3 ms·

There are objective standards for rationality, although we rarely have enough information to evaluate other people according to them. One example of an objectiv

There are objective standards for rationality, although we rarely have enough information to evaluate other people according to them. One example of an objective standard is whether or not all of the things you say have a fifty-fifty chance of happening, taken together, do indeed happen half the time. Another objective standard is whether or not you change your stated goals after the fact to make yourself feel more successful. There are no end of objectively irrational behaviors, although we rarely have enough insight into other people's lives to identify them, or the clarity of mind, accuracy of memory and commitment to reflection to see them in ourselves.

nicoburns 4y ago
I don't think it's as objective as you think. There are many circumstances where someone might make a completely rational decision while still being utterly wrong, because they didn't have the information available to them to make a better decision.
- Beldin 4y ago
  It depends on the definition of "rational". A serviceable but vacuous definition is "the procedure by which a decision is reached." Note that it is vacuous in that it imposes no constraints (not even repeatability/consistency), so anything that results in a decision fits the definition. It is serviceable because if you want a better definition, you have to argue deviations/changes - eg consistency. You'll find it to be a choice, not a requirement. Eg: Batman's Joker behaves according to his rules. The end result may be unpredictable, but that doesn't mean the decision process doesn't follow his rules.
- whatshisface 4y ago
  I didn't list "always succeeds" as a standard for rationality. I said, "chances they say are fifty-fifty turn out like they expected fifty percent of the time." If someone ascribes an 80% chance to each of 1000 possible events, and 800 of them happen, they are almost certainly rational.

nicoburns 4y ago

I don't think it's as objective as you think. There are many circumstances where someone might make a completely rational decision while still being utterly wrong, because they didn't have the information available to them to make a better decision.

Beldin 4y ago
It depends on the definition of "rational". A serviceable but vacuous definition is "the procedure by which a decision is reached." Note that it is vacuous in that it imposes no constraints (not even repeatability/consistency), so anything that results in a decision fits the definition. It is serviceable because if you want a better definition, you have to argue deviations/changes - eg consistency. You'll find it to be a choice, not a requirement. Eg: Batman's Joker behaves according to his rules. The end result may be unpredictable, but that doesn't mean the decision process doesn't follow his rules.
whatshisface 4y ago
I didn't list "always succeeds" as a standard for rationality. I said, "chances they say are fifty-fifty turn out like they expected fifty percent of the time." If someone ascribes an 80% chance to each of 1000 possible events, and 800 of them happen, they are almost certainly rational.