The gap between our beliefs about democracy, and objective democracy

[rousseau]

Without going into too much detail it begins with our belief about people, averaged out. We have the sense that people are rational actors, and should be rational actors when, instead, in most cases they clearly aren't.

And so the extension of that is that we have the sense that democratic systems should be equally rational, when in reality sometimes we get what's occurring now in the U.S. and many other countries.

All of this is to say that democracy is the best attempt to place organisation on a somewhat chaotic system, but because the reality of it doesn't always match our pre-defined beliefs about how people operate, we often feel a sense of angst and disorientation when things break.

Maybe, though, society breaking is just how it works, and for a clear mind on some level we just need to accept that.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Or you could take a second look at your own view of what rationality consists of. My guess is that most people will rather deny rationality to other people with whom they disagree rather than acknowledge they might have good reasons to believe what they believe.

What seems clear to me is that no one individual knows nearly enough about the world and humanity itself to say in all certainty what should be done for his own satisfaction. Instead, we have strategies that allow us to make a choice nonetheless about what should be done, including doing nothing to let others sort out the situation. Obviously some people are better informed in some areas: the financial market, the geopolitical situation, the next likely epidemics or what bargains are on offer at Selfridges. And so naturally other people are not so well informed. Yet, those less well-informed people still need to have a view on what should be done, say, about the economy, the war, migrants etc. Possibly their views may turn out to be rather substandard. However, that their views should be substandard may be entirely explained by their basic lack of information, not their lack of rationality. And thus some people may be unfairly seen as irrational when they may be just uninformed. And therefore, in fact, fairly rational. Or indeed, possibly in some cases even more rational than some of those better-informed people.

Just to be clear, I'm not talking about Trump himself, who just seems good to go to a retirement home.

And of course, if I'm correct, then you can be fairly rational but effectively poorly informed one way or the other so that your views should still be classified as substandard.
EB

 

[rousseau]

Or you could take a second look at your own view of what rationality consists of. My guess is that most people will rather deny rationality to other people with whom they disagree rather than acknowledge they might have good reasons to believe what they believe.

What seems clear to me is that no one individual knows nearly enough about the world and humanity itself to say in all certainty what should be done for his own satisfaction. Instead, we have strategies that allow us to make a choice nonetheless about what should be done, including doing nothing to let others sort out the situation. Obviously some people are better informed in some areas: the financial market, the geopolitical situation, the next likely epidemics or what bargains are on offer at Selfridges. And so naturally other people are not so well informed. Yet, those less well-informed people still need to have a view on what should be done, say, about the economy, the war, migrants etc. Possibly their views may turn out to be rather substandard. However, that their views should be substandard may be entirely explained by their basic lack of information, not their lack of rationality. And thus some people may be unfairly seen as irrational when they may be just uninformed. And therefore, in fact, fairly rational. Or indeed, possibly in some cases even more rational than some of those better-informed people.

Just to be clear, I'm not talking about Trump himself, who just seems good to go to a retirement home.

And of course, if I'm correct, then you can be fairly rational but effectively poorly informed one way or the other so that your views should still be classified as substandard.
EB

I'll try to clarify my thinking a little more, since when I wrote the original post I rushed through it.

When I say people aren't rational actors what I actually mean is that they aren't rational actors toward long-termism. Every person has immediate survival logic built directly into them: where's energy rich food, where's a person I can mate with, which things in my immediate environment should I avoid? But I'd argue that we evolved in an environment where long-term planning wasn't a serious concern, and so we're biologically oriented to survive from day to day, but not to plan in the long-term. This makes us objectively bad at doing things like choosing leaders for government, saving for retirement, and on and on. If we can get this right we've pretty much reached our social peak.

It may be the case that many of us are also just uninformed, although I'm inclined to believe that, averaged out, our logic skills are usually meddling, and most of us have no innate desire to be informed.

 

[untermensche]

Without going into too much detail it begins with our belief about people, averaged out. We have the sense that people are rational actors, and should be rational actors when, instead, in most cases they clearly aren't.

And so the extension of that is that we have the sense that democratic systems should be equally rational, when in reality sometimes we get what's occurring now in the U.S. and many other countries.

All of this is to say that democracy is the best attempt to place organisation on a somewhat chaotic system, but because the reality of it doesn't always match our pre-defined beliefs about how people operate, we often feel a sense of angst and disorientation when things break.

Maybe, though, society breaking is just how it works, and for a clear mind on some level we just need to accept that.

Humans are products of their environments.

