[SoapBox] The Irrationality of Rationality

[Terxpahseyton]

Teaser
I once watched a documentary, on capitalism, there someone said
“People say people act irrational. But I think that is not true. They simply act human.”

This statement makes, strictly speaking, no sense. It knows sense, but then misses it. Because of the irrationality of rationality.

Introduction
It bit at me since some time. I guess it all really started with my education in economics. There I was introduced to the concept of the “Homo economicus”. A human being which rationally maximizes its self-interest.
Alright, we all know that model assumptions of what human is is not what human does.
And when I attended a seminar and the guy leading it touched that issue he said “Of course humans do not act rational. But the point is – it is a useful idea to embrace!”
And at the time, I was kinda satisfied with that answer. That qualifier. Sure, it was wrong. But true enough to be useful.
Only later did I discover what really bothered me about this answer.

The Plot Thickens
I think another experience of mine in another seminar illustrates my problem well.
In that seminar, a presentation by students was held, one topic concerned was how voting was irrational. The premise was that because one can not reasonably expect ones singular vote to change anything, it was irrational to vote.
At that moment, my patience ceased and I had myself a small dissertation on how it was a mockery of scientific standards to link rationality to goals like that.
Alright, I was hang-over from a party on the previous day and my wits only mustered a more principle remark on how that was a typical economic theory trying to pin down ends while actual ends of people were immaterial and no subject to being pinned down like that.
But I should have made such a more general point. And now I make it here.


The Thick of it
See, rationality never told us anything about people. Rationality always was merely a way, it does not know beginning nor end, by definition. To say that something is irrational, that is. strictly speaking. like saying that something is unmathetical.
It only makes sense in context. It, however, does not provide context.

Now if I accept it as established that someone wants something, I can go on about how this is rational or that irrational. But both will only hold value in so far as that I accept something as the end of someone.

To get back to the introductory example – the issue is not that people do not do what the Homo economicus prescribes. The real issue is not that people do not rationally pursue their interests (though it is an issues, I gladly accept, and to say it is no issue is not really correct, but it is not the principal issues of how we use rationality).
The real issue is that people are no homeo economicus (rather than merely failing to do its agenda).
The real issue is that rationality, by design, lacks any understanding of the human condition.

I agree with the guy from my economics seminar. It is useful to assume that people want certain thinks so to make certain predictions.
“Of course humans do not act rational. But the point is – it is a useful idea to embrace!”
But that is not all what rationality is saying. It says how to act, okay. But it also says why to act. It, in the end, says nothing less than what you are.
But, I will (perhaps a bit hastily) dare to claim, never in the history of this earth did anyone bother him or herself with such existential, vague, emotional, contentious questions before embarking on what was rational. That seems to have never hindered their enthusiasm. Merely, how rationally people were...

Conlusion
I once watched a documentary, on capitalism, there someone said
“People say people act irrational. But I think that is not true. They simply act human.”
No.

What actually is irrational – in the actual original sense of rationality - is to act in spite of your humanity. Being human is no opposite of being rational. It is the beginning.
And the way rationality tends to be used, it is stripped of its end.

 

[Angst]

Humans are naturally driven by gut, not by rationalism.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Humans are naturally driven by gut, not by rationalism.

I think you are a few inches north, but have the right general idea.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Humans are naturally driven by gut, not by rationalism.

Since the OP does still exist, I feel intimately pressed to point out that your post managed to exactly say what the OP tried to expose in its deep deep silliness.

And in light of that, I find myself being very glad of your post.

Now if you just happened to mean that, I would deem you quit brilliant.

 

[warpus]

I think that in academic contexts rational often means "behaves using expected sort of behaviour"

And expected means "imagine if 1 billion people did this and we took the average" sort of expected, not an individual type of thing that an individual might do on a whim or whatever.

Humans are complex beings and we do stupid things from time to time, like putting the remote in the fridge. That's neither expected nor rational, so a mathematical model would not assume that a human would routinely do such a thing. But humans do, because when you get down to it, each human is an irrational ball of irrationality, wrapped around a bunch of biological impulses that nobody really understands.

