3 ms·

What Are We Arguing About When We Argue About Rationality?

5 points by feross 5y ago

netmonk 5y ago
After reading this book and being quite experienced with communication and hypnotism (in Erickson framework) i found this book quite interesting in term of modern classical manipulation. First of all there isnt any kind of doubt that rationnality is quite important in how human as individual understand and interact with others and the world (our environment). But for someone aware of the art of communication and influence it is always important to always reach higher stand to identify all elements communicated in sub channel: - what is told - what is not told - choice of illustration element - consciuous or unconscious bias being transmitted - and so on and so on So one point which batlantly catches my eyes in this book is that most illustrations willing to illustrate the negative effect of irrationality or lake of rationnality are tied to CHRISTIAN civilisation. And the other hand, most of examples illustrating positive rationnality outcome are linked to Jewish culture habit and synagogue. This is quite counter realist because christian religion for two thousand years was the core fuel of rationnality through the fact in Europe they were managing all most of universities and intellectual work but not only they also developped scholastic practice and rationnal process of analysis problem to improve justice system in order to avoid the biggest error of mankind which was killing an innocennt (Jesus) while freeing a criminal (Barrabas) under the irrationnal hystery of an agitated mass of people (which is basically the antithesis of rationnality) While on the contrary Jewish religion is deeply tied to double standard with high irrationnal argument to justify different treatment and judgement between jewish people and gentils. This is often known as "pilpoul" practice. So History tends to proove that jewish==rationnal, christian==irrationnal is quite untrue. So this let the question unanswered about what are the real motive af steven Pincker with such choice of illustration which obviously describe at least a partisan stand. I also point that such way is clearly hypnothis with an obvious suggestion inserted into the brain of the reader with ease for those not aware of the subbtle art of communication an modern hypnosis.
karmakaze 5y ago
> Then maybe the difference between rationalists and anti-rationalists is that rationalists use heuristics sparingly and are willing to question them, and anti-rationalists follow heuristics religiously (or even slavishly)? [...] I think everybody follows some combination strategy of mostly depending on heuristics, but using explicit computation to decide what heuristics to have, or what to do when heuristics conflict, or whether a certain heuristic should apply in some novel situation. This is the difference. The rationalists do the computation in situations that had warranted it in the past, and keep an eye out for new situations that should call for it. Others generally do not. They use heuristics on top of heuristics, and social proof, etc, etc. They don't care if they have a correct answer, just the right one.

5 points by feross 5y ago

After reading this book and being quite experienced with communication and hypnotism (in Erickson framework) i found this book quite interesting in term of modern classical manipulation. First of all there isnt any kind of doubt that rationnality is quite important in how human as individual understand and interact with others and the world (our environment). But for someone aware of the art of communication and influence it is always important to always reach higher stand to identify all elements communicated in sub channel: - what is told - what is not told - choice of illustration element - consciuous or unconscious bias being transmitted - and so on and so on So one point which batlantly catches my eyes in this book is that most illustrations willing to illustrate the negative effect of irrationality or lake of rationnality are tied to CHRISTIAN civilisation. And the other hand, most of examples illustrating positive rationnality outcome are linked to Jewish culture habit and synagogue. This is quite counter realist because christian religion for two thousand years was the core fuel of rationnality through the fact in Europe they were managing all most of universities and intellectual work but not only they also developped scholastic practice and rationnal process of analysis problem to improve justice system in order to avoid the biggest error of mankind which was killing an innocennt (Jesus) while freeing a criminal (Barrabas) under the irrationnal hystery of an agitated mass of people (which is basically the antithesis of rationnality) While on the contrary Jewish religion is deeply tied to double standard with high irrationnal argument to justify different treatment and judgement between jewish people and gentils. This is often known as "pilpoul" practice. So History tends to proove that jewish==rationnal, christian==irrationnal is quite untrue. So this let the question unanswered about what are the real motive af steven Pincker with such choice of illustration which obviously describe at least a partisan stand. I also point that such way is clearly hypnothis with an obvious suggestion inserted into the brain of the reader with ease for those not aware of the subbtle art of communication an modern hypnosis.

karmakaze 5y ago

> Then maybe the difference between rationalists and anti-rationalists is that rationalists use heuristics sparingly and are willing to question them, and anti-rationalists follow heuristics religiously (or even slavishly)? [...] I think everybody follows some combination strategy of mostly depending on heuristics, but using explicit computation to decide what heuristics to have, or what to do when heuristics conflict, or whether a certain heuristic should apply in some novel situation. This is the difference. The rationalists do the computation in situations that had warranted it in the past, and keep an eye out for new situations that should call for it. Others generally do not. They use heuristics on top of heuristics, and social proof, etc, etc. They don't care if they have a correct answer, just the right one.