They are by nature irrational but most can be taught to be rational.

And that should be the major focus in schools. Especially early on when humans are most malleable.

Children can understand things before they can express them.

Formal testing should begin about age 16.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I'll try to clarify my thinking a little more, since when I wrote the original post I rushed through it.

When I say people aren't rational actors what I actually mean is that they aren't rational actors toward long-termism. Every person has immediate survival logic built directly into them: where's energy rich food, where's a person I can mate with, which things in my immediate environment should I avoid? But I'd argue that we evolved in an environment where long-term planning wasn't a serious concern, and so we're biologically oriented to survive from day to day, but not to plan in the long-term. This makes us objectively bad at doing things like choosing leaders for government, saving for retirement, and on and on. If we can get this right we've pretty much reached our social peak.

I would agree that different people have different logical abilities. But if you wanted to argue that a majority of people had poor logic it would be just a way of suggesting that your logical skills are better than average.

I agree that humans are probably wired to deal with the more immediate concerns and that as a result many people have to ignore long-term issues because the short-term ones already overwhelm their reasoning capabilities. I still don't see that this is tantamount to a lack of rationality. These people do what they can given the circumstances, which sounds like the rational thing to be doing.

It may be the case that many of us are also just uninformed, although I'm inclined to believe that, averaged out, our logic skills are usually meddling, and most of us have no innate desire to be informed.

Or possibly they've decided that knowing more about the larger issues would be beyond their capabilities, which again may be the rational thing to be doing.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Humans are products of their environments.

They are by nature irrational but most can be taught to be rational.

If humans were irrational by nature, whoever could have taught humans rationality?

More plausibly nearly all humans have innate rational capabilities but these have to compete with other capabilities and teaching or training will only really affect the abilitiy to discipline oneself and favour rationality over these other tendencies.
EB

 

[untermensche]

Humans are products of their environments.

They are by nature irrational but most can be taught to be rational.

If humans were irrational by nature, whoever could have taught humans rationality?

More plausibly nearly all humans have innate rational capabilities but these have to compete with other capabilities and teaching or training will only really affect the abilitiy to discipline oneself and favour rationality over these other tendencies.
EB

Do you think humans had calculus by nature?

Rationality arose in some genius and he taught others.

 

[Speakpigeon]

If humans were irrational by nature, whoever could have taught humans rationality?

More plausibly nearly all humans have innate rational capabilities but these have to compete with other capabilities and teaching or training will only really affect the abilitiy to discipline oneself and favour rationality over these other tendencies.
EB

Do you think humans had calculus by nature?

Rationality arose in some genius and he taught others.

I think all humans have innate logical capabilities and if language is innate as you yourself claim then rationality is innate.

Formal calculus is something else. I believe most people could discover how to do it by themselves, outside formal teaching, provided adequate circumstances obtained but I guess it's fair to say that they apparently very rarely did throughout human history.

Of course, saying logic is innate is tantamount to saying that some kind of informal calculus takes place in people's minds or brains just like some kind of informal calculus takes place in computers.

Innate rationality doesn't mean anybody normal will be rational no matter what but if normal social interactions also obtain then he will.

I'm not sure where you get your ideas but I doubt you could support them so we're not going settle the issue anyway.
EB

 

[untermensche]

Do you think humans had calculus by nature?

Rationality arose in some genius and he taught others.

I think all humans have innate logical capabilities and if language is innate as you yourself claim then rationality is innate.

Formal calculus is something else. I believe most people could discover how to do it by themselves, outside formal teaching, provided adequate circumstances obtained but I guess it's fair to say that they apparently very rarely did throughout human history.

Of course, saying logic is innate is tantamount to saying that some kind of informal calculus takes place in people's minds or brains just like some kind of informal calculus takes place in computers.

Innate rationality doesn't mean anybody normal will be rational no matter what but if normal social interactions also obtain then he will.

I'm not sure where you get your ideas but I doubt you could support them so we're not going settle the issue anyway.
EB

The language capacity is innate, not the expression. That requires exposure.

Rational thinking is not innate, just the capacity. And exposure is needed as well.

People raised by irrational parents are abused and made defective.

 

[rousseau]

I think the above misses the larger point that our common nature, and maybe even environmental circumstances, usually make us very bad at governance and long-term planning. That we're just not cut out for effectively reining in the chaos that exists around the world. So regardless of how you'd define our reasoning skill, it's objective fact that, averaged out, we're shitty at making the most important choices.

And so societies that work perfectly, and efficiently, are an ideal, but very, very hard to accomplish in practice.

