4 ms·

> perceived irrational behaviour If someone is irrational, how should we react? Sympathetic? Fearful? Most things we consider mental illnesses are irrational

> perceived irrational behaviour If someone is irrational, how should we react? Sympathetic? Fearful? Most things we consider mental illnesses are irrational behaviors. When used as a propaganda terms, calling a political opponent "mad" or "half mad" is intended to call into question his/her beliefs and statements, and to create fear that his/her actions will be unpredictable (counter to his/her stated objectives, etc.)

tremon 10y ago
Most things we consider mental illnesses are irrational behaviors. But the converse is not true: not every irrational behaviour is a mental illness. You also left out the word perceived, which changes the argument from individual interpretation to universal absolutes, of which there are very few. calling a political opponent "mad" or "half mad" is intended to call into question his/her beliefs and statements Yes, it is. It is not intended as a medical diagnosis, which is what you were implying.
- grandalf 10y ago
  > It is not intended as a medical diagnosis So then it is intended to rally political action. Suppose two people agree on the same set of factual assumptions and are both rational. They may still disagree on priorities. We see this in the US in cases where two rights are in conflict, a court may find in favor of one taking precedence. The problem with calling one's political opponent irrational is that doing so is intended to marginalize him by making his assumptions irrelevant. In fact, it is intended to make his entire thought process irrelevant by framing it as disconnected from reality. If I assume the person sitting across the coffee shop from me is rational, I can assume he won't come over and take my life in a murder-suicide. If I assume he is not rational, I can be assured of no such thing. So the name calling of "irrational" is predominantly a propaganda technique intended to marginalize an opponent, not to simply find fault with his reasoning, since if a person is irrational his reasoning is irrelevant (since his reasoning process is, by definition, broken). If the facts were laid out in plain view, perhaps it would not be so clear that the political opponent was in the wrong. Perhaps we might find some common ground or focus narrowly on differing priorities. Which is why we find accusations of irrationality in situations where compromise or moderation is not desired. Similarly, accusations that a person is a "terrorist" or "supports terrorism" is a similar ploy. We live in a world in which character assassination campaigns are levied against many foreign leaders. Do we think for a moment that our own leaders are in unique possession of rationality? Of morality? Judging by the framing in the press, nearly all foreign leaders are suspect or corrupt in some way. The reason I disapprove of this is because having a knee-jerk adversarial expectation of other nations does not benefit us at all. In fact, the technique is used to draw attention away from the many failings and shortcomings of our own political leaders. It's far easier to vilify someone like Putin or Saddam or Erdogan than to own up to one's own horrid track record. The public loves this, and considers it sport much like the olympics. It's an ugly side of humanity, and has the effect of harming our own institutions and leaders by deflecting much-needed scrutiny.

tremon 10y ago

Most things we consider mental illnesses are irrational behaviors. But the converse is not true: not every irrational behaviour is a mental illness. You also left out the word perceived, which changes the argument from individual interpretation to universal absolutes, of which there are very few. calling a political opponent "mad" or "half mad" is intended to call into question his/her beliefs and statements Yes, it is. It is not intended as a medical diagnosis, which is what you were implying.

grandalf 10y ago
> It is not intended as a medical diagnosis So then it is intended to rally political action. Suppose two people agree on the same set of factual assumptions and are both rational. They may still disagree on priorities. We see this in the US in cases where two rights are in conflict, a court may find in favor of one taking precedence. The problem with calling one's political opponent irrational is that doing so is intended to marginalize him by making his assumptions irrelevant. In fact, it is intended to make his entire thought process irrelevant by framing it as disconnected from reality. If I assume the person sitting across the coffee shop from me is rational, I can assume he won't come over and take my life in a murder-suicide. If I assume he is not rational, I can be assured of no such thing. So the name calling of "irrational" is predominantly a propaganda technique intended to marginalize an opponent, not to simply find fault with his reasoning, since if a person is irrational his reasoning is irrelevant (since his reasoning process is, by definition, broken). If the facts were laid out in plain view, perhaps it would not be so clear that the political opponent was in the wrong. Perhaps we might find some common ground or focus narrowly on differing priorities. Which is why we find accusations of irrationality in situations where compromise or moderation is not desired. Similarly, accusations that a person is a "terrorist" or "supports terrorism" is a similar ploy. We live in a world in which character assassination campaigns are levied against many foreign leaders. Do we think for a moment that our own leaders are in unique possession of rationality? Of morality? Judging by the framing in the press, nearly all foreign leaders are suspect or corrupt in some way. The reason I disapprove of this is because having a knee-jerk adversarial expectation of other nations does not benefit us at all. In fact, the technique is used to draw attention away from the many failings and shortcomings of our own political leaders. It's far easier to vilify someone like Putin or Saddam or Erdogan than to own up to one's own horrid track record. The public loves this, and considers it sport much like the olympics. It's an ugly side of humanity, and has the effect of harming our own institutions and leaders by deflecting much-needed scrutiny.