Rationality Ain't Sexy

[LaMont Cranston]

mm, Thanks for that post. I've got a busy evening, but I'll write more in the morning. My first response is that I prefer the first definition you gave, but I don't think that the two definitions are mutually exclusive. See you later...

[FBM]

FBM, By me, there are no problems between us. If there was anything to forgive on either side, it is forgiven.

I have not planned any end around attack on rationality.

Cool. My bad, then.

...in these last few posts, we've considered forgiveness. ...For the sake of this discussion, let's leave Jesus and all of the other religious window dressing out of the mix....What I'm suggesting is that we look at the act for what it is and what people get out of it.

I joke around a lot on this forum, but I do, IRL, spend a lot of time cultivating what I consider to be virtues. It seems to me that virtue is that which contributes to one's own welfare without detracting from others' (human or otherwise). Forgiveness, compassion, clear thinking, forebearance, patience, generosity, good humor, peacefulness, goodwill, self-restraint, etc.

Back to the OP, I found this on the 'Do you hate Islam' thread and thought it would be appropriate here. If rationality were sexed up more often along these lines, and if...certain people...didn't so vehemently oppose exposing our youth to such, we could make a lot of progress towards a more rational society, seems.

[LaMont Cranston]

FBM, I joke around a lot too. If somebody gives me something that looks like a straight line, I'll often go for humor over giving the person a serious answer. I also find that humor is often a better way of dealing with angry, uptight people than getting all worked up and throwing a fit or something. I do get it that my idea of funny is not appreciated by everybody, but the posts we make on fora such as this one is not a popularity contest. From my point of view, my sense of humor was most definitely not appreciated on RS, and there seems to be a much more laid-back, party atmosphere on rationalia.

I agree with your list of virtues, and I'd add a few things like gratitude and joy to it. I took a look at the "Do you hate Islam" thread yesterday and feel pretty much the same way that you do. As a theist, I can find a lot of things I don't like about Islam, Christianity and other organized religions. However, I've also found that hating things and being angry does not serve me well. If we hate something or are angry, we are the ones carrying around the hate and anger, and carrying around that negativity effects us.

I not suggesting that anybody cast a blind eye to the problems of the world. I have to expend energy to get to a more postitive place every day of my life, but the expenditure of energy is worth it. It also takes at least the same amount of energy to be filled with negativity. Getting to a more positive, optimistic place is far more rewarding.

[LaMont Cranston]

mm, OK, it's morning, and I'm drinking my coffee, so here goes...

I have no problem with either definition that you gave for rationality. We also have Surendra's thing about constraints, people being sick of crossing the street, etc.

One of the things I've noticed on some of the threads, particularly on RDF, is that some people insist that there must be one catch-all definition for an idea or a concept. On RDF, I started a thread about hedonism, and some people threw fits because we never agreed on a "one size fits all" definition for what hedonism is about. I contended, and I still do, that some things like hedonism are more like large umbrellas that embrace thoughts, opinions, concepts, ideas, etc. about how to live a more pleasurable life. Some people agreed with me, but others could never get past the idea that we had to settle on one definition or else.

I feel the same way about rational thinking. Must all self-proclaimed rational thinkers come up with the same answers to the same questions? Quite obviously, they don't. For the time being...or until somebody can offer me something better...I'm going to go with the viewpoint that being rational is about using one's intelligence to make those choices that can better enhance your own life and the lives of others. I'm not saying that this is a complete and total defintion, but it does fall under the umbrella that constitutes being rational.

In your first definition, they use the word "sane." In the second definition, they mention "all decisions, crazy or sane." Whoa! Does that mean that a rational thinker, a person who reasons, can weigh the costs against benefits and come up with crazy answers? If that's true, it would appear that a person who comes up with a crazy decision has made a rational choice. Sorry, but I'm not buying it.

Look, if I beat my wife or kick dogs (I don't do those things), I can know that I'm going to experience negative consequences, both expected and unexpected. Among those consequences are the following:
1-I'm going to feel like shit
2-Either of those acts is going to negatively impact my marriage
3-I stand a pretty good chance of talking to the police and/or the SPCA, going to jail, etc.
4-I will have a reputation among those who hear about what I've done of being an asshole, a jerk, violent, etc.
5-One of my wife's friends and/or a dog lover might kick my ass
6-Whatever else happens
So, as a rational thinker, how tough is it to know that it will not serve my best interests to do either of those things? Hey, I can offer some lame excuses (i.e. "My wife or dog needed to be disciplined," "I was really motivated by love," etc.) but I have still commited acts that go against my own code of morals and ethics.