 

[untermensche]

I think the above misses the larger point that our common nature, and maybe even environmental circumstances, usually make us very bad at governance and long-term planning. That we're just not cut out for effectively reining in the chaos that exists around the world. So regardless of how you'd define our reasoning skill, it's objective fact that, averaged out, we're shitty at making the most important choices.

And so societies that work perfectly, and efficiently, are an ideal, but very, very hard to accomplish in practice.

The problem is, irrational thinking is deliberately taught to children.

Religious thinking is deliberately taught.

The idea that "faith" alone has value is taught to children. With vigor.

Every highly religious person I know voted for Trump.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I think all humans have innate logical capabilities and if language is innate as you yourself claim then rationality is innate.

Formal calculus is something else. I believe most people could discover how to do it by themselves, outside formal teaching, provided adequate circumstances obtained but I guess it's fair to say that they apparently very rarely did throughout human history.

Of course, saying logic is innate is tantamount to saying that some kind of informal calculus takes place in people's minds or brains just like some kind of informal calculus takes place in computers.

Innate rationality doesn't mean anybody normal will be rational no matter what but if normal social interactions also obtain then he will.

I'm not sure where you get your ideas but I doubt you could support them so we're not going settle the issue anyway.
EB

The language capacity is innate, not the expression. That requires exposure.

Rational thinking is not innate, just the capacity. And exposure is needed as well.

People raised by irrational parents are abused and made defective.

So we agree.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

I think the above misses the larger point that our common nature, and maybe even environmental circumstances, usually make us very bad at governance and long-term planning. That we're just not cut out for effectively reining in the chaos that exists around the world. So regardless of how you'd define our reasoning skill, it's objective fact that, averaged out, we're shitty at making the most important choices.

And so societies that work perfectly, and efficiently, are an ideal, but very, very hard to accomplish in practice.

I would argue that it's more a matter of having the proper information than anything to do with rationality. Human beings have to take decisions on the basis of limited information. Human society today is a worldwide complex for which we have no adequate perception organ so that we have to work on the basis of linguistic information, i.e. reports, and that is not very practical to follow the evolution of the world. We lack the organ that would be adapted to following the evolution of the world human society. It's a bandwidth problem.
EB

- - - Updated - - -

Every highly religious person I know voted for Trump.

Maybe it's the Second Coming at last.
EB

 

[untermensche]

The language capacity is innate, not the expression. That requires exposure.

Rational thinking is not innate, just the capacity. And exposure is needed as well.

People raised by irrational parents are abused and made defective.

So we agree.
EB

I believe humans might think rationally if exposed to rational thinking and they might not.

It is an individual thing, not a species thing.

 

[ronburgundy]

Or you could take a second look at your own view of what rationality consists of. My guess is that most people will rather deny rationality to other people with whom they disagree rather than acknowledge they might have good reasons to believe what they believe.

What seems clear to me is that no one individual knows nearly enough about the world and humanity itself to say in all certainty what should be done for his own satisfaction. Instead, we have strategies that allow us to make a choice nonetheless about what should be done, including doing nothing to let others sort out the situation. Obviously some people are better informed in some areas: the financial market, the geopolitical situation, the next likely epidemics or what bargains are on offer at Selfridges. And so naturally other people are not so well informed. Yet, those less well-informed people still need to have a view on what should be done, say, about the economy, the war, migrants etc. Possibly their views may turn out to be rather substandard. However, that their views should be substandard may be entirely explained by their basic lack of information, not their lack of rationality. And thus some people may be unfairly seen as irrational when they may be just uninformed. And therefore, in fact, fairly rational. Or indeed, possibly in some cases even more rational than some of those better-informed people.

Its true that lack of information can and is sometimes wrongly classified as resulting from irrational thought processes. However, it is also true and well supported by large body of empirical studies that people are highly prone to actual irrationality, reaching conclusions that are directly refuted by their own knowledge, and processing information in ways the contradict reasoned thought and are biased by emotional preferences to reach conclusions that serve some function despite being obviously false in any objective sense.

