Was Spock meant to actually “be rational”? Re-watching the show recently, “Spock really, really wants to think of himself as rational” seems a much better description.
I haven’t watched the show, but I’ve sometimes seen essays from people saying that Kirk, Spock, and Bones represent “body, mind, and spirit.” And whatever the creators’ intentions, there does seem to be a popular misconception that rationalists or rational people or both act like Spock.
I agree that there is a popular conception as you say, but I think Spock works more effectively as a warning against rational attire as opposed to rationality. I don’t actually know the creators’ intentions. I just think than when Spock admonishes Kirk for his illogical play in making the winning move in a chess game early on, it’s plain enough what’s up—although maybe it’s my trouble imagining a rational theory of chess wherein the correct move is one other than the one that puts your opponent in checkmate.
I can’t find any authoritative discussion of Spock’s intended purpose. I asked someone who’s seen the show in as non-loaded a way as I could, and ey said that Spock was generally intended to be perceived as rational, and that the chess games in particular are often a metaphor for the action of the episode. McCoy and Spock often function as Kirk’s System 1 and System 2, giving him advice that he combines into an instrumentally rational decision. I agree that Spock is often a good example of what not to do.
there does seem to be a popular misconception that rationalists or rational people or both act like Spock.
I suspect there a reasonable amount of truth to this belief. At least I suspect Spock was a reasonable caricature of the type of self-proclaimed “rational people” prevalent during the 50s and 60s.
That’s an interesting take. I think one might view the character traits as managing emotion by deep suppression that leads to a purely analytic mind view, distances and a bit dispassionate about “life values”, so have become fully comfortable with the types of calculations that amount to “it is fine to kill 100 people if 1,000 are saved”.
As you note, that is not actually rational but might produce the appearance of rationality given the calculated maximizing/optimizing type of decision-making that replaces (suppresses?) the emotional response and any empathy to life in the specific, individual cases.
I do think the theme of rational calculation versus human emotion, how they are often interdependent and other explorations was present throughout most episodes (I’m not sure it was captured in the movies as well).
This makes me think a third from of rationality is perhaps worth noting—though one could certainly argue if can be subsumed under one of both of others. I think emotional rationality is worth perhaps keeping in mind—but also can view this more as emotional maturity which then is achieve via epistemic and instrumental rationality.
But then considering the diagram where emotion is interfering with the rational relation between goal and action the pose seems to be taking a bit of the same approach as the Vulcan (and so I think missing something about being rational). While I agree the emotions can induce us to do imprudent things we regret later but am not sure the extreme view of emotions conflict/oppose rationality is right. I think more thought in that area would be fruitful for those seeking to improve the decisions making processes they find have grown in their own head and how to improve those processes. (I know there have been some posts in this area on LW but no time to search an link here.)
This said, I have found this a good post to read and appreciate it having been shared.
First, was Spock rational or just wanted to think himself rational. I am not completely sure that was the underlying character trait of Vulcan’s in the show—though also agree that much can support it. Seems like their history was that of excessive passion, apparently to an uncontrollable and very destructive level. Their solution seems to have been to suppress their emotions, and so the passion, which then left the purely intellectual response to the external world and their own thinking/decisions.
Since I don’t see emotion and rationality as either opposites or necessarily antagonistic to one another I wonder if considering rationality through a third lens—epistemic, instrumental and emotional might help lead to some better decision-making than placing them in opposition. Principle #4 gets at this with the diagrams showing them as opposing but the argument questioning that approach. (I actually missed on this bit in my first comment.)
Was Spock meant to actually “be rational”? Re-watching the show recently, “Spock really, really wants to think of himself as rational” seems a much better description.
I haven’t watched the show, but I’ve sometimes seen essays from people saying that Kirk, Spock, and Bones represent “body, mind, and spirit.” And whatever the creators’ intentions, there does seem to be a popular misconception that rationalists or rational people or both act like Spock.
I agree that there is a popular conception as you say, but I think Spock works more effectively as a warning against rational attire as opposed to rationality. I don’t actually know the creators’ intentions. I just think than when Spock admonishes Kirk for his illogical play in making the winning move in a chess game early on, it’s plain enough what’s up—although maybe it’s my trouble imagining a rational theory of chess wherein the correct move is one other than the one that puts your opponent in checkmate.
I can’t find any authoritative discussion of Spock’s intended purpose. I asked someone who’s seen the show in as non-loaded a way as I could, and ey said that Spock was generally intended to be perceived as rational, and that the chess games in particular are often a metaphor for the action of the episode. McCoy and Spock often function as Kirk’s System 1 and System 2, giving him advice that he combines into an instrumentally rational decision. I agree that Spock is often a good example of what not to do.
I suspect there a reasonable amount of truth to this belief. At least I suspect Spock was a reasonable caricature of the type of self-proclaimed “rational people” prevalent during the 50s and 60s.
That’s an interesting take. I think one might view the character traits as managing emotion by deep suppression that leads to a purely analytic mind view, distances and a bit dispassionate about “life values”, so have become fully comfortable with the types of calculations that amount to “it is fine to kill 100 people if 1,000 are saved”.
As you note, that is not actually rational but might produce the appearance of rationality given the calculated maximizing/optimizing type of decision-making that replaces (suppresses?) the emotional response and any empathy to life in the specific, individual cases.
I do think the theme of rational calculation versus human emotion, how they are often interdependent and other explorations was present throughout most episodes (I’m not sure it was captured in the movies as well).
This makes me think a third from of rationality is perhaps worth noting—though one could certainly argue if can be subsumed under one of both of others. I think emotional rationality is worth perhaps keeping in mind—but also can view this more as emotional maturity which then is achieve via epistemic and instrumental rationality.
But then considering the diagram where emotion is interfering with the rational relation between goal and action the pose seems to be taking a bit of the same approach as the Vulcan (and so I think missing something about being rational). While I agree the emotions can induce us to do imprudent things we regret later but am not sure the extreme view of emotions conflict/oppose rationality is right. I think more thought in that area would be fruitful for those seeking to improve the decisions making processes they find have grown in their own head and how to improve those processes. (I know there have been some posts in this area on LW but no time to search an link here.)
This said, I have found this a good post to read and appreciate it having been shared.
The way you commented it is not clear what you are referring to. I did not understand your comment because I did not get “where you were coming from”.
First, was Spock rational or just wanted to think himself rational. I am not completely sure that was the underlying character trait of Vulcan’s in the show—though also agree that much can support it. Seems like their history was that of excessive passion, apparently to an uncontrollable and very destructive level. Their solution seems to have been to suppress their emotions, and so the passion, which then left the purely intellectual response to the external world and their own thinking/decisions.
Since I don’t see emotion and rationality as either opposites or necessarily antagonistic to one another I wonder if considering rationality through a third lens—epistemic, instrumental and emotional might help lead to some better decision-making than placing them in opposition. Principle #4 gets at this with the diagrams showing them as opposing but the argument questioning that approach. (I actually missed on this bit in my first comment.)