Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Tony V's avatar

My contention with rational and irrational beliefs lies in the source of such beliefs;

- something is rational by nature if it is directed towards its goals

- beliefs are probablistic judgements about the world based on an aggregate assessment of personal feelings, other feelings', personal bias, encounter rate of experiences, knowledge obtained and researched, general theories of

how the world works, general theories of how things behave and operate, and the general principles behind phenomena

- personal feelings are value judgements made after re-iterative interactions with entities, and other entities, which is mediated by agreeableness, propensity to conformity/desire to belong, outgroup/ingroup-ness

- encounter rate of experience(s) are dependent on the availability of such classes of experiences, and the rate at which one continues to seek such experiences (which can lead to bifulcations/extremes [i.e. echo chambers])

- knowledge obtained/researched/filtered are dependent on the credibility of such sources, the reasoning processes behind the schemas of such purported knowledge and the extent to scrutiny of filtration of such knowledge

- general theories of how things behave and work are dependent on a cognitive and social component

thus a rational belief is a constructed belief that is rooted in an abductive reasoning process between inferred links of circumstantial information generalized from the associations made upon stumbling them

(i.e. a body was found dead near Y, and you find someone near there with a hoodie 'yo kill ditz' and has some blood on his clothes and they seem plausibly dull enough to not have run/escaped from the vicinity immediately, or

you followed a lineage of beliefs espoused by some families and you infer their moves following their actions preceding them thereafter generations later)

an irrational belief is a constructed belief that is rooted in feelings that do not reflect the nature or the valence of assigned entities to a particular association (i.e. The states is doing X -- states is BAD|GOOD,

or I romanticize the stars/existence of extra-sensory beings to associate with anything good/bad I feel regardless because just so)

If you never encounter counterfactual material, you cannot develop an effective 'c-theory' unless you actuate a mental model of the processes and abdicate some effort in processing the c-theories that are counterfactual

to MSM (which is also another latent factor). Interest levels affect discovery rates/inclinations towards knowledge obtainment/filtration of said knowledge which affects the belief level.

It makes the most sense to have a neutral (neither tilt) or slight if you have a slight valence association to such entity for any belief as a rational belief or rational entity.

The degree of your belief should increase in proportion to the amount of positive (confirming) and negative (disaffirming) evidence that you encounter after reasoning about both available evidence and their credibility/conflict of interests,

if second or third-hand sources. A general knowledge of the mechanics between processes of anything makes it much easier to judge what is, and what is not -- misdirection is most applied at partial truths/or giving partial models/projections

without substantiated reasoning.

The intelligentsia/slightly more intelligent population are more subject to indoctrination because they have more status to lose for not agreeing with their peers, hence have a higher groupthink bias.

The beliefs they hold that are the most irrational tend to be the nature characterized by a generalized model of how things operate, and their convincing belief in such models even if the presuppositions or assumptions are wrong,

about what is actually meaningful.

The unintelligent also have a disposition to associate through emotivity but lack the ability to comprehend models, so their disposition of irrational believes tend to reside in the reverance or worship of rules, objects, gods,

abilities, classes of people to whatever holds the most immediate meaningful reward/power/harm.

The highly highly intelligent are more impartial if they have a higher degree of disagreeability as they have an inclination to systemize everything and scrutinize every detail, and tend to be unorthodox in their thinking methods

to reach conclusions, which also means more associations between disparate experiences, which can lead to a higher degree of conspirational judgements, given they have a more detailed mental model of the processes underlying

the motives behind individuals; if they have a paranormal belief it is likely metaphysical in nature or philosophically rationalized, rather than because they experience a few coincidences and labelled it as 'divine' or 'god did it'.

i.e. consider for 911, X has Y boxcutters, X has never flown planes (or instructors said they flew at beginner level), all camera footage disappeared beforehand, we know Gov't did have an operation Northwood document before (negative valence). Probability that precisely X entities did it is unlikely would be a rational belief given such information.

If anything in my view, it is rational to hold a negative belief about Z entities if such entities are noted to have diminished trust through known defections before, and the magnitude of such defections are significant, even if one does not know how such actions arise about such Z entities although the more specific the claims, the more evidence is required and vice versa (ambiguous) affords more degree of leeway to assign cui bono targets. Reasoning by 'who benefits' usually works amongst humans because our brains are hard-wired to make emotional associations, because people behave consistently in a manner that is observed in the past, and that includes large entities.

Expand full comment
Windsor Swan's avatar

Autistic people are more rational, I just wrote a post summarising the main studies. https://windsorswan.substack.com/p/9-autism-and-rationality?sd=pf

It is not a statistical analysis, so I don't know the margins of difference. Since IQ correlates highly with rationality, you would need to measure this in all participants to determine an accurate number related to autism.

The reason that males and autistic people (who have an extreme male brain) are more rational, is because males do not require as much group strategy. Cognitive biases are almost all related to maintaining group membership (groupthink, reputation management) or increasing social standing within the group (illusory superiority, tall poppy syndrome).

Females are less rational because they have less food and bodily autonomy, while autistics are more rational because they have greater food and bodily autonomy (solitary forager hypothesis).

Expand full comment
12 more comments...

No posts