen, to have an effect on civilization they need to get out some wrenches and start taking notes the morning they wake up from it.

you're taking Edison's " The 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration" and crediting it all to the 10'er.

Icarus was a myth, Orville wasn't. Look at the visionary Leonardo... you don't think he was putting in the rational part? Your claim was that irrational dreamers pulled us through. I listed some quick stuff that was rational sweat results. Give me some that changed civilization without going through the rational testing part. I don't doubt there are some, I'm just drawing a blank on it and I do suspect they are a very minor part of the society changing developments we've experienced.

luckyme

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
Ah. those. The ones we found at the bottom of the cliff.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think I explained myself well enough. I am not suggesting that one can ultimately achieve the end result without rational thought. I am simply saying that dreaming and irrational thought are most often key ingredients. It is how we are designed as humans. If you have the dreams but don't have the chops you are going to end up at bottom of the cliff. But, if you are pure the rational type you will never even think to take off in the first place.

I think the purely rational engineer types often WAY overvalue themselves. They are great at solving problems that have a definitive answer but they are for [censored] when it comes to the "hey. I have a crazy idea" or "do you know what would be cool" type of thinking. They usually need the visionary to say, "I need you to figure this out". Which, of course, the engineers will usually first respond, "it can't be done" /images/graemlins/smile.gif

I had some great links of low-latent inhibition type - those with hi IQs and incredible creativity. There were some great examples of famous inventions that were arrived at through dream type thinking. I can't find the darn links but I will continue looking. But, I would bet that every item on your list started with the dreaming phase.

[borisp]

[ QUOTE ]
Then again, 99% of the population has had nothing to do with that progress either.

[/ QUOTE ]
You are significantly underestimating the contributions of organized labor. Without labor, the rational ideas cannot yield prosperity. Without the ideas, there are not enough fruits of labor. Neither flourishes without the other.

Labor is very irrational to you David, but I assure you it is not to the laborer. To the laborer, formal reasoning might be irrational. The details that are crucial for your day to day reasoning are not necessarily relevant to everyone else's. Most of your "people are bad at decisions" posts ignore the most important point: in this life, we only get to make finitely many decisions, so it is important to decide exactly which decisions we choose to make, and how much energy we will expend on each one.

Most people would not trade places with you, but I bet also that you wouldn't trade places with most others. Sounds like everything worked out. Except that you want to make fun of them now because they made fun of you in high school.

Do you not see the message "you are too dumb to use what I'm saying" as a waste??

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, you followed the formula I laid out.

You made the case -
I have an urge to scratch.
It'll feel good if I do.
Thus I do it.
iow, you justified carrying through with the urge. But I doubt that you pick your nose or scratch merely on the "it'll feel good" argument you made.

I have an urge to scratch. Whether I do it is not decided by that, it's by a rational assessment of other factors.
If my doctor told me it's spread the infection.
If my wife said, "not while you're on stage.", etc.

[/ QUOTE ]
Its still you have to make a case against, not for. When the 'itch' is a persistant one (such as a moral itch) then even if not scratching rationally has lots of good consequences (and rationally the moral urge is some redundant hang-up) then its still likely to make you less happy.

Of course the highest rationality would take that into account but a) that's beyond nearly everyone and b) rational thought simply may not be enough without experience because we don't have enough information. So we may be bettor off just scratching.

For the less moral, similar argument with hot steamy sex.

chez

[David Sklansky]

You totally changed the subject. There are plenty of people who can both dream and think rationally. They are the main ones who make the world progress.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
You totally changed the subject. There are plenty of people who can both dream and think rationally. They are the main ones who make the world progress.

[/ QUOTE ]

They do when they can get past those who cannot recognize the Reason in their dreams.

PairTheBoard