Kouran

• Kouran 5 Jan 2012 14:01 UTC

  0 points

  in reply to: TheOtherDave’s comment on: Wel­come to Less Wrong! (2012)

  Wow.… I’m surprised and glad. Thanks for being open to criticism.

• Kouran 4 Jan 2012 17:43 UTC

  0 points

  in reply to: TimS’s comment on: Wel­come to Less Wrong! (2012)

  That’s what we’ve been saying. Not all of a person’s thoughts are rational. And I certainly don’t assert someone can easily think themselves out of being depressed or anxious.

  My point there wasn’t that people’s thoughts aren’t all rational, though I agree with that. My point was that not all human actions are tied to thoughts or intentions. There are habits, twitches, there is emotional momentum driving people to do things they’d never dream of and may regret for the rest of their lives. People often don’t think in the first place.

  Once that is established, what further insight is contained in the assertion that rationality itself is socially constructed?

  I think that, when one’s goal is to improve and spread rationality, a elementary questions should be: When, and under which circumstances does a person think? How does a social situation affect your thinking? So instead of just asking how do we think and how do we improve that? It could also be usefull to ask when do we think and how do we improve that?

  At some point in the future we could then inform people of the kind of social environment they might build to help them better formulate and achieve goals. Like people with anger problems being taught to ‘stop! And count to ten’ other people might be taught to think at certain recognisable critical moments they currently tend to walk past without realising.

• Kouran 4 Jan 2012 17:26 UTC

  0 points

  in reply to: thomblake’s comment on: Wel­come to Less Wrong! (2012)

  You may be right in that the argument comes more from a concern with how a broader public relates to the term of ´rational´ than how it is used in the mentioned disciplines.

  On the other hand I feel that the broader public is relevant here. LessWrong isn´t that small a community and I suspect people have quite some emotional attachment to this place, as they use it as a guide to alter their thinking. By calling all things that are usefull in this way ‘rational’ I think you’d be confusing the term. It could lead to rationality turning into a generic substitute for ‘good’ or ‘decent’. To me, that seems harmfull to an agenda of improving people’s rational thinking.

• Kouran 4 Jan 2012 17:22 UTC

  −1 points

  in reply to: TimS’s comment on: Wel­come to Less Wrong! (2012)

  Here I agree almost fully! My problem is that people aren’t fully rational beings. That some of the people might want to take lessons on some level but don’t can’t be attributed only to their thoughts, but to their emotional environment. A persons thoughts need to be mobilised into action for something to take part. Sometimes this is a point of a person needing more basic confidence, sometimes a person needs their thoughts mirrored at them and confirmed. As in, speaking with a friend who’ll encourage them. Thinking alone isn’t enough.

  I admire the community’s mission to try and change people. But by the same line of argument I use above I think focusing only on how people think and how they might think better is not going to be enough. I think rationality should also be viewed as a social construct.

• Kouran 4 Jan 2012 17:12 UTC

  −4 points

  in reply to: Vladimir_Nesov’s comment on: Wel­come to Less Wrong! (2012)

  I don’t think so, since that would be a trivial property that doesn’t indicate anything....

  I think it would indicate that not every action is being thought over. That some things a person does which lead to the achievement of a goal may not have beent planned for or acknowledged. By calling all things that are usefull in this way ‘rational’ I think you’d be confusing the term. Making it into a generic substitute for ‘good’ or ‘decent’. To me, that seems harmfull to an agenda of improving people’s rational thinking.

  .>, for there is no alternative available.

  I would like to propose the alternatives of ‘beneficial’ and ‘usefull’. Otherwise we could consider ‘involvement in causality’ or something like that.

  I think the word rationality could use protection against too much emotional attachment to it. It should retain a specific meaning instead of becoming ‘everything that’s usefull’.

