This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Are humans irrational? If so, how can we build stronger institutions to compensate for human shortcomings in rationality?
David Ropeik argues that "The brain is only the organ for which we think we think. It's job is not to win noble prizes. And to pass math tests. It's job is to get us tomorrow. Its a survival mechanism.. and it plays a lot of tricks in order to get us to tomorrow. That worked pretty well when the risks were lions and tigers and bears… Its not as good when we need to rationalize and reason and use the facts more with the complicated risks we face in a modern age: climate change, genetically modified food, and unsustainable living on the planet.. That takes a lot more thinking. More cognitive, slow,more effortful thinking. That we are not instinctively built that way must be recognized if we are going to get beyond the risk of not being built that way."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDAzsZLvfPw
Dan Ariely provides further evidence that humans have irrational cognitive thought in his TedTalk and offers the following, "If we have these predictable, repeatable mistakes in vision, some thing that we are good at, what's the chance that we don't make more mistakes at something we're not as good at? For example financial decision making. Something we don't have an evolutionary reason to do, we don't have a specialized part of the brain, and we don't do that many parts of the day. The argument is that in those cases we make many more mistakes.."
In another TedTalk Dan Ariely provides the following food for thought, "Are we superman or are we Homer Simpson? When it comes to building the physical world we understand our limitations and we build around it. But for some reason when it comes to the mental world when we design things like healthcare, retirement, and the stock market we somehow forget the idea that we are limited. And i think if we understood our cognitive limitations in the same way that we understand our physical limitations we could design a better world."
Do you agree with them? How do we better structure institutions that can compensate for our shortcoming?
Tyler Sasabuchi
Jeff Rust
Yes, we can be.
Q2 If so, how can we build stronger institutions to compensate for human shortcomings in rationality?
I believe that human shortcomings mostly come from being below a certain point on Maslow's Pyramid.
If everyone had many if not most of their needs met then the level of irrationality of individuals and society as a whole would greatly decrease. I also believe that education on EQ would help in this area. I am sure that we can find ways to productively get the results we want. The issue is proper leadership,funding and asking the right questions.
Jean-Charles Longuet
Changing things at the individual level by education seems to me better than relying on institutions, as the latter are maybe more subject to change. The idea is interesting, however... Even if identifying our weaknesses and giving away some of our freedom to decide also requires by itself being more rational than we are, and ensuring the institution by itself is not as flawed as we are, as it is created by us...
Steven Meglitsch
Words like rationalty and irrationality, faith and doubt, objective and subjective, are all, i suppose, simply different positions along a continuum of words and concepts humans use to describe human thinking.
I think that we as a rule use a word like "rational" to describe resoning that is close to what we think.
Random Chance 30+
I like what you said and how you said it. It is very interesting an idea to engage with, as to whether or not the concept of rationality has any significance for anything but humans.
Someone elses "rationality" can almost make me become irrational if it is a topic close to my heart that I feel very strongly about. Which one is really which?
Does it really exist? is a great question. I cannot answer that or nearly any other question.
Recent studies and testing have supposedly shown that close in age to newborn babies are able to make and thus, demonstrate, what the testers called "moral decisions".
They then surmised that babies do have some innate form or source of "morality", an idea of right and wrong in some sense, but they cannot definitively say or prove it.
I wonder if their merely having an already learned, perceived and strongly held belief of what they think moral is, could in any way, have actually tainted their perceptions and their tests?
I think that it may have.
Steven Meglitsch
Glad you appreciate my muddled thoughts. I am always mullig around ideas in my head, though not always entriely rationally.
It is a difficult philosophical challenge. Is there a "higher" way of thinking? If so whose? Is there a higher plane of existence, and if so, is the concept of mentality even a part of it?
Yes, humans are rational; yes, humans are irrational; yes humans are smart; yes humans are dumb, yes humans are honest, yes humans are dishonest.
And - just to make it all even more difficult - it is precisely the same hardware and the same software that produces all of the above.
The one thing we do know, is that all of the hardware, and much (we don't really know how much) of the software is innate. That means babies are naturally capable of any kind of thinking, although it takes them a while to build up a basis for expressing their mentality.
I can recommend a little animation made by the Royal Society for the Arts on just this subject. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFs9WO2B8uI .