Unfortunate the study of rationality has gotten derailed sometimes by philosophers who use the term to refer to whether a belief serves any possible function for the believer rather than whether the belief specifically serves the function of optimizing objective belief accuracy by being formed via logical evaluation of evidence that relates to the probability that a given claim is valid.
The only alternative to a belief serving any possible function is that the belief is formed via totally random factors, and since that is psychologically implausible, that means it isn't possible for a belief not to be "rational" according to that former philosophical use of the term. Making that definition useless. By using the more specified definition that at least allows for the possibility of irrational beliefs, cognitive scientists have shown irrational beliefs are pervasive. While sometimes this is because being rational requires too much cognitive resources to be worth it, there are plenty of times where people put forth extra resources just to reach and defend irrational conclusions, such as making up bullshit excuses why the can discount the majority of evidence which happens to be against their belief. Also people often use what limited mental resources they have in systematically biased ways to reach emotionally preferred conclusions, such as processing only the evidence and their own knowledge that favors their preferred conclusion, which directly contradicts the rational approach within a limited resources context of considering a random and/or representative sample of the available evidence and knowledge that is relevant to the claim.

As for politics, I think the majority of the most divisive political disagreement is not due to people differing in their knowledge, but due to either one or sometimes both participants in the disagreement failing to approach the topic rationally, due to a strong emotional/ideological bias toward a particular conclusion. Pointing to their starting assumptions (such as religious ones) as evidence that are internally rational doesn't usually cut it, because those assumptions were arrived at via irrationality to begin with.

 

[ronburgundy]

So we agree.
EB

I believe humans might think rationally if exposed to rational thinking and they might not.

It is an individual thing, not a species thing.

The capacity for rationality is innate, but also variable due partly to innate factors, just like virtually all psychological capacities and tendencies. All people can be taught and trained to be better at rationality and to place more value on trying to apply those rational skills. However, some people are born being better at it and better at getting better at it via education. Education actually tends to enhance innate differences between individuals rather than make them more similar. A standard saying in research on basic cognitive skills is "rich get richer", meaning that those who start out with more of the skill also tend to improve that skill via training at a faster rate. Obviously individuals also differ in how much training they get, so a person with more innate skill can wind up with less skill than someone who got much more training to develop their skill.

But all of that variability in how much each person is capable of rational thought isn't likely to explain much of the variability in when and who actually engages in rational thought on a topic, and why people given the same info disagree on political issues. Most of that variance is not due to rational skill but rational will, the choice to apply one's reasoning skills to the issue rather than just rationalize and defend whatever claim serves ones political objectives. The other major source of variance is differences in basic values that determine one's political objectives.

Take human-influenced climate change for example. What is the cause of differences in opinion about whether its happening?
As with evolution, the facts supporting that it is happening are so clear and widespread that it is implausible that any denier reached that position honestly via applying reasoning to the best of their ability. So denial is almost always the result of concerted efforts to violate honest reasoning in order to reach a preferred conclusion. Theological and economic biases are the source of that bias to deny climate change. But not all people who accept climate change arrived at that conclusion rationally either. Some did, but some happen to hold the scientific position, but because they have an ideological bias toward wanting to believe it. Proposed solutions to the problem of climate change entails restricting most of the ways that the rich have gotten rich, and people limiting their consumption, including not eating animals, etc.. Thus, people who have other emotional or ideological reasons to favor such changes, have a biased reason to believe in climate change, and would likely believe it even if the science didn't support it. Of those who accept climate change purely for rational, scientific reasons, some may actually share the same values as either the irrational deniers or irrational accepters, but they value being rational even more so they accept it even though it creates an obstacle for some of their other political objectives. In sum, applying rational thought is most often a result of an interaction between what one's goals are, how much you value rationality in principle, and which conclusion happens to be supported by rational thought.

 

[untermensche]

...A standard saying in research on basic cognitive skills is "rich get richer", meaning that those who start out with more of the skill also tend to improve that skill via training at a faster rate...

The richness is in early exposure and quality of early exposure combined with a lack of psychological disturbances, like living in a US inner city war zone called a ghetto.

Not some innate greatness.

 

[ronburgundy]

...A standard saying in research on basic cognitive skills is "rich get richer", meaning that those who start out with more of the skill also tend to improve that skill via training at a faster rate...

The richness is in early exposure and quality of early exposure combined with a lack of psychological disturbances, like living in a US inner city war zone called a ghetto.

Not some innate greatness.

No, it is in innate differences that allow one to take optimal advantage of high quality environments, and innate differences that minimize harm done by potential "disturbances".

Take 2 people and put them in identical positive conditions and they will both likely benefit but will almost never benefit equally. Likewise, put them in identically negative environments and they will both likely be harmed, but almost never be equally harmed.

Environments only impact higher order cognition by getting initially processed by the person's biological and cognitive systems. Basic features of the person's initial systems determines what those environmental effects are on the development of those systems. Since those initial systems are not equal between individuals, the effects of a given environment are not equal.