So I think this is more of a problem with language and context more than anything - rational can mean different things depending on the context.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Warpus!
I think I love your response

Because it is so revealing, way more than Angst was...

I think that in academic contexts rational often means "behaves using expected sort of behaviour"

And expected means "imagine if 1 billion people did this and we took the average" sort of expected, not an individual type of thing that an individual might do on a whim or whatever.

No it does not.
And it never did.

But – OMG!
How perfect it is that you think it is!
Because that pretty much distills my criticisms.
Perfect, warpus. You are, right now, perfect.


However,
I am sorry, but what you just proposed.. that is exactly the kind of ad-hoc-bullcrap academics may tell themselves when fully realizing the problem I laid out in the OP.

And, as said, it is bull-

...


GAME THEORY

You know game theory?
Game theory is about the only organized way to actually test those academic rationals.
It is a hideously crippled way to test people. I am not exaggerating. Game theory is all about reducing life to a game.
Not any game, but a very primitive game which promotes egoistic behavior.

Oh... no bias there, right? Hahaha....

And quit foreseeable - it is about testing if people really are as materialistic and self-centered as economic theory likes to assume. Within an environment which is just as one-dimensional as economic theory likes to assume.

That was foreseeable since people who are actually concerned which how people actually act on average - they are called sociologists – since such people have not much space in their academic doing for silly concepts as 'rationality'. Since they know that rationality is as straight-forward as it is useless. (some socialists tried to use that concept anyway, but they got about just what I just said as response to it)

So never mind what actually goes on in human interaction – let's get back to those economics.
So they, for once, tested their crazy premises of the human condition, in a crazy environment, further assuming that humans are crazy.

Because, you know.
That is what rationality actually means. Because it means nothing.
It just means the mechanic execution of everything you give to it. So...

EVERY THING BEING CRAZY. DICTATED BY A CRAZY EGOMONAIC!

Sorry for that outburst.. but...

If that .. happens to be your modus of operations. Rationality is your boy! And don't worry about people actually carrying about human interaction --- they won't mind your business. They are busy with ignoring the concept of rationality and trying to make the slightest sense.

Anyway, as it had to be – people were – on average - all numbers accounted for, warpus, quit 'irrational'. That is what game theory revealed.
They cared about crazy things as social interactions.

Things any dame hobby historian may have told you to be crucial to the human condition.

But what does an economist know?
He only knows grabbing things and calling that rational.

And you know where that thought ends?

IN YOU, WARPUS, THINKING THAT IS HOW PEOPLE TICK
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Now.... I am all about making a point.

And the point you just got – I stand behind that as solid as rock!

But, game theory surely knows a bit more nuance – still I maintain to have characterized its character quit accurately. (I took a game theory course at my university for what that is worth)

What I said about rationality as such – I do not see where I lack any nuance. All the extremity of my language – it for all I can see directly translates to the extremity of reality.

Any thinga else --- I don't see an issue either, but in the end – it always is about thinking for yourself!

Anyone was born as a dumb toddler. And anyone can achieve any awareness.

-----------------





QUESTION. CRITICIZE.

But a complement wouldn't hurt, either.

 

[warpus]

I don't understand what you just wrote, but basically what's going on is that masses of people can be "predicted" a la Hari Seldon... because large enough groups of people behave in predictable ways. But individuals put remotes in fridges.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Hari Seldon is a fictional character in Isaac Asimov's Foundation series.

....

I am not going to study some random fictional work you throw at me, but I am aware of the fiction that, somehow, people can be predicted in their behavior.
It is a nice fiction. Perhaps it is possible.
But it, so far, knows little to no reality.
And if it one day will be reality - I am quit certain it will have little to do with the word 'rationality'.

See .. that it won't is something sociologists have grown acutely aware. As I just told you!

And, if I may be so bold, I suggest that you confuse the word 'rationality'
with an actual ability to predict. With an actual ability to grasp the human condition.