Kaare Jenssen
Random Chance 30+
They are malleable.
Thus they are prone to being mislead, deceived and fooled into thinking, believing, speaking, doing and opining,
seemingly soberly, intellectually and rationally, on insane, irrational and psychotic behavior with the aplomb of calmness.
Our genes don't dictate how we are to act or respond, or even think. They give us options, choices, and these are appraised by our need and want for survival in whatever environment anyone of us finds ourselves in.
Our rationalizing that irrational behavior is rational, indicates serious illness to me.
It is serious when the cause, is not what is discussed for the cure and the focus is on those elements which are the results, but not the cause.
Ridding our world of the causes will always work. Attacking the symptoms never has and never will. To believe such things is to me, extreme irrational thought and behavior.
That seems obvious as it has been going on for so long and has only failed.
Just recently I read a report about the failed "war on drugs.' It has been a failure since it first began but that is because there never was any intention of winning it. The only intention was to get rid of the competition, the Mom & Pop dealers or those who were getting too big for their own good.
This is greed, corruption and crime. Are those irrational? Is that hard to answer? The results seem to hurt and destroy many while only a few benefit. It matters not whether they are legal drugs or not. The manner in which it all takes place, the greed involved in deceiving people still goes on, the lying to others about the repercussions of certain drugs, the selling of tainted drugs to 3rd world countries in order to save and still get a profit out of them, is all irrational done up as rational "business as usual", business that is good for the country and so on.
We must get rid of the causes to regain healthy, rational thinking and behavior.
But, we keep the causes and discuss who to kill.
Rainys Andrew Blekaitis
Obey No1kinobe 50+
The former gives weight to evidence and logic.
The latter may have its roots in intuitive processes that may or may not be accurate but had/have a role in survival, and other primal drives and responses.
It may be useful from a genetic perspective to be repulsed by someone deformed or sick, but it is not rational in many other respects given we don't intend to mate with everyone, although part of our brain is still switched on this way all the time.
Raping someone is not rational. But it reflects a primal sex drive. Just like most animals we have instinct and reason.
So 2points:
1) It is very rational to consider the irrational instinctual aspects of human nature.
2) Intuition has its place, but logic and evidence are the best tools for problem solving, for understanding reality etc.
cst commonsense
Yes we are 'irrational' in the sense that we are social animals driven mainly by cultural and social instincts. Our thinking and sentient ability is an add-on to our essential nature.
We have yet to understand the importance of Nature's relentless path in creating us. We are still very much children trying to survive against Natures awesome power - 4 billions years of success.
I don't believe humans are limited, we are hampered by Nature's quest for survival and are still just pawns. Natures cares not a jot if most of us disappear, Natures course is simply onward and upward and in the process it is very likely that Nature will create improved humans (just a few) that should enhance Nature's chance of continuing her upward path. If not then again Nature's cares not and with infinite patience she will nurture other species with her relentless probability of survival function.
see:
http://www.commonsensethinking.co.uk/humancontradiction.html
Can we create improved structures to help with our irrationality? But this is a circular argument - yes if we were able to plan rationally - but the very socio-political structures we now have (across the world) prevent this happening. It does look like things will get very messy before (and if) we finally are forced to adapt culturally.
see:
http://www.commonsensethinking.co.uk/economy2.html#tweet
JP
Orlando Hawkins 20+
From my understanding (as well as cognitive scientist George Lakoff and Neuroscientist Antonio Damasio) emotion is the basis of rationality. You could not have reason without emotion..
the reason why this is key is because there seems to be a massive shift in what constitutes as reason: the old enlightenment view of reason states that reason is universal and the same for everyone and has its basis outside of the human brain and is absent of emotion...this view would have thought emotion and passion were irrational behavior..this is no longer the case nowadays and this new scientific approach acknowledges that everyone thinks differently.
Julian Milargio
"How do we better structure institutions that can compensate for our shortcoming?"
First,there are already some tools for improving institutions,but their use has been restricted to companies,as companies are lot more flexible and have a far straighter objective than a big institution,like governments . Second,only investing in education itself isn't enough . There shall be investiment and researchs about how can we "germinate" and improve free thought on all individuals .
