I’ll concede that my explanation is very simplified, but the nuance has more to do with how the brain pulls together its story-telling material, which is predominantly from associations and experiences and practiced knowledge/actively reinforced education.
But for the vast majority of people who feel things, the brain just hastily assembles an explanation for those feelings on the fly, from materials “laying around” and that path of least resistance is usually whatever is on the surface of an issue or feeling, and that can be a defaulting to a supplied narrative “You’re poor and can’t succeed because immigrants ate your cat.” or it can be tied to your past “You’re suffering because girls are bad, per that one girl who was mean to you in 5th grade.”
And while there is complexity to it, we’re talking about population groups more than individual capacity to be rational.
and throughout human history, cooperation based on rational thought
My turn to push back. I am talking from experience talking to psychologists and reading about brains so it’s only partially out of my ass, but I don’t think cooperation is at ALL required to be based on rational thought, in fact most of our cooperation is based on survival impulses and hardwired defenses, which is why so much cooperative action is based around violence and fear through history. The fact that we can cooperate at all to build bridges and Arby’s restaurants and fiber-optic networks has far more to do with the vision of a small group with more advanced conceptualization using primitive tools to move large numbers of people. (Primitive tool: We pay you to build fiber-optics so that you can eat and not die.) But the thousands of people involved in the project aren’t emotionally tied to the feeling of completion when the last line is laid.
And for the most part, most of our successes and modern world has been built on more of a process of gradual trial and error than a logical plan being seen through from start to finish, of the unsuccessful cooperative actions getting left behind and the successful ones shaping the world. And we define success as that which gives us a more comfortable life with less suffering… so that alone should tell us how flawed this process can be. We are broadly using this overpowered skill of cooperative action for self-preservation, not community preservation, and logic rarely needs to apply.
I wasn’t very clear about the cooperation part. What I mean wasn’t that you have to be rational to cooperate. What I’m saying is that you have to be rational to plan out things that take dozens or hundreds of years and effectively utilize the cooperation of thousands of individuals who are all looking to solve the same problem.
You are using modern societal issues like inequality as evidence that we aren’t rational, but I dispute that strongly. Those problems used to be much, much worse, literally because the ruling class used a rational but evil plan to take care of themselves. Because of rational working class fighting back in a very organized and rational manner at a few different points in history, we made progress against them. We don’t have a 40 hour work week or OSHA in America because a bunch of emotional and angry public kept trying random things without a thought. We have those things from planning and hard work. Both are examples of being entirely rational.
I think we’re saying the same thing but coming to different conclusions.
I see our successes as a species as examples of trial and error and the efforts of the minority in manipulating the masses and see this as an example of why we will never rise above the same problems coming up over and over again, because our minds are inherently flawed and primitive.
You are seeing this as an example of how progressive politics actually succeeds. And I don’t argue that either, but I’m saying we’re going to having these same fights in 200 years, while our species is mostly huddled in the alleys and shadows of those titanic beings with upgraded minds and thinking capacity, if we even get far enough to build our descendant species.
I have almost no hope for our future in our present form. Something will see a better tomorrow, either an upgraded version of ourselves or some new entity unlike anything else that has lived on Earth. But it won’t be us, we don’t even know what a better future means broadly. We cling to stories and explanations to explain feelings originating in 500,000 years of ice-age survival and fighting each other.
I thought were were discussing rationality. It seems like you are saying humans are not rational because they are also irrational, and I’m saying that the only reason we exist as we do today is because of lots of rational plans and decisions. Ultimately we’re both rational and irrational as a species. The fact that it’s much harder to argue that we’re rational in this current moment in time is what vexes me. It’s definitely a change. Facts made a much bigger impact 20 years ago.
I’m just saying that they only did because we had social pressure on us to respect facts, because we still largely functioned in large social groups. People don’t actually care if facts are real and rational and good or make sense, they care far, far more about if their tribe-mates are going to make fun of them for not knowing the right facts according to that tribe. I firmly believe that the only thing that makes the majority of people respect reality is the pressure to conform so they don’t lose social standing or worse, be expelled from the tribe.
Now that we have atomization, our realities are entirely flexible and we don’t suffer for it, if anything we find these pseudo-tribes of invisible people to populate our heads online who will validate even the most irrational thoughts, so our driving motivation to respect shared reality just isn’t there anymore, or is dwindling rapidly at large scales.
