An emotion is irrational if it is not appropriate to the situation—for example, social anxiety is irrational if it causes one to avoid pursuing some social opportunities which have a positive expected value (for any utility function, which may or may not carry a heavier penalty for failure than a bonus for success).
See above. If your emotional state (and I assume the ability to distinguish a state of heightened emotion from a resting state) causes you to act in ways which do not reflect your evidence-based assessments, it is causing you to act against your rational decisions and is therefore irrational.
I would say that the ability to make this judgement belongs to the best-informed rationally-acting observer: someone who has knowledge of the your mental state in both emotional states, and from the available evidence, estimate whether or not the difference in behavior can be attributed to emotional causes. This observer may very well be you yourself, in a resting state; once you have regained your perspective, as you have a lot more information on your own mental state.
To expand on the example I gave above, someone experiencing social anxiety may suddenly focus on the various ways in which a social interaction can go horribly wrong, even if these futures are not very probable. Basically, anxiety hijacks the availability heuristic, causing an overestimation of the probability of catastrophe. Because this adjustment in probability is not based in evidence (though this point could be argued), it is irrational.
This definition of “irrational emotions” does not depend on the utility function used. If someone weights failure more heavily than success, and will go home unhappy at the end of the night if they have 9 successful conversations and 1 boring dud, they are not necessarily irrational. However, if, on previous nights with substantial frequency they have gone 10 for 10, and before entering a conversation they freeze in fear—then, their expected value has changed without sufficient reason. That is irrational emotion.
If your emotional state … causes you to act in ways which do not reflect your evidence-based assessments, it is causing you to act against your rational decisions and is therefore irrational.
So, anything which decreases rationality is irrational? Sounds like circle reasoning to me.
Besides, you original point was that
An emotion is irrational if it is not appropriate to the situation
If I wake up in a burning house, fear is certainly appropriate to the situation and yet it’s very likely to decrease the rationality of my decision-making. If I’m making out with someone I like a lot, love/tenderness is appropriate to the situation and will decrease my rationality. Etc. etc.
What are “irrational emotions”?
An emotion is irrational if it is not appropriate to the situation—for example, social anxiety is irrational if it causes one to avoid pursuing some social opportunities which have a positive expected value (for any utility function, which may or may not carry a heavier penalty for failure than a bonus for success).
Who decides (and how) which emotion is appropriate to which situation?
See above. If your emotional state (and I assume the ability to distinguish a state of heightened emotion from a resting state) causes you to act in ways which do not reflect your evidence-based assessments, it is causing you to act against your rational decisions and is therefore irrational.
I would say that the ability to make this judgement belongs to the best-informed rationally-acting observer: someone who has knowledge of the your mental state in both emotional states, and from the available evidence, estimate whether or not the difference in behavior can be attributed to emotional causes. This observer may very well be you yourself, in a resting state; once you have regained your perspective, as you have a lot more information on your own mental state.
To expand on the example I gave above, someone experiencing social anxiety may suddenly focus on the various ways in which a social interaction can go horribly wrong, even if these futures are not very probable. Basically, anxiety hijacks the availability heuristic, causing an overestimation of the probability of catastrophe. Because this adjustment in probability is not based in evidence (though this point could be argued), it is irrational.
This definition of “irrational emotions” does not depend on the utility function used. If someone weights failure more heavily than success, and will go home unhappy at the end of the night if they have 9 successful conversations and 1 boring dud, they are not necessarily irrational. However, if, on previous nights with substantial frequency they have gone 10 for 10, and before entering a conversation they freeze in fear—then, their expected value has changed without sufficient reason. That is irrational emotion.
So, anything which decreases rationality is irrational? Sounds like circle reasoning to me.
Besides, you original point was that
If I wake up in a burning house, fear is certainly appropriate to the situation and yet it’s very likely to decrease the rationality of my decision-making. If I’m making out with someone I like a lot, love/tenderness is appropriate to the situation and will decrease my rationality. Etc. etc.
This starts to remind me of a steel Vulcan :-)