Tank General
Agree that education may not be enough. Particularly for addressing deeply ingrained selective biases. Can you expand on what you mean by germinating and improving free thought on all individuals?
carolyn mcauley 20+
Tank General
Great question. Why don't we have more support for great ideas? Even some of the great ideas that are in TEDTalks or elsewhere online are usually not being discussed in public policy or the news. Sometimes it seems like we have a growing division between an intellectual society that often monetizes these grand visions of the future (which is perfectly fine with me) and the common people. As amazing and popular as TED has grown to be it still seems like a novelty for a niche crowd of intellectuals and aspirants. Wouldn't it be easier and more socially beneficial to have everyone participate in shaping our world? We certainly can't hope to address irrational behavior by ourselves.
John Smith 30+
Humans were entirely rational in the world as it existed up to 10.000 years ago (except for religion). Since then the world has changed but the human brain hasn't. Our modern world is full of phenomena a prehistoric human would never have encountered, most of these are basically about statistics and logical fallacies.
"If so, how can we build stronger institutions to compensate for human shortcomings in rationality?"
Strengthen education in logic, statistics and math in general.
Tank General
Education in logic! That would be great. I feel like we dont have any of this really until college. Or selective biases have been well formed by then. Why couldn't we have this earlier in child education? Would love to see kids debating philosophy...
Santokh Saggu
edward long 100+
Barry Palmer 50+
More importantly, I find fault with the whole notion of considering "rational" as always good and "less than rational" as bad. Most human motivations are non-rational. Most of our motivations have evolved as secondary, indirect means to support the primary functions of survival and reproduction. Common behaviors such as children playing are still largely a mystery. The fact that much of our behavior is not rational is not necessarily bad. I suspect that we evolved this way because it was necessary.
The important lesson is that we must be aware of our irrational tendencies, and take action WHEN APPROPRIATE.
This has some obvious applications to some of our institutions. If the stories from our prisons contain any truth, we routinely condone crimes committed against criminals, including rape. The medical establishment continues with practices that scientific studies, as well as common sense, indicate are dangerous. Police departments still have difficulty excluding the power hungry. We vote for people who help us feel good.
Tank General
I think you bring up a second great point. You delineate a higher dimension of what seems like social or institutional irrational behavior that's in many ways much more concerning than our personal irrational actions. These seem to be accepted yet illogical constructions in society. Why do we not take action to correct irrational behavior in institutions? Are we too lazy to handle the complexity of these problems? Does the cost/benefit of addressing the issues not make sense? Or do we just not have the answers? Obviously answers to these would be case by case but wondering if there is an underlying consistent theme here.
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
"Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions." -- David Hume
We use reason to justify conclusions we reach subconsciously. There seems to be no way to improve it.
In matters of fact (as opposed to pure mathematical problems), we can be presented with tons of evidence, but we would believe any of it only if it makes an emotional impression on us.
Especially, when it comes to moral decisions, reason is useless. Moral decisions are made purely by emotions. "Cost and benefit" are very subjective concepts. Everyone would flip a railroad switch to save 5 abstract people, but killing one abstract person instead. Situation changes dramatically when the one person is a child, and 5 people are known convicted murderers. And when I consider morality of killing 5 thugs who try kill one person (me), numbers don't matter at all.
I see the way to improve the situation in studying and understanding our own emotions and emotions of others. When more people understand how our words and actions affect others emotionally, this world will be a much happier place.
And in the meantime, our school system is focused on math and reading scores, and technology creates new ways to communicate in which we don't see each others face or hear each others voice.
Tank General
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
I agree with TED Lover that being aware of our emotions gives us control over them. We should not, however, get rid of emotions. Emotions motivate us. Without emotions we would not have any desire to do anything at all. The full quote from Hume is: "Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them."
Another paradox is that being aware of our irrationality makes us more rational, just like awareness of ignorance gives rise to learning.
I think, we should train our feelings (subconscious reactions) as well as reasoning abilities. Both are skills that can be learned.
Ean Flockoi
edward long 100+
Andres Aullet 10+
Are you refering to the entire congnitive process of visual perception? or is it a more general statement regarding connecting something a person sees and the way they manage their finances?
If the second, have you read about the anchoring effect? how would that NOT affect the way somebody manages their finances?
cheers
Tank General
Gail . 50+
Tank General
Humanity does need a paradigm shift as to what's accepted as logical. I 'd hope logic is universally objective and we could get this right.