I’ll concede that my explanation is very simplified, but the nuance has more to do with how the brain pulls together its story-telling material, which is predominantly from associations and experiences and practiced knowledge/actively reinforced education.
But for the vast majority of people who feel things, the brain just hastily assembles an explanation for those feelings on the fly, from materials “laying around” and that path of least resistance is usually whatever is on the surface of an issue or feeling, and that can be a defaulting to a supplied narrative “You’re poor and can’t succeed because immigrants ate your cat.” or it can be tied to your past “You’re suffering because girls are bad, per that one girl who was mean to you in 5th grade.”
And while there is complexity to it, we’re talking about population groups more than individual capacity to be rational.
My turn to push back. I am talking from experience talking to psychologists and reading about brains so it’s only partially out of my ass, but I don’t think cooperation is at ALL required to be based on rational thought, in fact most of our cooperation is based on survival impulses and hardwired defenses, which is why so much cooperative action is based around violence and fear through history. The fact that we can cooperate at all to build bridges and Arby’s restaurants and fiber-optic networks has far more to do with the vision of a small group with more advanced conceptualization using primitive tools to move large numbers of people. (Primitive tool: We pay you to build fiber-optics so that you can eat and not die.) But the thousands of people involved in the project aren’t emotionally tied to the feeling of completion when the last line is laid.
And for the most part, most of our successes and modern world has been built on more of a process of gradual trial and error than a logical plan being seen through from start to finish, of the unsuccessful cooperative actions getting left behind and the successful ones shaping the world. And we define success as that which gives us a more comfortable life with less suffering… so that alone should tell us how flawed this process can be. We are broadly using this overpowered skill of cooperative action for self-preservation, not community preservation, and logic rarely needs to apply.
I wasn’t very clear about the cooperation part. What I mean wasn’t that you have to be rational to cooperate. What I’m saying is that you have to be rational to plan out things that take dozens or hundreds of years and effectively utilize the cooperation of thousands of individuals who are all looking to solve the same problem.
You are using modern societal issues like inequality as evidence that we aren’t rational, but I dispute that strongly. Those problems used to be much, much worse, literally because the ruling class used a rational but evil plan to take care of themselves. Because of rational working class fighting back in a very organized and rational manner at a few different points in history, we made progress against them. We don’t have a 40 hour work week or OSHA in America because a bunch of emotional and angry public kept trying random things without a thought. We have those things from planning and hard work. Both are examples of being entirely rational.
I think we’re saying the same thing but coming to different conclusions.
I see our successes as a species as examples of trial and error and the efforts of the minority in manipulating the masses and see this as an example of why we will never rise above the same problems coming up over and over again, because our minds are inherently flawed and primitive.
You are seeing this as an example of how progressive politics actually succeeds. And I don’t argue that either, but I’m saying we’re going to having these same fights in 200 years, while our species is mostly huddled in the alleys and shadows of those titanic beings with upgraded minds and thinking capacity, if we even get far enough to build our descendant species.
I have almost no hope for our future in our present form. Something will see a better tomorrow, either an upgraded version of ourselves or some new entity unlike anything else that has lived on Earth. But it won’t be us, we don’t even know what a better future means broadly. We cling to stories and explanations to explain feelings originating in 500,000 years of ice-age survival and fighting each other.
I thought were were discussing rationality. It seems like you are saying humans are not rational because they are also irrational, and I’m saying that the only reason we exist as we do today is because of lots of rational plans and decisions. Ultimately we’re both rational and irrational as a species. The fact that it’s much harder to argue that we’re rational in this current moment in time is what vexes me. It’s definitely a change. Facts made a much bigger impact 20 years ago.
I’m just saying that they only did because we had social pressure on us to respect facts, because we still largely functioned in large social groups. People don’t actually care if facts are real and rational and good or make sense, they care far, far more about if their tribe-mates are going to make fun of them for not knowing the right facts according to that tribe. I firmly believe that the only thing that makes the majority of people respect reality is the pressure to conform so they don’t lose social standing or worse, be expelled from the tribe.
Now that we have atomization, our realities are entirely flexible and we don’t suffer for it, if anything we find these pseudo-tribes of invisible people to populate our heads online who will validate even the most irrational thoughts, so our driving motivation to respect shared reality just isn’t there anymore, or is dwindling rapidly at large scales.
You might be onto something here. I’m not sure though. I have a feeling it’s complicated and something we won’t fully understand any time soon.