I do completely agree with you that there are people who are more skilled at weighing costs vs benefits than others. Those people make better, saner choices in many areas of their lives...potentially all of them. I think those people are very sexy.

[Surendra Darathy]

Must all self-proclaimed rational thinkers come up with the same answers to the same questions? Quite obviously, they don't. For the time being...or until somebody can offer me something better...I'm going to go with the viewpoint that being rational is about using one's intelligence to make those choices that can better enhance your own life and the lives of others. I'm not saying that this is a complete and total defintion, but it does fall under the umbrella that constitutes being rational.

Not really, LaMont. It comes under the umbrella that constitutes "being sociable". When you talk about "enhancement", I get the feeling you're just talking about whether your choices help you get along with the people with whom you get along. I, for example, don't get on well with people whose exercise of language consists dominantly of emitting fatuous platitudes. And they don't get on well with me, largely because I honestly give them my opinion of the value of fatuous platitudes.

Internet forums afford excellent and regular opportunities to confront people about their fatuous platitudes.

Look, if I beat my wife or kick dogs (I don't do those things), I can know that I'm going to experience negative consequences, both expected and unexpected. Among those consequences are the following:

So, as a rational thinker, how tough is it to know that it will not serve my best interests to do either of those things? Hey, I can offer some lame excuses (i.e. "My wife or dog needed to be disciplined," "I was really motivated by love," etc.) but I have still commited acts that go against my own code of morals and ethics.

Bravo, LaMont. You're able to connect the dots enough to know that if you violate civil and criminal codes and get caught for it, you will suffer consequences. Hurrah. You're educable and not a psychopath.

In your first definition, they use the word "sane." In the second definition, they mention "all decisions, crazy or sane." Whoa! Does that mean that a rational thinker, a person who reasons, can weigh the costs against benefits and come up with crazy answers? If that's true, it would appear that a person who comes up with a crazy decision has made a rational choice. Sorry, but I'm not buying it.

One can reason in a perfectly orderly process from a set of lousy assumptions to a set of equally-lousy conclusions. No errors in thinking appear in such a circumstance except by virtue of one's not having been critical enough of one's axioms.

If you get bad results from orderly thinking, it's the axioms that are the problem. Hint: Minimize the number of axioms you require (parsimony), and rely on empirical evidence to begin your thinking process. Sure, if you get good results in your social interactions, it means you have figured out who your peeps are, by empirical means. Unless you want to go into "tells", which are empirical as well. Be on the lookout for them, but don't forget that you've got some of your own.

It's a waste of time to steal from a thief. (That's fatuous platitude #11856.)

Fatuous Platitude #5841: It takes all kinds to make a world.

Fatuous Platitude #3919: There's more than one fish in the pan. Or something like that.

[mm_ll]

LaMont, thanks for the detailed response.

...some people insist that there must be one catch-all definition for an idea or a concept

I'm "almost" one of them, except that instead of insisting in 'one', I am ok with with 'any' and just one definition. It is language, right? if the word 'reason' means something to you and a different thing to me, we could have endless debates, get angry, etc, and in the end not achieve anything. My assumption here is that we want to achieve something (a deeper understanding, etc), but if the debate is just for entertainment then I prefer to have those debates in a bar surrounded by girls and beers (I hope you are not offended...).

When you talk about "enhancement", I get the feeling you're just talking about whether your choices help you get along with the people with whom you get along. I, for example, don't get on well with people whose exercise of language consists dominantly of emitting fatuous platitudes.

Surendra, I share your point that LaMont has a high focus on "getting along", and you don't. If my assumption that you referred to him as the "people" with "platitudes" is correct, then I can infer that you would not get along with him. (however, I still cannot explain how LaMont is not searching for popularity...)

One can reason in a perfectly orderly process from a set of lousy assumptions to a set of equally-lousy conclusions. No errors in thinking appear in such a circumstance except by virtue of one's not having been critical enough of one's axioms.

Loved it!