• Kouran 4 Jan 2012 16:49 UTC

  1 point

  in reply to: TheOtherDave’s comment on: Wel­come to Less Wrong! (2012)

  Talking about whether a state of affairs that doesn’t involve any decisions is a rational state of affairs is confusing. People do talk this way sometimes, but I generally understand them to be saying that it is symptomatic of irrationality in whoever made the decisions that led to that state of affairs.

  What do you mean? Whose irrationality? Isn’t it more straightforward (it’s there among the ‘virtues of rationality’ no?) to just not call things ‘rational’ if they do not involve thinking?

• Kouran 4 Jan 2012 16:44 UTC

  1 point

  in reply to: thomblake’s comment on: Wel­come to Less Wrong! (2012)

  Thanks for your quick replies. Yes we are agreed in those two points. I’m going to try something that may come off as a little crude, but here goes:

  Point 1: If every act or process that helps me is to be called rational, then having a diëtician for a parent is rational. Point 2: The term rational implies involvement of the ‘ratio’, of thinking. Point 3: No rational thinking, or any thinking at all, is involved in acquiring one’s parents. Even adaptive parents tend to acquire their child, not the other way around. Conclusion; Something is wrong with saying that everything that leads to the attainment of a goal is rational.

  Perhaps another term should be used for things that help achieve goals but that do not involve thinking, let alone rational or logically sound thinking. This is important because thought is often overstated in the prevalence with which it occurs, and also in the causal weight that is attached to it. Thought is not omnipresent, and thought is often of minor importance in accurately explaining a social phenomenon.

• Kouran 4 Jan 2012 16:24 UTC

  1 point

  in reply to: thomblake’s comment on: Wel­come to Less Wrong! (2012)

  Whether a dietitian-parents could help you achieve all kinds of goals. Generally you’d be likely to have good health, you’re less likely to be obese. Healthy, well-fed people tend to be taller, a dietician could use diet changes to reduce acne problems and whatnot. It is generally accepted that healthy, tall, good-looking people have better chances at achieving all sorts of goals. Also, dieticians are relatively wealthy highly-educated people. A child of a dietician is a child of privilege, upper middle class!

  Anyway, my point is exactly that nobody can choose their parents.TimS said:

  Any act or process that helps with achieving goals is rational.

  I would consider parenthood a process. But having a certain set of parents instead of another has little to do with rationality, despite most parents being ‘usefull’. In the same way, I would not consider it rational to like singing, even though the acquired skills of breathing and voice manipulation might help you convey a higher status or help with public speaking. To decide to take singing lessons, if you want to become a public speaker, might be rational. But to simply enjoy singing shouldn’t be considered so, even if it does help with your public speaking. Because no rational thought is involved.

• Kouran 4 Jan 2012 15:50 UTC

  0 points

  in reply to: TimS’s comment on: Wel­come to Less Wrong! (2012)

  If ‘effective’ in the very loosest sense, is drawn into what is called rational, doesn’t that confuse the term?

  I mean, to my mind, having a diëtician for a parent ( leading to fortuitous fortitude which assist in the achievement of certain goals ) is not rational, because it is not something that is in any way tied to the ‘ratio’. This thing that helps you achieve goals is simply convenient or a privilege, not rational at all.

• Kouran 4 Jan 2012 15:41 UTC

  1 point

  in reply to: thomblake’s comment on: Wel­come to Less Wrong! (2012)

  By that definition you might say that, but that still leaves the problem I tend to adress, that rationality (and by the supplied definition also irrationality) is suscribe to people and actions where thinking quite likely did not take place or was not the deciding factor of what action came about in the end. It falsely divides human experience into ‘rational’ and ‘erroneously rational/​irrational’. Thinkin is nog all that goes on among humans.

• Kouran 4 Jan 2012 15:24 UTC

  0 points

  in reply to: lessdazed’s comment on: Wel­come to Less Wrong! (2012)

  Lessdazed,

  Thanks for your reply! I’m not quite sure how usefull that second quote you sent is. But if I ever do find a genie, I’ll be sure to ask it whether it pays attention to my volition, or even to make it my first wish that the genie pays attention to my volition when fulfilling my other wishes ;)

  My point in the section you quoted at the end of your post was not that there is a standard of rationality that people are deviating from. Closer to my views is that a standard of rationality is created, which deviates from people.

