Racism vs IQ

[Jason]

Yes I know it said that. It does not mean there is a correlation between IQ and racism however. But whatever.. I'm going to enjoy the rest of my high and not worry about arguing statistics.

[En_Route]

But what definition of rationality are you using? It doesn't seem consistent with how it's used in science. I can't see how believing in astrology can be interpreted as an indicator of irrationality.

Perhaps we need to agree on a definition of rational.

To me, a rational person is one whose beliefs are based on solid, empirical and objectively derived evidence. Those who believe things unsupported by good evidence are irrational. By this standard, those who believe in astrology are being irrational.

If someone decides to believe in a version of God because it makes them happier, is that irrational?

[Svartalf]

Absolutely, 'rational' implies a rational choice, not only among the options and courses of action available, but also of the premises and values determining said choices.

[Mr.Samsa]

But what definition of rationality are you using? It doesn't seem consistent with how it's used in science. I can't see how believing in astrology can be interpreted as an indicator of irrationality.

Perhaps we need to agree on a definition of rational.

To me, a rational person is one whose beliefs are based on solid, empirical and objectively derived evidence. Those who believe things unsupported by good evidence are irrational. By this standard, those who believe in astrology are being irrational.

If someone decides to believe in a version of God because it makes them happier, is that irrational?

It's a great example of instrumental rationalism, and is often given as a textbook example of a rational choice.

[En_Route]

Mensa. Lol. I took the test back in college for giggles, passed with plenty of water under my keel and went to a meeting. The idea, of course, was to meet women and get laid. I never in my life met a more boring bunch of self-obsessed, sneeringly pompous, can't-get-laid-in-Vegas-with-a-fistful-of-C-notes losers in my life. Hairy legged (and armpitted) women and pocket-protector engineering students. I figured this was NOT the place to hunt pussy, so I painted my fingernails black, teased my hair and joined a glam-rock band. MUCH more successful strategy, a Stratocaster is apparently a lot sexier than a programmable HP printing calculator. OK, maybe the women couldn't determine if an improper integral was convergent or divergent, but at least they understood the basics of depilation.

Most illuminating. I wonder if it's too late for me to form a boy band.

[Blind groper]

What this means is that it is not inherently irrational to believe in astrology and, in fact, if the only information the person has seems to suggest that astrology is true (e.g. they aren't aware of the Forer effect and confirmation bias, and to them every prediction seems to come true) then it would be irrational to reject astrology.

Interesting interpretation.

I tend to believe rationality involves learning what you can about evidence. If you are ignorant of conformation bias etc., then you are destroying your opportunity to be rational. A truly rational person will learn all he/she can about judging what is correct versus what is incorrect.

If a person lived in 1000AD, he/she would have no choice but to accept what people around him/her believed, and that would be rational. Is it still true today? I tend to think not, since the information is there.

[Mr.Samsa]

What this means is that it is not inherently irrational to believe in astrology and, in fact, if the only information the person has seems to suggest that astrology is true (e.g. they aren't aware of the Forer effect and confirmation bias, and to them every prediction seems to come true) then it would be irrational to reject astrology.

Interesting interpretation.

I tend to believe rationality involves learning what you can about evidence. If you are ignorant of conformation bias etc., then you are destroying your opportunity to be rational. A truly rational person will learn all he/she can about judging what is correct versus what is incorrect.

If a person lived in 1000AD, he/she would have no choice but to accept what people around him/her believed, and that would be rational. Is it still true today? I tend to think not, since the information is there.

I think you're discussing a different, yet slightly related, concept. It sounds like it might be similar to 'open-mindedness' but it doesn't seem to accurately describe rationality (as defined in science and how it's used when discussing it's interaction with IQ). I don't know of any formal definition of rationality that requires actively seeking out information and certainly none that requires you to accept a 'true' position.

[JimC]

What this means is that it is not inherently irrational to believe in astrology and, in fact, if the only information the person has seems to suggest that astrology is true (e.g. they aren't aware of the Forer effect and confirmation bias, and to them every prediction seems to come true) then it would be irrational to reject astrology.

Interesting interpretation.

I tend to believe rationality involves learning what you can about evidence. If you are ignorant of conformation bias etc., then you are destroying your opportunity to be rational. A truly rational person will learn all he/she can about judging what is correct versus what is incorrect.

If a person lived in 1000AD, he/she would have no choice but to accept what people around him/her believed, and that would be rational. Is it still true today? I tend to think not, since the information is there.

I think you're discussing a different, yet slightly related, concept. It sounds like it might be similar to 'open-mindedness' but it doesn't seem to accurately describe rationality (as defined in science and how it's used when discussing it's interaction with IQ). I don't know of any formal definition of rationality that requires actively seeking out information and certainly none that requires you to accept a 'true' position.

If you refuse to actively seek out information relevant to an issue, you are being wilfully blind.

Not a very rational approach...

[Mr.Samsa]

If you refuse to actively seek out information relevant to an issue, you are being wilfully blind.