Let's make a math model out of it:
- Defining Reason = orderly process
- Assumptions + Reason = Decision

You say:
- IF Assumption is "wrong", THEN decision can be "lousy"
- Recommendation: check your assumptions, then you will not make lousy decisions.

LaMont says:
- Defining Reason = using one's intelligence to make those choices that can better enhance your own life and the lives of others
- THEN, Assumptions + Reason = GOOD Decisions, or...
- "it would appear that a person who comes up with a crazy decision has made a rational choice", which EQUALS TO
- BAD Decisions must be associated with NOT reasonable people
- Recommendation: let's all be reasonable

and I say:
- Defining Reason = orderly process, AND
- Assumptions + Reason = Decision, AND
- we all use assumptions and reasons in our decisions, AND
- we want to maximize something in your decisions, some people want to get along, others want to maximize a specific goal, THEN
- Recommendation: we want to be aware of this process, so we are efficient in maximizing whatever we want to maximize with the proper dose of assumptions and reasoning.

I do completely agree with you that there are people who are more skilled at weighing costs vs benefits than others. Those people make better, saner choices in many areas of their lives...potentially all of them. I think those people are very sexy.

On a positive note (ie, agreement), it seems to be a good thing to learn those skills. However, the 'better and saner'' may have also the assumption component... so I'd add to that (as inspired by Surendra): be aware of your assumptions, and you make 'better' decisions (again, as compared to certain goals)

Must all self-proclaimed rational thinkers...

You bring that many times... "self-proclaimed"... and "the real rationals". Are there people 'proud' of being rational thinkers? I'm sure there are many. So in order to understand this we need to understand what is behind the 'brand' of being rational. Maybe they are using your definition: "Hello, I'm a rational, therefore I hope you see me as a person that makes better and sane decisions. What about you? I'm an atheist, so I hope you see me as a person that constantly checks my assumptions, and therefore I make better decisions too!

time to go... I think I'm inspired today... thanks for your inspiration.
mm

[LaMont Cranston]

mm, I enjoyed your post very much. Why would I be offended by having these discussions/debates in a place where we'd be surrounded by girls and beer? It sounds like a good idea to me, but I'm under the impression that we are thousands of miles apart. If we are ever in the same place, bring on the girls and beer...assuming our wives approve, at least about the girls being there.

You mention achieving certain goals. Among my goals are the following:
1-Have an ever-better relationship with my wife
2-Have ever-better relationships with other people
3-Pursue my creative energies in writing and other areas
4-Do some things, in my own small way, to make the world a better place
5-Live a comfortable enough life so that money isn't too much of a problem, there's good food around, a non-leaky roof over my head and I have at least adequate access to such material things as TVs, computers, music, transportation, etc.
Mind you, these are some, not all of my goals, and I'm doing pretty good with all of them except for the part about the leaky roof. We are just getting around to dealing with that. It wouldn't come as a complete shock if you and quite a few other people had similar goals. What I've been saying is that we can and do use principles of rational thinking to achieve these goals. If these principles were more appealing to more people, rationality tells me that the world would be a better place.

Do I have a high focus on "getting along?" From your perspective...and who knows what Surendra really thinks...that's probably true. I've always found it quite easy to meet people, and I'm genuinely interested in what people are about. As for "searching for popularity," as a theist, why would I join atheist forums and get thrown off of one of them if I was searching for popularity? I've actually met one person via the internet. Steve and I had lunch at a Thai restaurant when I was in California, and he's a very nice, likeable guy. However, I would think it would be totally irrational on my part to think I might achieve popularity on this forum or any other. Fortunately, that's not even close to being a goal of mine. I think it's safe to assume that Surendra and I would not get along if we ever met, but it's highly unlikely that's ever going to happen, and neither of us is going to shed any tears about it.

I totally agree with you that it's a good idea, a rational kind of thing, to be aware of our assumptions. From what I can tell, you, I and Surendra agree on at least that point. Yes, I do use "self-proclaimed" and other words in reference to people who claim they are rational. Richard Dawkins was one of the leading spokespeople for rational thinking on the planett. He threw an emotional fit and now comes across as appearing to be thin-skinned, disloyal, irrational and a bunch of other things that have damaged his image and his reputation. As I've said, the fact that somebody touts themselves or the virtues of rationality doesn't mean they are rational thinkers. I find that many of these people are rigid thinkers who wish they were rational.

