I think we’re missing a fairly basic definition of rationality, one that I think most people would intuitively come to. It involves the question at what stage evidence enters the decision-making calculus.
Rationality is a process: it involves making decisions after weighing all available evidence and calculating the ideal response. Relevant information is processed consciously [though see Clarification below] before decision is rendered.
This approach is opposed to a different, less conscious process, which are our instinctive and emotional responses to situations. In these situations, actual evidence doesn’t enter the conscious decision-making process; instead, our brains, having evolved over time to respond in certain ways to certain stimuli, automatically react in certain pre-programmed ways. Those ways aren’t random, of course, but adaptions to the ancestral environment. The key is that evidence specific to the situation isn’t actually weighed and measured: the response is based on the brain’s evolved automatic reaction.
Clarification: A process that is nearly automatic is still a rational process if it is the result of repeated training, rather than innate. For example, those who drive manual transmission cars will tell you that after a short while, you don’t think about shifting: you just do. It becomes “second nature.” This is still a conscious process: over time, you become trained to interpret information more efficiently and react quickly. This differs from the innate emotional and instinctive responses: we are instinctively attracted to beautiful people, for example, without having to learn it over and over again—it’s “first nature.” Though the responses are similar in appearance, I think most people would say that the former is rational, the latter is not.
I think we’re missing a fairly basic definition of rationality, one that I think most people would intuitively come to. It involves the question at what stage evidence enters the decision-making calculus.
Rationality is a process: it involves making decisions after weighing all available evidence and calculating the ideal response. Relevant information is processed consciously [though see Clarification below] before decision is rendered.
This approach is opposed to a different, less conscious process, which are our instinctive and emotional responses to situations. In these situations, actual evidence doesn’t enter the conscious decision-making process; instead, our brains, having evolved over time to respond in certain ways to certain stimuli, automatically react in certain pre-programmed ways. Those ways aren’t random, of course, but adaptions to the ancestral environment. The key is that evidence specific to the situation isn’t actually weighed and measured: the response is based on the brain’s evolved automatic reaction.
Clarification: A process that is nearly automatic is still a rational process if it is the result of repeated training, rather than innate. For example, those who drive manual transmission cars will tell you that after a short while, you don’t think about shifting: you just do. It becomes “second nature.” This is still a conscious process: over time, you become trained to interpret information more efficiently and react quickly. This differs from the innate emotional and instinctive responses: we are instinctively attracted to beautiful people, for example, without having to learn it over and over again—it’s “first nature.” Though the responses are similar in appearance, I think most people would say that the former is rational, the latter is not.