Rationality: overrated?

[Stars Down To Earth]

We tend to assume rationality - equalising in true/false measurements - is our goal in life. But what if that's an artifact of our humanity, and not necessarily of the world around us?

I've often reflected, with a wee bit of amusement, how leftist and all sorts of "progressive" ideas are actually championed by people who tend to be ahead of the norm in terms of mental power. This would seem a good thing, until you realise that their intellectual power actually just allows them to construct and refer back to abstract models of reality which don't necessarily reflect anything objective. You can see this, for example, with the leftist attitude toward race. Rationality is merely used to justify an irrational behaviour (such as being ethno-masochistic), with the emphasis that one has the higher ground because they're being "rational".

I also found this pretty interesting article, which I happen to agree with:

In a sense, the function of the immune system could be described as irrational. The immune system clashes with disease in a war for power. Each fights for the ultimate prize: more life! The immune system cannot wait for the brain to make a decision. It must be constantly xenophobic and warlike.

The immune system does not operate on the level of true/false. The same is true at the cultural level. We are too in touch with our brains, and not enough with our immune system and our nostrils. Training our brains to become comfortable with cultural ruin is not a solution; it is a rationalization.

So, what do you think?

[Thunor]

Exactly, liberals are fond of using pre-constructed ideas in order to explain away race as an "illusion". I've been thinking the same thing as you all along, but you put it much better than me.

The more intelligent someone is, the more capable he is of defending his irrational positions. So yeah, rationality is overrated.

[Humanophage]

I can't say leftism is championed by people who tend to be ahead of the norm in terms of intellectual power. Certainly not economic leftism. It is generally supported by the poor, and often by people who are socially not at all progressive, such as African-Americans or some more authoritarian Europeans.

As for attitude towards race, there is nothing rational about largely unlimited immigration and other such things. It has been shown time and time again using statistical evidence that it has an adverse effect on society, while homogeneity has a positive effect. The opposing views usually appeal not to rationality, but to compassion, or to agnosticism (e.g., "third world immigration isn't the direct cause of rising crime in areas with it, poor social background, early malnourishment, police brutality, etc. are - so there is nothing wrong with third world immigration"). They just aren't being rational enough.

I generally find it unproductive when people consciously reject rationalism, especially on matters that require contemplation. We are too irrational as it is to impose further such handicaps on our judgement.

As for comparing collectives to organisms and rejecting rationalism on those grounds, I agree with Bertrand Russell:

When it is said that a nation is an organism, an analogy is being used which may be dangerous if its limitations are not recognized. Men and the higher animals are organisms in a strict sense: whatever good or evil befalls a man befalls him as a single person, not this or that part of him. If I have tooth-ache, or a pain in my toe, it is I that have the pain, and it would not exist if no nerves connected the part concerned with my brain. But when a farmer in Herefordshire is caught in a blizzard, it is not the government in London that feels cold. That is why the individual man is the bearer of good and evil, and not, on the one hand, any separate part of a man, or on the other hand, any collection of men. To believe that there can be good or evil in a collection of human beings, over and above the good or evil in the various individuals, is an error; moreover, it is an error which leads straight to totalitarianism, and is therefore dangerous.
...
In this view, survival is the supreme end, or rather, survival of one's own species. Whatever increases the human population of the globe, if this theory is right, is to could as 'good', and whetver diminishes the population is to count as 'bad'.

I cannot see any justification for such a mechanical and arithmetical outlook. It would be easy to find a single acre containing more ants than there are human beings in the whole world, but we do not on that account acknowledge the superior excellence of ants. And what humane person would prefer a large population living in poverty and squalor to a smaller population living happily with a sufficiency of comfort?

It is true, of course, that survival is the necessary condition for everything else, but it is only a condition of what has value, and may have no value on its own account.

There is certainly a lot of morality and immorality in the sample with tribes, for instance.

[Phil75231]

We tend to assume rationality - equalising in true/false measurements - is our goal in life. But what if that's an artifact of our humanity, and not necessarily of the world around us?

Why shouldn’t rationality be our goal in life? By that, I don’t mean constrain yourself to the extreme that it sucks the life out of you (that’s just a cheap caricature and nothing more). I’ll get to specific examples in a moment. For now, I will say that if rationality is an artifact of our humanity, then animal-based emotional instincts are an artifact of our animal nature. Some of those instincts are simply inappropriate for a 21st century world (far too many to list in this post).

I've often reflected, with a wee bit of amusement, how leftist and all sorts of "progressive" ideas are actually championed by people who tend to be ahead of the norm in terms of mental power. This would seem a good thing, until you realise that their intellectual power actually just allows them to construct and refer back to abstract models of reality which don't necessarily reflect anything objective.

The same thing can be said of “common sense” views of the world, “human nature”, and so forth. There’s LOTS of things that seem to be common sense or human nature when in fact they are just deeply engrained cultural attitudes drilled into us from our preschool years. It used to be human nature for a man to beat his wife, or discipline children in ways that even by 1910s standards would be considered criminal cruelty to a juvenile. Same thing with legalized slavery.

As for “human nature”, 9 times out of 10, it means the kneejerk animal side of our nature. Therefore, 90% of the time “human nature” implies that humans are no more capable of logic and ethics than are wild animals. Seems a pretty insulting view of humanity to me.

You can see this, for example, with the leftist attitude toward race. Rationality is merely used to justify an irrational behaviour (such as being ethno-masochistic), with the emphasis that one has the higher ground because they're being "rational".