• Kouran 4 Jan 2012 15:11 UTC

  0 points

  in reply to: fburnaby’s comment on: Wel­come to Less Wrong! (2012)

  Fburnaby, thank you for the long reply.

  I’m replying to you now before reading your suggestions, I’ve not had the time so far. They’re on my list but for now I’d like to adress what you reply either way.

  The Joe Biden quote is very effective, and I agree with the general sentiment. But not with how that relates to questions of rationality. I tend to use rationality as any thinking at all. Illogical thinking is may be bad rationality, but it is still rationality. My objection to assuming rationality isn’t that you shouldn’t look at how these or those actions may have some sort of function. My criticism is that, that when you do observe that a certain function is served, you shouldn’t impose rationality upon the people involved. In my experience, as a bachelor of sociology and as a human being with a habit of self-reflection, people don’t act upon their thoughts, but much more upon their knowledge of how to act in certain situations, on their social ‘programming’ and emotions, on their various loyalties.

  We tend to define mankind as a being capable of thinking. I think we are wrong in this in the same way we would be wrong to define a scorpion as a being capable of making a venomous sting. The statement isn’t false, but most of the time the scorpion isn’t stinging anything. It’s just walking, sitting, eating, grabbing something with it’s claws. The stinging isn’t everything that’s going on, it’s not nearly even most of what’s going on.

  Thanks again for the reply, I’ll be looking around and I’ll try to add something where I think it is fruitfull.

  -Kouran

• Kouran 4 Jan 2012 14:52 UTC

  0 points

  in reply to: thomblake’s comment on: Wel­come to Less Wrong! (2012)

  Hello Thomblake,

  Thanks for the welcome! But I really can’t agree with your statement.

  Irrationality, which I would for now define as all human action and awareness that isn’t rational thinking or that doesn’t follow a rationally defined course of action, is not a ‘bug’; rather it’s most of the features that make us up and allow our continued existence. They make up a much greater part of what we are than those things/​ faculties or moments/​situations that we might call rational. And most of these deserve more respect than being called bugs. Especcially in an evolutionary perspective most of these traits and processes should definately be considered features to which we owe our continued existence. Often these things conflict with a rationality we hope to attain, but I think that at other times they are neccesary prerequisites to it. Emotions can be qualified, or ‘legitimated’ by reflexive rational thought, and we can try to purge emotions we deem to be personal hurdles, but still most of our lives take place outside the realm of rationality. Rationality should be used to improve the rest of our lives and to improve the way humankind is organised, how it organises it’s sphere of influence. I think it’s a mistake to think rationality could, or should, be everything we are.

• Kouran 4 Jan 2012 14:37 UTC

  0 points

  in reply to: orthonormal’s comment on: Wel­come to Less Wrong! (2012)

  Orthonormal, thank you for suggesting the Straw Vulcan talk to me. It was a fairly interesting talk I was encouraged to see rationality defined through various examples in a way that is useful, accepts emotionality and works with it. I did not myself have a Straw Vulcan view of rationality, far from it, but I do recognise a few of it’s flawed features in rationalistic social theories.

  However, even this speaker seemed to overstate people´s rationality. An example is given of teenagers doing dangerous things despite stating they consider the risks. The taking of the risk is attributed to flawed reasoning, miscalculation of risks and the like. From my perspective, it is much more likely that the teenagers considered the risks because they were warned against the behaviour and they realised that their peer group was about to do something their parent´s, guardians, etc. disagree with; the were somewhat anxious because they were aware of a moral conflict. However, their bond with the peer group, the emotional dynamic of the situation was not disrupted by the doubt, nor was it strong enough for them to exclude themselves from the situation (to leave), and so they took whatever risk they had pondered. I wouldn’t appropriate this to flawed thinking; as I see it the thinking was fairly irrelevant to the situation, as it seems to me that it is to most situations.

