Wikia

Psychology Wiki

Changes: Rationality

Edit

Back to page

(See also)
 
(5 intermediate revisions by one user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
{{Philpsy}}
 
{{Philpsy}}
In [[philosophy]], which rationality and reason are the key methods by which we obtain knowledge, in opposition to [[empiricism]] which states that knowledge is obtained primarily via the [[sense]]s.
+
{{Psyperspective}}
  +
An action, belief, or desire is rational if we ought to choose it.<ref>Rationality. (1999). ''The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy'' 2nd edition.</ref> Rationality is a normative concept that refers to the conformity of one's beliefs with one's [[reason (argument)|reasons]] to believe, or of one's actions with one's [[reason (argument)|reasons]] for action. However, the term "rationality" tends to be used differently in different disciplines, including specialized discussions of [[economics]], [[sociology]], [[psychology]], [[evolutionary biology]] and [[political science]]. A '''rational''' decision is one that is not just reasoned, but is also optimal for achieving a goal or solving a problem.
   
A [[logical argument]] is sometimes described as '''rational''' if it is [[validity|logically valid]]. However, rationality is a much broader term than logic, as it includes "uncertain but sensible" arguments based on probability, expectation, personal experience and the like, whereas logic deals principally with provable facts and demonstrably valid relations between them. For example, [[ad hominem]] arguments are ''logically'' unsound, but in many cases they may be ''rational''. A simple philosophical definition of rationality refers to one's use of a "practical syllogism". For example,
+
Determining optimality for rational behavior requires a quantifiable formulation of the problem, and making several key assumptions. When the goal or problem involves making a decision, rationality factors in how much information is available (e.g. complete or incomplete [[knowledge]]). Collectively, the formulation and background assumptions are the model within which rationality applies. Illustrating the relativity of rationality: if one accepts a model in which benefitting oneself is optimal, then rationality is equated with behavior that is self-interested to the point of being selfish; whereas if one accepts a model in which benefiting the group is optimal, then purely selfish behavior is deemed irrational. It is thus meaningless to assert rationality without also specifying the background model assumptions describing how the problem is framed and formulated.
   
:I am cold
+
==Theories of rationality==
:If I close the window I will not be cold
 
::Therefore, I close the window
 
   
We should note that standard form practical syllogisms follow a very specific format and are always valid if constructed correctly though they are not necessarily sound. There are several notable implications of such a definition. First, rationality is objective - it exists only when a valid practical syllogism is used. Second, a choice is either rational or it is not - there is no gradation since there is no gradation between valid and invalid arguments. Third, rationality only applies to actions - i.e. shutting the window is a rational thing to do if you are cold (assuming it is cold outside). Evidence bears on belief but not on rationality. All that is required for an action to be rational is that you believe that X and that that if X then Y so you do Y. Arguments about belief are couched in the terms valid and sound - logically you must believe something if the argument supporting it is sound. In some cases, such as relgious belief, the argument may be valid but its soundness cannot be known for the truth of its premises cannot be known.
+
=== Max Weber ===
  +
The German sociologist [[Max Weber]] proposed an interpretation of social action that distinguished between four different idealized types of rationality. The first, which he called ''Zweckrational'' or purposive/[[instrumental rationality]], is related to the expectations about the behavior of other human beings or objects in the environment. These expectations serve as means for a particular actor to attain ends, ends which Weber noted were "rationally pursued and calculated." The second type, Weber called ''Wertrational'' or value/belief-oriented. Here the action is undertaken for what one might call reasons intrinsic to the actor: some ethical, aesthetic, religious or other motive, independent of whether it will lead to success. The third type was affectual, determined by an actor's specific affect, feeling, or emotion – to which Weber himself said that this was a kind of rationality that was on the borderline of what he considered "meaningfully oriented." The fourth was traditional or conventional, determined by ingrained habituation. Weber emphasized that it was very unusual to find only one of these orientations: combinations were the norm. His usage also makes clear that he considered the first two as more significant than the others, and it is arguable that the third and fourth are subtypes of the first two.
   
