Considering the current US social/political crisis, I couldn’t help but wonder whether humans are really rational, or perhaps we’ve somehow lost our rationality. We do have a pandemic going on which is particularly bad in the US, and we’ve been polluting the air, water and the soil in which we grow our food for so long, perhaps it has done something to our brains. Two logical, rational, intelligent people can have diametrically opposed positions on a subject and still have a rational and civil discussion. At least that used to be possible. If the subject is one which is totally opinion; e.g. the existence of a god; then there is no conclusion to their debate and they agree to disagree. But how can you have an argument over whether, in base-10, 2+2=4. I’m sorry. There is no opinion there. As long as you both agree that you are talking about base-10, 2+2 will always equal 4. There is no such thing as an “alternative fact”. When I was younger, we called such things “bullshit”. I think that is still the best term. But, sadly, I have to admit that rationality isn’t simply a matter of fact versus fiction.
What rather tickles me is that rationality theorist, Jesús Mosterin (i), came to the conclusion that humans are not rational by definition. I’m not really certain what he means by “by definition” but I’m certainly glad he said it first so I don’t have people on my case for being somehow anti-human. (Well, perhaps I am a wee bit, but I try to be fair and keep an open mind.) According to Mosterin we are capable of thinking and behaving rationally. Whether or not we do depends upon whether we apply “the strategy of theoretical and practical rationality to the thoughts they accept and to the actions they perform.” (ii) To be totally sarcastic and a bit mean spirited, this explains a lot about the current occupant at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
That statement, actually, has its basis in science. Philip Johnson-Laird and Ruth M.J. Byrne believe that humans are rational in principal; i.e. we have the competence to be rational; but we are limited by a number of factors. (iii) Everyone from Plato to Max Weber has a theory. If you will permit me to summarize from my perspective, these theories come down to whether we are selfish or not. Granted, that is an oversimplification, but it is actually quite theoretically accurate. A rational decision requires assumptions and a logical formulation. (Right from the git-go we observe that ‘the person who shall go unnamed’ has neither the required assumptions or logical formulation. For some people the inability to organize assumptions and/or make a logical formulation is a matter of insufficient cognitive skills or mental illness.) Once these assumptions and formulation are in place, there are two models. I call these models self-centered and altruistic. If one accepts, applies or adheres to the self-centered model, then rationality is equated with behavior that is self-interested. If one accepts, applies, or adheres to the altruistic model, then the behavior is altruistic and purely selfish behavior is considered irrational.
And so back to my question. I spent my entire career applying the Laird-Byrne model; viz. that humans are rational but have limiting factors. Those with the most and serious limiting factors were my patients. I have to admit being strongly attracted to Mosterin’s model which holds that humans are not rational by definition but are capable of being rational. What we are observing in our country, though, appears to be best explained by the former.
Up to this point altruism was held in highest regard. Therefore altruistic behavior was considered rational and selfish behavior was considered irrational. That is no longer true. As pointed out, much of what ‘he who shall not be named’ does is irrational because he does not have the required assumptions and logical formulation, whether this lack is due to limited cognition or mental illness. At the same time we can apply the two models: selfish and altruistic. Using the attack on the Post Office as an example. It seems irrational if you want a fair election. It is totally logical if you are selfish and want to keep people from voting. Consider cutting the payroll taxes. We know that is going to damage Social Security and hurt millions of Americans. That isn’t rational by the altruistic model, but it is by the selfish model. It makes the rich richer, and ‘he who shall not be named’ is among the rich who will benefit.
In other words, what many of us see as irrational behavior is actually rational. That doesn’t make it good, just rational. For most of modern history altruism was held in the highest regard. That is obviously not true in twenty-first century United States. ‘He who shall not be named’ has made self-centeredness the ideal criteria on which to base decisions and behavior, and a significant percentage of our population love that. What they don’t realize is that ultimately they will fall to the selfishness of people like ‘he who shall not be named.’
To answer my question. I subscribe to the altruistic model therefore it appears that a high percentage of our population is acting irrationally. To me people like ‘he who shall not be named’ and the man from Kentucky are acting totally dangerously, selfishly and irrationally.
FOOTNOTES:
(i) Mosterín, Jesús (2008). Lo mejor posible: Racionalidad y acción humana. Madrid: Alianza Editorial, 2008. 318 pp. ISBN 978-84-206-8206-8.
(ii) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationality
(iii) Johnson-Laird, Philip N.; Byrne, Ruth M. J. (1 September 2009). “Corrigendum: ‘If’ and the problems of conditional reasoning”. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 13 (9): 282–287. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2009.08.003
Blog | Old Conservationist 