 

[untermensche]

Likewise, put them in identically negative environments and they will both likely be harmed, but almost never be equally harmed.

No negative experiences are identical between any two people. Your scenario is impossible.

Humans are exposed to incredible amounts of "data" as they grow. The experiences and how the psyche deals with experiences moves one mind in one direction and another mind in another.

This is the basis of personality.

People grow an individual personality over time based on experience and they also grow cognitive capacities the same way.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Or you could take a second look at your own view of what rationality consists of. My guess is that most people will rather deny rationality to other people with whom they disagree rather than acknowledge they might have good reasons to believe what they believe.

What seems clear to me is that no one individual knows nearly enough about the world and humanity itself to say in all certainty what should be done for his own satisfaction. Instead, we have strategies that allow us to make a choice nonetheless about what should be done, including doing nothing to let others sort out the situation. Obviously some people are better informed in some areas: the financial market, the geopolitical situation, the next likely epidemics or what bargains are on offer at Selfridges. And so naturally other people are not so well informed. Yet, those less well-informed people still need to have a view on what should be done, say, about the economy, the war, migrants etc. Possibly their views may turn out to be rather substandard. However, that their views should be substandard may be entirely explained by their basic lack of information, not their lack of rationality. And thus some people may be unfairly seen as irrational when they may be just uninformed. And therefore, in fact, fairly rational. Or indeed, possibly in some cases even more rational than some of those better-informed people.

Its true that lack of information can and is sometimes wrongly classified as resulting from irrational thought processes. However, it is also true and well supported by large body of empirical studies that people are highly prone to actual irrationality, reaching conclusions that are directly refuted by their own knowledge, and processing information in ways the contradict reasoned thought and are biased by emotional preferences to reach conclusions that serve some function despite being obviously false in any objective sense.

Unfortunate the study of rationality has gotten derailed sometimes by philosophers who use the term to refer to whether a belief serves any possible function for the believer rather than whether the belief specifically serves the function of optimizing objective belief accuracy by being formed via logical evaluation of evidence that relates to the probability that a given claim is valid.
The only alternative to a belief serving any possible function is that the belief is formed via totally random factors, and since that is psychologically implausible, that means it isn't possible for a belief not to be "rational" according to that former philosophical use of the term. Making that definition useless. By using the more specified definition that at least allows for the possibility of irrational beliefs, cognitive scientists have shown irrational beliefs are pervasive. While sometimes this is because being rational requires too much cognitive resources to be worth it, there are plenty of times where people put forth extra resources just to reach and defend irrational conclusions, such as making up bullshit excuses why the can discount the majority of evidence which happens to be against their belief. Also people often use what limited mental resources they have in systematically biased ways to reach emotionally preferred conclusions, such as processing only the evidence and their own knowledge that favors their preferred conclusion, which directly contradicts the rational approach within a limited resources context of considering a random and/or representative sample of the available evidence and knowledge that is relevant to the claim.

As for politics, I think the majority of the most divisive political disagreement is not due to people differing in their knowledge, but due to either one or sometimes both participants in the disagreement failing to approach the topic rationally, due to a strong emotional/ideological bias toward a particular conclusion. Pointing to their starting assumptions (such as religious ones) as evidence that are internally rational doesn't usually cut it, because those assumptions were arrived at via irrationality to begin with.

I agree that people can be irrational, that some people are more irrational and others less, that some people can be very irrational, and that irrational behaviours can be deathly.

My explanation for this situation is that emotions have gained a critical survival value throughout the course of evolution from first animals to humans while rationality seems to have come too late to have had a chance of being so thouroughly tested, i.e. it's not clear to me how much rationality should effectively overide emotions if a species is to survive. It's clearly often for the good of the species that emotions have the power to disconnect rational judgement. Rational judgement will always seem good to us the ever so rational people but when exactly rationality has to take control for our own good? Is it even possible to improve on the current situation? I think we're on a journey and we're going to find out sooner or later if we've taken the right turn.

There's also the basic problem that it is largely, I think, rationality that has allowed humanity to evolve it's social organisation to the complex system which is progressively reaching into all areas and levels of human existence. No other species could have done what we've done yet many of them have already survived much longer than humans have so far. The question is whether our rationality can help us solve the most serious problems human civilisation is facing now and how much rationality is required to achieve this rescue operation. It is in the nature of evolution that inventing rationality was essentially going out on a limb and that we probably can't know whether there's a way out.
EB