If I have had any part in inspiring you, I'm glad. See you soon...

[LaMont Cranston]

Surendra, My goodness, you seem to be a fellow who collects fatuous platitudes. You've got them in the thousands, even individually numbered. My, my, isn't that a rational thing to do?

Actually, I may be educable...if fact, I enjoy watching educable when I'm not watching HBO, ESPN or some of those other channels...but I probably am a psychopath. Years ago, I was talking to a psychiatrist, and I asked him "OK, Doctor, what kind of crazy am I?" He gave me an evasive answer and claimed he didn't use labels like bi-polar, psychopath, etc. Some time later, I figured out that I probably was a functional psychopath (and, I might add, there's quite a few of us around). What that means is that I don't think that I am bound by the supposed rules of the society (or constraints, to use your word), but I'm rational enough to function in that society, make friends, earn a living, stay out of jail (so far), etc. Your assumption that I'm not a psychopath is an incorrect conclusion on your part...sorry about that. (Well, I'm not really sorry at all.)

Maybe your axioms are the problem. Hint: increase the number of axioms you're willing to consider since it might be irrational to assume, going in, that you have any idea what you require. Yes, people have "tells." Isn't poker a truly wonderful game? Of course being able to read "tells" is empirical. What you failed to mention is that some people develop deliberate "tells" so that the chumps they're playing with think they are getting a true read on the cards the "teller" is holding. It's kind of like what Muhammed Ali did to George Foreman in "The Rumble In The Jungle." You know, "Rope-A-Dope..."

PS: You managed to make it through a post without mentioning spoonbending, woo or wibble. I believe that might be a record for you.

[LaMont Cranston]

Surendra, I'd like to thank you for being a source of inspiration too. Please keep giving me those straight lines.

I just took a look at your collection of fatuous platitudes. #6128 says "Some people are smart fellows, some people are fart smellows and never the twain shall meet." Ain't that the truth!

[Sisifo]

May I suggest that a thread that continuously shows 3 or 4 posts in a row from the same user, with an average of 20 "I , me, myself" per post, and such depht of analysis as "I feel" and "some people" should be moved out from "Serious Stuff" and put into "The Pub"?

There was the comment that some philosophic threads are like a dog chasing its own tail, but this one seems more like a dog licking its own balls.

[mm_ll]

You mention achieving certain goals. Among my goals are the following:
1-Have an ever-better relationship with my wife
2-Have ever-better relationships with other people
3-Pursue my creative energies in writing and other areas
4-Do some things, in my own small way, to make the world a better place
5-Live a comfortable enough life so that money isn't too much of a problem

LaMont, Thanks for sharing your goals. That tells me who you are, and helps me understand your arguments. I recently started working on my list of life goals, and I'm not ready to share them yet. I guess if I did I'd be exposing myself to a level that I am not prepared to handle, but apparently you do.

Do I have a high focus on "getting along?" From your perspective...and who knows what Surendra really thinks...that's probably true. ... As for "searching for popularity," as a theist, why would I join atheist forums and get thrown off of one of them if I was searching for popularity?

My theory... you are highly skilled in terms of rationality... so you can argument with the many rational people which are the majority on this forum. You use reasonable arguments to show how a rational person can believe in god, that does not surprise me, but I can see how it can piss some people off.
Then you insist that our 'hero' RD is not rational as we want him to be (has anyone asked him this question?). As a result, some of us get pissed off. By the way, you keep bringing RDF and RS back ( I'm starting to question your forgiveness power...), so, I don't know if it helps, but you were not banned from other forums because of the majority of people there. What happened is that you just pissed off one or two people (ie, starr and menph) that had enough power to lock and ban you, that has nothing to do with the other members of the forum. Oh, I can also think that some may also not like when they perceive they are receiving free counseling and advise, so they reacted by calling it preaching. That is why I am trying to do the same thing with you right now just to see how you react...

Moving forward: I'd welcome feedback on my 'recommendation' from the previous post. Do you agree? is it BS? I am telling you how to live your life and I get no reaction?
ML

[mm_ll]

May I suggest that a thread that continuously shows 3 or 4 posts in a row from the same user, with an average of 20 "I , me, myself" per post, and such depht of analysis as "I feel" and "some people" should be moved out from "Serious Stuff" and put into "The Pub"?