Then “leftists” would say (with some justice) that the traditional/conventional attitudes and rationales toward race relations are likewise just back-rationalizations used to excuse unjust behavior or baseless prejudices toward others (in this case race, but it could be any other characteristic construed as unflattering). See how easily that sword cuts both ways?


RATIONALITY’S PRACTICAL RESULTS

*If you don’t believe in God, or even the Divine Right of Kings, then thank the rationalists for questioning the reasons used to justify belief in these things.

*If you think Astronomy gives better and more useful results than does Astrology; or that Chemistry produces more useful results and chemicals than does Alchemy; or that modern Biological Sciences provide more effective solutions for headaches than do a shaman’s chants; or that Darwinian Evolution provides an answer superior to "God created us" – then thank the rationalists for convincing us to open our minds to this theoretical possibility before the hard evidence came in to demonstrably prove this.

*If you think that a society dominated by huge landed gentry owing 90% of the arable land produces less economic efficiency than one with the vast majority of the land owned by small to medium sized “peasant” farmers, then thank the rationalists for demonstrating a way to convince the lawmakers this is indeed the case (I’m looking at you, Latin Americans – especially Chileans and Brazilians).

*If you think government-funded health care is a more efficient way to deliver health care to the masses than the patient him or herself paying a huge fraction of the costs, thank the rationalists who drew up the first government-funded health care systems that put to lie the notion that privately-financed health care is superior in all aspects.

*If you think food safety, parental leave for newborns, product safety (like toddler toys small enough for them to swallow!), and laws prohibiting leaded paint and asbestos are things that should be either encouraged or banned (as appropriate) by society – then thank the rationalists for coming up with arguments that overturned corporate claims that “it would unduly cut into our profits”.

*Many more examples, but I think my point is clear

[Stars Down To Earth]

Interesting answer. Mind you, I didn't say that rationality was always bad, just that it's artificial and not necessarily an objective truth. Basically an amoral thing, like all other mental constructs by humans.

Then “leftists” would say (with some justice) that the traditional/conventional attitudes and rationales toward race relations are likewise just back-rationalizations used to excuse unjust behavior or baseless prejudices toward others

Yep, I agree that racial prejudice and opposition to race-mixing are often back-rationalisations - but it doesn't really matter, because the animal instinct to feel racism is right and correct. (And here I mean "right" in the sense of "good for our genes"). It's grounded in a biological truth, that every species and sub-species wants to protect its own genetic purity. In the wilderness, two animal species who are closely related will almost never mate with each other. Humans have created very elaborate rationalisations for this, but it all comes back to the same thing.

*If you don’t believe in God, or even the Divine Right of Kings, then thank the rationalists for questioning the reasons used to justify belief in these things.

Indeed, and that's why I said that rationality can also be used in a good way. Like I said, it's an useful mental construct but completely amoral (I guess this will lead into a debate about morality and what's right). Blindly trusting the "rationalists" in everything is just another form of daft superstition.

[Peasant]

I am rationally irrational.

[Phil75231]

Interesting answer. Mind you, I didn't say that rationality was always bad, just that it's artificial and not necessarily an objective truth. Basically an amoral thing, like all other mental constructs by humans.


Yep, I agree that racial prejudice and opposition to race-mixing are often back-rationalisations - but it doesn't really matter, because the animal instinct to feel racism is right and correct. (And here I mean "right" in the sense of "good for our genes"). It's grounded in a biological truth, that every species and sub-species wants to protect its own genetic purity. In the wilderness, two animal species who are closely related will almost never mate with each other. Humans have created very elaborate rationalisations for this, but it all comes back to the same thing.


Indeed, and that's why I said that rationality can also be used in a good way. Like I said, it's an useful mental construct but completely amoral (I guess this will lead into a debate about morality and what's right). Blindly trusting the "rationalists" in everything is just another form of daft superstition.

I appreciate your point that rational =/= always correct. We can and do hypothesize, but there are huge plethoras of logical fallacies we can and often do commit. At this point though, the issue is facts and data, mediated by logic, reason, and the totality of the human experience. Racial preservationists (if not actual racists or even racial nationalists) think it's best to keep relations strictly within their race/group in order to preserve the culture; those who put primary emphasis on cultural preservation think interracial relationships don't necessarily destroy the culture. That's precisely what the sticking point is. Where does the evidence and logic lie? (Note that this is not meant to start yet another debate about the biological race vs "purely" national culture debate. This is simply meant to highlight how rationale can lead in radically different directions and in many cases contradictory ones)

[Hevneren]

If I were a National Socialist, I'd likely say "yes", but I'm not.

[Thunor]

Racial preservationists (if not actual racists or even racial nationalists) think it's best to keep relations strictly within their race/group in order to preserve the culture; those who put primary emphasis on cultural preservation think interracial relationships don't necessarily destroy the culture.

Because a culture is created by a race, and each culture is made to fit the sensibilities of the race that made it. Interracial relationships do destroy a culture, if they happen on a large scale and change the population. This is objectively true.

That's precisely what the sticking point is. Where does the evidence and logic lie? (Note that this is not meant to start yet another debate about the biological race vs "purely" national culture debate.

You just started it.

[safinator]

Rationality is underrated.

Nothing can exist and not exist at the same time unless it is at a quantum level, and even then it doesn't apply to us.

You cannot draw square circles.

Rationality is not 100% but it comes close to the truth, so, I'll stick with it.