• Kouran 27 Dec 2011 17:09 UTC

  11 points

  on: Wel­come to Less Wrong! (2012)

  Hello Less Wrong community, I am Kouran.

  What follows may be a bit long, and maybe a little dramatic. I’m sorry if that is uncourteous, still I feel the following needs saying early on. Please bear with me.

  I’m a recently be-bachelored sociologist from the Netherlands, am male and in my early twenties. I consider myself a jack of several trades – among them writing, drawing, cooking and some musical hobbies – but master of none. However, I do entertain the hope that the various interests and skills add up to something effective, to my becoming someone in a position to help people who need it, and I intend to take action to approach this end.

  I found Less Wrong through the intriguing Harry Potter fanfiction story called ‘the Methods of Rationality.’ The story entertains me greatly, and the more abstract themes stimulate me and I find myself wishing to enter discussions regarding these matters. Instead of bothering the author of the story I decided to have a look here instead. Please note that I write this before having read any of the Sequences and only a few smaller articles. I intend to get on that soon, but as introductions go I feel it is better to present myself first. I hope you will forgive any offense the following section may give.

  My relation to rationalism is quite strained. I am more often in the position where I have to attack theories mostly concerned with rationality, than that I have to defend them. Often, I find arguments where people are assumed to be rational and to make informed choices are classist and uncritical of the way people are shaped by society and vice versa. Often the desirable outcome of an action or ‘strategy’ is taken to have been the goal that the actor deliberately attempted to attain. Often this is done at the cost of more likely explanations that make fewer unfounded assumptions. I do not at all mean that Less Wrong is implicated in this, in fact: I hope I am right to believe that quite the opposite is being attempted here, my point is that I am more used to denying people’s rationality in arguments than invoking it as a way to explain social life.

  That is not to say I deny that people can engage in rational thought. Rather, it appears to me that human beings are emotional, situationally defined social animals, much more than they are rational actors. Rational thought, as I see it, is something that occurs in certain relatively rare circumstances. And when it occurs it is always bound to people’s social, emotional, physical lives. Often it is group membership and identification, rather than a objective calculation of merit, that defines the outcome of a deliberation, when a deliberation even takes place at all.

  So then why am I here? For one thing, I would like to discuss these ideas with people who are knowledgeable about them, but who are also tolerant enough of dissidence that they’ll do so in a relaxed and well, rational, way. For another, I believe that more rationality, as truly rational as we can make it, will help our species get through the ages and improve upon the fate of it´s members and the other beings it dominates. The Methods of Rationality and what little I´ve seen of this community has led me to believe that, despite having a perspective that differs from mine, people at Less Wrong are aware of some of the ways in which people are inherently not rational. That rationality is something that needs to be promoted and created, not something that is already the dominant cause of human action. For a third, I cannot deny that I am a person who engages in a lot of thinking. Despite differing perspectives I believe this community may be able to help me develope. My ´story of origin´, if I am to present myself to you as a rationalist, involves a change in my views regarding the false or harmfull style of rationalism I mentioned earlier in this post. I once struggled with the idea that rationalism itself is to blame for perceived injustice and failings of modernity. But at some point I came to the conclusion that this is not the case. At fault is not a human rationality that will forever remain at odds with our emotions, and with those people who were not sufficiently introduced to rationality. People should be able to deliberate rationally while understanding that most of their being is disinclined to yield to abstract models and lofty humanist ideals. At fault is not rationalism or the imperfection of our brians, but incomplete and erroneous rationalism that is employed to serve people who have no need or appreciation for a critical eye cast upon themselves.

  I think the community of Less Wrong is very right to consider human rationality an art.

  I thank you for your patience,

  – Kouran.

  What links here?

  • [META] ‘Ra­tional’ vs ‘Op­ti­mized’ by TheOtherDave (4 Jan 2012 18:58 UTC; 44 points)