Not a very rational approach...

Willfully blind, definitely. It doesn't contradict any formal definition of rationality though, unless the person has adopted the goal of gathering as much evidence on a topic before reaching a conclusion (i.e. if they're a skeptic).

[Blind groper]

Skepticism and rationality are closely related. Obviously calling yourself a skeptic does not mean you are one. But if a person follows the tenets of proper skepticism, they will be pretty much rational also.

I cannot see anyone, in this modern day and age, who believes superstition, as being rational.

[Mr.Samsa]

Skepticism and rationality are closely related. Obviously calling yourself a skeptic does not mean you are one. But if a person follows the tenets of proper skepticism, they will be pretty much rational also.

Sort of. A skeptic who follows the principles of skepticism correctly will be rational, but it is not true that people who aren't skeptics aren't rational or that they are any less rational.

I cannot see anyone, in this modern day and age, who believes superstition, as being rational.

Sure but I think this is because you're defining it a little idiosyncratically. As pointed out above, if believing in god makes someone happy and they want to be happy, then the only rational decision is to believe in god.

Rationality is a concept that is related to the process used to reach conclusions, it is not a judgement of those conclusions themselves. As an analogy, compare rationality to the idea of 'validity' in formal logic. That is, an argument is valid if the premises necessitate the conclusion (e.g. "All cats are brown, Fluffy is a cat, Therefore Fluffy is brown"). The comparison being that someone is rational if, given the premises, they accept the conclusion that Fluffy is brown (regardless of whether the conclusion is actually true).

What you're discussing is similar to 'soundness' in formal logic, where an argument is sound only if the argument is valid and the premises are true.This is a far more stringent claim than the one required by rationality, which really only asks that a person behaves consistently with their beliefs and understanding of the evidence, whereas what you're asking for seems to be more about "being right". I'm not sure what the accurate term for that is but it's not 'rationality'.

[En_Route]

Objective moral positions also fail the stringent criteria of rationality adduced above, since they needs must depend on a set of premises that are unprovable and are no more than assertions of what is claimed to be self- evidently true.

[Tyrannical]

What this means is that it is not inherently irrational to believe in astrology and, in fact, if the only information the person has seems to suggest that astrology is true (e.g. they aren't aware of the Forer effect and confirmation bias, and to them every prediction seems to come true) then it would be irrational to reject astrology.

Interesting interpretation.

I tend to believe rationality involves learning what you can about evidence. If you are ignorant of conformation bias etc., then you are destroying your opportunity to be rational. A truly rational person will learn all he/she can about judging what is correct versus what is incorrect.

If a person lived in 1000AD, he/she would have no choice but to accept what people around him/her believed, and that would be rational. Is it still true today? I tend to think not, since the information is there.

Speaking of confirmation bias, Stephen Gould in his book The Mismeasure of Man accidentally revealed his own bias.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mismeasure_of_Man

The Mismeasure of Man is a critical analysis of the early works of scientific racism about the supposed, biologically inherited (genetic) basis for human intelligence, such as craniometry, the measurement of skull volume and its relation to intellectual faculties. Gould alleged that much of the research was based more upon the racial and social prejudices of the researchers than upon their scientific objectivity;

published in 2011, Jason E. Lewis and colleagues re-measured the cranial volumes of the skulls in Morton's collection, and re-examined the respective statistical analyses by Morton and by Gould, concluding that, contrary to Gould's analysis, Morton did not falsify craniometric research results to support his racial and social prejudices, and that the "Caucasians" possessed the greatest average cranial volume in the sample. To the extent that Morton's craniometric measurements were erroneous, the error was away from his personal biases. Ultimately, Lewis and colleagues disagreed with most of Gould's criticisms of Morton, finding that Gould's work was "poorly supported", and that, in their opinion, the confirmation of the results of Morton's original work "weakens the argument of Gould, and others, that biased results are endemic in science."

He set out to show that Morton's original skull measurements were biased and that racism clouded his mind. When in reality all Gould showed was that he himself was biased, and his mind was clouded by anti-racism.

[JimC]

If you refuse to actively seek out information relevant to an issue, you are being wilfully blind.

Not a very rational approach...

Willfully blind, definitely. It doesn't contradict any formal definition of rationality though, unless the person has adopted the goal of gathering as much evidence on a topic before reaching a conclusion (i.e. if they're a skeptic).

I think you are using a very narrow definition of rationality. It may be technically correct, but it does not correspond to normal usage of the word.

[En_Route]

If you refuse to actively seek out information relevant to an issue, you are being wilfully blind.

Not a very rational approach...

Willfully blind, definitely. It doesn't contradict any formal definition of rationality though, unless the person has adopted the goal of gathering as much evidence on a topic before reaching a conclusion (i.e. if they're a skeptic).

I think you are using a very narrow definition of rationality. It may be technically correct, but it does not correspond to normal usage of the word.

Where the perceived costs of gathering information exceed the expected benefit in terms of the final decision , it would in fact be irrational to go the full information route.