Oct 1, 2024 06:51 PM
(This post was last modified: Oct 1, 2024 07:26 PM by C C.)
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/...y-rational
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/...l-from-the
EXCERPTS: If someone was as rational as could be—with sound decisions and many accurate and trustworthy judgments about the world—would we recognize it? There are reasons to think the answer is “No.” In this post, I aim to challenge prevailing intuitions about rationality and argue that the philosophy and science of judgment and decision-making reveal several ways in which what appears to be rational diverges from what actually is rational.
This post takes its title from Stephen Covey’s well-known book “The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People.” I argue that, similarly, there are seven habits of highly rational people—but these habits can appear so counter-intuitive that others label these habits as “irrational.” Of course, the rationality of these habits might be obvious to specialists in judgment and decision-making, but I find they are often not so obvious to others of the sort for whom this post is written.
In any case, not only are these habits potentially interesting in their own right, but recognizing them may also help to open our minds, to help us better understand the nature of rationality, and to better identify the judgments and decisions we should trust—or not trust—in our own lives.
The seven "irrational" habits of highly rational people
1. Highly rational people are confident in things despite “no good evidence” for them: The first habit of highly rational people is that they are sometimes confident in things when others think there is no good evidence for them....
[...] 2. They are confident in outright false things: But even if someone is rationally confident in something, that thing might be false a particular proportion of the time...
[...] 3. They countenance the “impossible” and are “paranoid”: However, studies suggest many people—including experts with doctorates in their domain, doctors, jurors, and the general public—are not so well-calibrated. One example of this is miscalibrated certainty—that is when people are certain (or virtually certain) of things that turn out to be false...
[...] 4. They avoid risks that don’t happen: As discussed, a rational person can look “irrational” or “paranoid” by virtue of thinking the “impossible” is possible or even (probably) true. Not only that, but they will also act to reduce risks that never actually happen...
[...] 5. They pursue opportunities that fail: But the same moral holds for decisions that avoid risk, and for decisions that pursue reward. For example, a rational decision-maker might accept an amazing job offer that has merely a 10 percent chance of continued employment if the possibility of continued employment is sufficiently good. But of course, the decision to accept that job has a 90 percent chance of resulting in unemployment, potentially making the decision again seem like a “failure” if the probable happens.
[...] 6. They are often irrational: Despite that, though, arguably any realistic person who is as rational as could be would still be genuinely irrational to some degree. This is because our dominant theory of judgment and decision-making—dual process theory—entails that while we often make reflective judgments and decisions, there are countless situations where we do not and simply cannot.
[...] 7. They do things that are often “crazy” or “unconventional”: All of the preceding thoughts then entail that rational people may do things that seem “crazy” or “unconventional” by common standards: they might believe in seemingly impossible things, act to reduce risks that never happen, or pursue opportunities that never materialize, and so on. This might express itself in weird habits, beliefs, or in many other ways... (MORE - missing details)
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/...l-from-the
EXCERPTS: If someone was as rational as could be—with sound decisions and many accurate and trustworthy judgments about the world—would we recognize it? There are reasons to think the answer is “No.” In this post, I aim to challenge prevailing intuitions about rationality and argue that the philosophy and science of judgment and decision-making reveal several ways in which what appears to be rational diverges from what actually is rational.
This post takes its title from Stephen Covey’s well-known book “The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People.” I argue that, similarly, there are seven habits of highly rational people—but these habits can appear so counter-intuitive that others label these habits as “irrational.” Of course, the rationality of these habits might be obvious to specialists in judgment and decision-making, but I find they are often not so obvious to others of the sort for whom this post is written.
In any case, not only are these habits potentially interesting in their own right, but recognizing them may also help to open our minds, to help us better understand the nature of rationality, and to better identify the judgments and decisions we should trust—or not trust—in our own lives.
The seven "irrational" habits of highly rational people
1. Highly rational people are confident in things despite “no good evidence” for them: The first habit of highly rational people is that they are sometimes confident in things when others think there is no good evidence for them....
[...] 2. They are confident in outright false things: But even if someone is rationally confident in something, that thing might be false a particular proportion of the time...
[...] 3. They countenance the “impossible” and are “paranoid”: However, studies suggest many people—including experts with doctorates in their domain, doctors, jurors, and the general public—are not so well-calibrated. One example of this is miscalibrated certainty—that is when people are certain (or virtually certain) of things that turn out to be false...
[...] 4. They avoid risks that don’t happen: As discussed, a rational person can look “irrational” or “paranoid” by virtue of thinking the “impossible” is possible or even (probably) true. Not only that, but they will also act to reduce risks that never actually happen...
[...] 5. They pursue opportunities that fail: But the same moral holds for decisions that avoid risk, and for decisions that pursue reward. For example, a rational decision-maker might accept an amazing job offer that has merely a 10 percent chance of continued employment if the possibility of continued employment is sufficiently good. But of course, the decision to accept that job has a 90 percent chance of resulting in unemployment, potentially making the decision again seem like a “failure” if the probable happens.
[...] 6. They are often irrational: Despite that, though, arguably any realistic person who is as rational as could be would still be genuinely irrational to some degree. This is because our dominant theory of judgment and decision-making—dual process theory—entails that while we often make reflective judgments and decisions, there are countless situations where we do not and simply cannot.
[...] 7. They do things that are often “crazy” or “unconventional”: All of the preceding thoughts then entail that rational people may do things that seem “crazy” or “unconventional” by common standards: they might believe in seemingly impossible things, act to reduce risks that never happen, or pursue opportunities that never materialize, and so on. This might express itself in weird habits, beliefs, or in many other ways... (MORE - missing details)