What you just read on my part was an illustrative explanation of how that is not so, even though the term 'rationality' may suggest so to you. (even though it, to emphasize, does in itself suggest no such thing). How you are a victim of socially construed suggestions- And how you mistake them for actual science. Apparently supported by a science-fiction book.

The thing is, I am not aiming at ridiculing you. No. The thing is. You are quit in tune with common assumptions.
And that is the problem.

At last - I have no idea what you did not understand. I find it pretty plain.

 

[Kozmos]

There is a difference between short-term/long-term gains. And yes, life is a game.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I am not going to study some random fictional work you throw at me

In this case I'd make an exception. It's rather quite good.

 

[Mise]

I think you've quite rationally argued that "homo economicus" doesn't act rationally.

Put another way, you've said the following:

Rationality is XYZ
XYZ is stupid
therefore Rationality is stupid

But actually that could simply mean that Rationality is not XYZ, but something else. Or, put another way, that XYZ is not rational.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I think you've quite rationally argued that "homo economicus" doesn't act rationally.

Thank you

Put another way, you've said the following:

Rationality is XYZ
XYZ is stupid
therefore Rationality is stupid

Nah I disagree - what I wanted to say is not just that common ways to apply rationality don't work but that the general 'way we determine Rationality is stupid'-
I.e.
That rationality does - in practice - not just stand for the general idea of a human who tries to be as happy as possible and which is an idea which hasn't been operationalized in a satisfactory way - but that the whole way of thinking about the human condition and which is - in practise - attached to the idea of irrationality, is disfucunctional.

See, this assumption of an individual optimizing his or her gains is the problem - this basic modus operanti is the dysfunction.

That is not how we get close to how people are happy.
That is just the ideological premise of our economic system. And our societies have been consumed by it. Not on intellectual or logical or rational grounds. But on brute social force.

And we call the product of that brute force 'rationality'.

In this case I'd make an exception. It's rather quite good.

I believe you. Putting it on my neverending-to-read-list.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

See, this assumption of an individual optimizing his or her gains is the problem - this basic modus operanti is the dysfunction.

Isn't that because the tiny human brain can barely process all the intricacies of a group as large as a small tribe, and is thrown into a global society where we simply lack the mental prowess to make sense of it all. In defense the brain turns inwards since it's got enough trouble figuring itself out.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Yeah, in deed, I find that a very fair summarization of how we construct our very own identities.
I find this is an essential part of how we even begin to understand ourselves to begin with.
Good call.

But, should we not expect those all-mighty praised academics to think in terms about our societies which eclipse such patterns?

 

[Borachio]

Isn't it just as simple to start from the global?

There's just the one planet and people are milling about it willy nilly. What's so hard to understand about that? (Unless you want to go off-planet right away. Which you could.)

The complicated business only happens in the murky middle ground, imo: when you start trying to reconcile the whole and the particular.

Still, I don't see why even that should be impossible.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Isn't it just as simple to start from the global?

JUST AS SIMPLE

Hahahaha

The funny thing is, people, by modern 'consensus' cemented as great thinkers, thought it was simple just as you now suggested. They thought they could understand social relations in the same way we understand physics. And they contrived themselves into deep contemplation.
What came of it? Soulless paradigms. Empty structures. A bunch of words. The cliche of deep thinking. Nothing.

But it were paradigms, so the next generations worked with those and created a greater multitude of paradigms.

Until a generation of intellectuals saw the essential issue and endeavored and sought to create one unifying paradigm.

Which means they created a greater of multitude of competing meaningless paradigms.

The truth is - there is no truth about the human condition. Imagine the vast complexities of our neurological networks.
How can mere - simple - clumsy words compete with that?!
The same goes for math.

For all we know - the human condition is physical laws run wild. Math run wild. And we have no means to capture it.

All we can do is witness it.

Which means - if social science endeavors to be more than a description what what happens (or a caricature - looking at you economics!), it has to go wild itself. Seek out new ways of society.