There was the comment that some philosophic threads are like a dog chasing its own tail, but this one seems more like a dog licking its own balls.

Sisifo, just to understand, what are you trying to achieve? are you concerned with the fact that other people may come to 'serious stuff' section and find themselves wasting their time on "I feel" discussions? you apparently already read the posts, so this is a time you will never get back in your life, but why are you so concerned about other users? are you a moderator concerned about what is going on in here?
mm.

My edit on the next day: Please disregard my response above. I realized that I was having an 'emotional event', as I assumed the post was a personal attack to me... now, after challenging the assumption (there is no data) and using more reason... I made the decision to change my response to

"Sisifo, I don't see how the "I and feel" words make the subject less serius, therefore I suggest to keep the threaad where it is.

[Ronja]

Who wants to hang around with a Vulcan ?

IMO, Vulcans are very sexy - and so is Data. Then again, I'm happily married to a physicist...

[charlou]

The rationality is looking very sexy in this thread.

[LaMont Cranston]

mm, OK, it's another morning, and I'm back with my coffee...

I've been thinking about a number of things you've brought up. You mentioned something about these fora being a form of entertainment. I must admit that's part of the reason I'm here. Let's face it, this is a free and relatively anonymous way to exchange ideas and viewpoints with people from all over the world. What's also true is that I'm quite interested in the subjects that are discussed here. I really am an enthusiastic seeker of knowledge and hope to be one for the rest of my life.

As for revealing life goals, this is an anonymous forum, and other than having some people get upset with me and attempt to throw insults my way, I don't see where there's any risk in discussing that kind of thing. If you've noticed, I respond to a lot of attempted insults with humor...or, make that my version of humor.

My desire to "get along" with people is mostly based on real life experience, but it's also backed up by a lot of psychology, philosophy, etc. I've been involved in uncountable stupid arguments and disagreements in my life, and I found that it produced unhappy results. When I became seriously interested in doing research on what love was about, I started to check out what Buddha, Jesus and others had to say about the subject. I had never given much thought to "turning the other cheek," but to the extent I'd thought about it, I thought it was a stupid thing to do. In real life, I have found it to be a much better thing to do than getting into those idiotic arguments. I'm not about to get into preaching (as you know, I often get accused of that), but if anybody would like to take the religious window dressing off of the table and consider what "turning the other cheek" might be about as a rational act, I'm willing to do that.

I do not know if I'm "highly skilled" at rationality, but I do find it pretty easy to pick up the "tells" of many people. Obviously, Sisifo's feathers have been ruffled, and Surendra has some serious axes to grind. When I was on RDF, I often said that RD had compiled a brilliant body of work, and I found him to be rather arrogant and pompous. Since his meltdown, he has been the subject of much unhappy discussion by those who feel he betrayed them in some way. I never had him as a hero or a role model, so I have neither anger or betrayal going. However, he is currently the best example of somebody who proclaimed himself to be a "clear and rational thinker," who isn't.

I'd say it's reasonable for you to question my forgiveness power, my motives or anything else. I'm under the impression that no problems exist between Meph and myself. I actually think it's kind of funny that I was permabanned from RS, but I don't see any point in bearing ill will toward those people. If I use their anger and uptightness as an example, it's merely to illustrate a point.

Yes, I can definitely piss off some people. How dare somebody who is a theist join forums such as these? What kind of egomaniac would conceive of something like "The God Game?" (The fact that it ran for over a `1000 posts and had to be locked on two forums indicates it was both appealing to some people and quite threatening to others.) What kind of guy would throw Muhammed Ali's line "I can float like a butterfly and sting like a bee" in the faces of those who are already angry at him in these cyber-temples?

Whether you want to believe it or not, I do the best I can to neither preach nor give free advice or counseling. As I've said, I don't preach, I describe and consider options. I think free advice and counseling is worth exactly what people pay for it. I'm not trying to be Dear Abby, Dr. Phil or anybody else. What I do think is that people can preach, offer counseling and advice, etc., and people are still going to make up their own minds and do what they want to do.

I tell you what. I do want to get back to you about your recommendation from that post, and I will do that. I've got to go do some other things right now, but I'll see you in awhile...