The Limits To Acceptable Irrationality

[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.