But that is hard. In many ways. Not least - it goes against the establishment. It has to since.... Since it has to question the status quo.

Now - all that is not to say we can not have meaningful musinga about the human condition.
We IMO clearly can!
But they always remain infantile and clumsy.

What we need is practice stemming from those musings. Everything else is a big frack you at the inspiration of science.

 

[Mise]

Thank you

Nah I disagree - what I wanted to say is not just that common ways to apply rationality don't work but that the general 'way we determine Rationality is stupid'-
I.e.
That rationality does - in practice - not just stand for the general idea of a human who tries to be as happy as possible and which is an idea which hasn't been operationalized in a satisfactory way - but that the whole way of thinking about the human condition and which is - in practise - attached to the idea of irrationality, is disfucunctional.

See, this assumption of an individual optimizing his or her gains is the problem - this basic modus operanti is the dysfunction.

That is not how we get close to how people are happy.
That is just the ideological premise of our economic system. And our societies have been consumed by it. Not on intellectual or logical or rational grounds. But on brute social force.

And we call the product of that brute force 'rationality'.

But there are loads of different theories for how to act rationally. "Homo economicus" is, philosophically speaking, a rather recent invention -- and one that most philosophers think is utterly nonsensical. If you look at contemporary philosophers' views of Objectivism (which, if I understand you correctly, is the moral philosophy that you're criticising), there is a pretty much universal consensus that it's a load of guff. Again, you're criticising one single theory of rationality that the vast majority of people who know about these things already agree is nonsensical, and concluding that all rationality is nonsensical. That's fallacious reasoning.

Besides, the moral is always a subset of the rational. Simply put, it can never be irrational to act morally -- because "this action is moral" is the rational justification for the action. Basically all moral philosophies are, at a meta-ethical level, dependent on this logic: they are all predicated on and justified by some rational argument. If this weren't the case, then there can be no such thing as "justification", and people would be free to call just about anything "moral". Your argument itself, rational though it is (bar the fallacious reasoning above), would have no normative or descriptive force: why should I believe your rational argument if rationality itself can't be trusted anyway? I can do basically whatever I want, for whatever reason I want, because all rational arguments are equally wrong and absurd. I can argue that the ultimate goal of life is to eat peaches and breed four-sided triangles with smell, and it would make just as much -- or rather, as little -- sense as the greatest and most robust philosophies of all time, because all rationality is completely meaningless.

But you aren't really arguing any of that, are you.

You're fine if you're limiting your criticism to "homo economicus". And again, your post above does indeed limit itself to "homo economicus" -- you haven't said a word about any moral philosophy that doesn't depend on the assumption that humans try to maximise happiness, or whatever. And, until quite recently, such moral philosophers were the only ones that existed. Basically, you're right in the substance of your argument, but haven't much sense of its scope. I would recommend a wider reading of moral theories than simply "homo economicus". There's a huge, wide world of moral philosophies out there, just waiting for your... "unique" perspective on things.

 

[Traitorfish]

Does Homo economicus actually have any subscribes outside of Neoclassical economics? (Do Neoclassical economists even take it as an accurate description of human behaviour, and not just part of a theoretical model?)

I'm not sure it's a myth which needed puncturing.

 

[Hygro]

Does Homo economicus actually have any subscribes outside of Neoclassical economics? (Do Neoclassical economists even take it as an accurate description of human behaviour, and not just part of a theoretical model?)

I'm not sure it's a myth which needed puncturing.

European economic policy and most conservative political parties I know of push homo economicus. Whenever someone takes intro microeconomics and forgets to pay attention past week 2 the love to spew a bunch of homo economicus founded nonsense at people.

 

[Narz]

Irrational is subjective.

The definition of rational is : "not logical or reasonable."

One man's "not logical" is another's "perfectly sensible". Humans can justify all sorts of stuff.

One of my goal's for myself is to unite my primitive & "rational" brain together for my common good (and the common good of my friends & allies & humanity).

We didn't evolve in such a complex world with millions of people, fast-food, drugs & internet porn. We're doing the best we can.