Gail . 50+
I disagree with the YouTube video. David Ropeik states that thoughts follow emotions, but after a thorough informal study of the matter, I am convinced that emotions follow thought. The thought prompts an emotion. Too many people confuse emotion with thought. They literally believe that they are thinking when they are emoting. This is what causes people to be irrational.
Some years ago, I was engaged in a political discussion with a very logical friend about one tiny part of the political platform. Over and over he walked me through various scenerios, forcing me to articulate the reason for my position in a rational way. Each time I used emotion as a thought, he asked another question. This went on for nearly four hours.
Suddenly, he asked a question and the only possible way to walk to the answer was along a completely rational line of thought. It was an AMAZING experience! I felt as if my world had just expanded to the power of near-infinity. I could conceive of so much that had been inconceivable before. I was forever changed. I had experienced my first pure, rational thought of my entire adult life! It felt so clean - which is the only way I can explain it.
I then began to pay attention to my emotions and the emotions of others. I first allowed myself to feel anger for the purpose of understanding why I can emote it. I allowed myself to experience anger as fully as I could, and just when I thought I couldn't summon up any more, I found another piece of anger, and WHOOSH! It was gone. Then I was angry because I wasn't angry any more, so I did the exercise again and again, the WHOOSH.
the 2nd time, I was laughing hysterically. Memories came flashing through my mind, and in each case, I saw that I had been judging myself unfairly. I saw my innocence.
Emotions are a compass. They point out error
Fritzie Reisner 100+
Tank General
I see where you're coming from. Emotions follow thought because emotions have to be based on some level of presupposed deliberation or contemplation a person has done in the past. That makes sense and seems logical. But could one make the argument that emotions do not follow "conscious" thought? Or said differently, our emotions may not consider the deliberation that's needed during that time and purpose of the emption but rather considers the mental deliberation that we've done in the past. The danger here is that the past deliberation that we are basing our emotions off of may not be appropriate for the current setting around that emotion. Let me know if I'm off base here but it seems to capture the underlying realization in your experience.
edward long 100+
Tank General
edward long 100+
richard moody jr 10+
Fritzie Reisner 100+
Others of our TED speakers, such as Daniel Kahneman, talk about our tendency to sift through information with a confirmation bias, which is to say that even with excellent information with which to form rational judgments, we will tend to prescreen information in terms of our biases and ignore data which does not confirm our biases and conform to our misconceptions.
Tank General
Fritzie Reisner 100+
Jedrek Stepien 10+
True as it is indeed, I want to point out that we already do understand it. We understand the limitations of the brain ever since Kant.
Now the only relevant question that remains is the one Tank General asks, namely: How do we better structure institutions that can compensate for our shortcoming?
First, we have to understand the difference between the intellectual and emotional order. The first one is a universal system that works over a certain territory with equal intensity, the second one is the compatibility of the most proximate. The examples can be socialism and climate respectively.
Now, consciously designed institutions have to take into account what is universal in the human being (substance) and what is not (attribute).
People are obviously not the same everywhere, yet it should be possible to extract certain things all humans no matter where they live, have in common. (Plants for example are extremely varied but they all need CO2 for example).
Now, only what is universal can be institutionalized in the manner of an intellectual order. Everything else should be subject to local regulation. The attempt to universally institutionalize what is local and in the state of flux is bound to failure.
So much of the theory. The question of what is essential in the human being is a difficult one, and as we know, there are as many answers as people.
Tank General
Jedrek Stepien 10+
[After wrestling with the answer for some time though, I came to the conclusion that these things are too complicated and that we are simply the victims of the language, where every word has so many meanings right now that it makes the truth simply impossible to uncover.]
[Here is where I got stuck and frustrated:]
Generally, I think that humans are ultimately incapable of being put into any sort of an intellectually designed system, be it socialism, communism, or even capitalism (in its current form).
[ok, so far so good]
The human nature is simply too complex and varied to be put into any type of frames without causing a significant damage to it.
[fine]
[but now check this:]
What then is the best 'system'? A one that gives people freedom.
[the meaning of freedom, however, has been dug really deep and I have neither capabilities nor will to uncover it]
So, then, Tank General, I have to stop my answer here, unable to go on :) maybe one day...
Tank General
george lockwood 30+
Tank General