4 ms·

My one quibble with this article, which I think is otherwise spot on in many regards, concerns this claim: "It is more common now to regard humanity as lucid ab

My one quibble with this article, which I think is otherwise spot on in many regards, concerns this claim: "It is more common now to regard humanity as lucid about its interests, and rational in its fulfillment of them (a few behavioral foibles aside)." There is a strong trend in psychology (both pop and scientific) at the moment to focus on all the ways in which we (or, by an odd synecdoche, "our brains") are irrational (e.g. Dan Ariely). If you contrast this viewpoint, which I think is increasingly common if not already quite prevalent, with say the viewpoint of intellectuals in the 18th century on "man's nature" I'd say we have a comparatively strong belief in the deep and wide-ranging irrationality of humanity, both when it comes to ends and means.

nicops 10y ago
The irrationality studied by Dan Ariely et al it's not comparable _at all_ with the freudian irrationality. The former brings to the forefront our fauly heuristics and biases. The later is about how culture and our psyche actively makes us ignorant of parts of ourselves that are inconvenient, and that can come out in bursts of irrational, unstable, "crazy" behavior.
- lukeasrodgers 10y ago
  You're right that they are very different takes on irrationality. Whether they are a comparable "at all" is obviously just a matter of context. If I'm interested in research on loss aversion, looking at Freud and Ariely together would be silly. If I'm interested in the history of ideas (which my point was addressing) then looking at them alongside each other makes perfect sense. You're saying "apples vs oranges" and I'm saying, "sure, but I'm talking about fruits."
  - nicops 10y ago
    But maybe bringing fruits up it's irrelevant in some context, depending on what we're talking about. This is one of these contexts. The very same phrase you quoted from the article clarifies it's not talking about "perfect" rationality. In the history of psychology/sociology, Freud and Ariely don't make sense with each other.

nicops 10y ago

The irrationality studied by Dan Ariely et al it's not comparable _at all_ with the freudian irrationality. The former brings to the forefront our fauly heuristics and biases. The later is about how culture and our psyche actively makes us ignorant of parts of ourselves that are inconvenient, and that can come out in bursts of irrational, unstable, "crazy" behavior.

lukeasrodgers 10y ago
You're right that they are very different takes on irrationality. Whether they are a comparable "at all" is obviously just a matter of context. If I'm interested in research on loss aversion, looking at Freud and Ariely together would be silly. If I'm interested in the history of ideas (which my point was addressing) then looking at them alongside each other makes perfect sense. You're saying "apples vs oranges" and I'm saying, "sure, but I'm talking about fruits."
- nicops 10y ago
  But maybe bringing fruits up it's irrelevant in some context, depending on what we're talking about. This is one of these contexts. The very same phrase you quoted from the article clarifies it's not talking about "perfect" rationality. In the history of psychology/sociology, Freud and Ariely don't make sense with each other.