In [[economics]], [[sociology]], and [[political science]], a decision or situation is often called '''rational''' if it is in some sense optimal, and individuals or [[organization]]s are often called rational if they tend to act somehow optimally in pursuit of their goals. Thus one speaks, for example, of a rational allocation of resources, or of a rational corporate strategy. In this concept of "rationality", the individual's goals or motives are taken for granted and not made subject to criticism, ethical or otherwise. Thus rationality simply refers to the success of goal attainment, whatever those goals may be. Sometimes, in this context, rationality is equated with behavior that is self-interested to the point of being selfish. Sometimes rationality implies having complete knowledge about all the details of a given situation. It might be said that because the goals are not important in definition of rationality, it really only demands logical consistency in choice making. See [[rational choice theory]].
+
The advantage in Weber's interpretation of rationality is that it avoids a value-laden assessment, say, that certain kinds of beliefs are irrational. Instead, Weber suggests that a ground or motive can be given for religious or affect reasons, for example that may meet the criterion of explanation or justification even if it is not an explanation that fits the ''Zweckrational'' orientation of means and ends. The opposite is therefore also true: some means-ends explanations will not satisfy those whose grounds for action are ''''Wertrational''''.
   
Debates arise in these three fields about whether or not people or organizations are "really" rational, as well as whether it make sense to model them as such in formal models. Some have argued that a kind of [[bounded rationality]] makes more sense for such models.
+
Weber's constructions of rationality have been critiqued both from a [[Jürgen Habermas|Habermasian]] (1984) perspective (as devoid of social context and under-theorised in terms of social power)<ref>Habermas, J. (1984) ''The Theory of Communicative Action Volume 1; Reason and the Rationalization of Society'', Cambridge: Polity Press.</ref> and also from a [[feminist]] perspective (Eagleton, 2003) whereby Weber's rationality constructs are viewed as imbued with masculine values and oriented toward the maintenance of male power.<ref>Eagleton, M. (ed) (2003) ''A Concise Companion to Feminist Theory'', Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.</ref> An alternative position on rationality (which includes both bounded rationality (Simons and Hawkins, 1949),<ref>Simons, H. and Hawkins, D. (1949), “Some Conditions in Macro-Economic Stability”, Econometrica, 1949.</ref> as well as the affective and value-based arguments of Weber) can be found in the critique of Etzioni (1988),<ref>Etzioni, A. (1988), “Normative-Affective Factors: Towards a New Decision-Making Model”, ''Journal of Economic Psychology'', Vol. 9, pp. 125–150.</ref> who reframes thought on decision-making to argue for a reversal of the position put forward by Weber. Etzioni illustrates how purposive/instrumental reasoning is subordinated by normative considerations (ideas on how people 'ought' to behave) and affective considerations (as a support system for the development of human relationships).
Others think that any kind of rationality along the lines of rational choice theory is a useless concept for understanding human behavior; the term ''[[homo economicus]]'' (economic man: the imaginary logically consistent but immoral being assumed in economic models) was coined largely in honor of this view.
 
   
Sociologist [[Max Weber]]'s writing can be interpreted as suggesting an increasing irrationality of rationality.
+
=== Psychology of Reasoning ===
  +
In the [[psychology of reasoning]], psychologists and cognitive scientists have defended different positions on human rationality. One prominent view, due to [[Philip Johnson-Laird]] and [[Ruth M.J. Byrne]] among others is that humans are rational in principle but they err in practice, that is, humans have the competence to be rational but their performance is limited by various factors.<ref>Byrne, R.M.J. & Johnson-Laird, P.N. (2009). 'If' and the problems of conditional reasoning. ''Trends in Cognitive Sciences'', 13, 282–287</ref> However, it has been argued that many standard tests of reasoning, such as those on the [[conjunction fallacy]], on the [[Wason selection task]], or the [[base rate fallacy]] suffer from methodological and conceptual problems. This has led to disputes in psychology over whether researchers should (only) use standard rules of logic, probability theory and statistics, or rational choice theory as norms of good reasoning. Opponents of this view, such as [[Gerd Gigerenzer]], favor a conception of [[bounded rationality]], especially for tasks under high uncertainty.<ref>Sturm, Thomas (2012). The “rationality wars” in psychology: Where they are and where they could go. ''Inquiry'', 55, 66-81.</ref>
   
Rationality is a central principle in [[artificial intelligence]], where a ''rational agent'' is specifically defined as an agent which always chooses the action which maximises its expected performance, given all of the knowledge it currently possesses.
+
=== Richard Brandt ===
  +
[[Richard Brandt]] proposed a 'reforming definition' of rationality, arguing someone is rational if their notions survive a form of [[psychotherapy|cognitive-psychotherapy]].<ref>{{cite book|title=Ethical Theory: The Problems of Normative and Critical Ethics|publisher=Prentice-Hall|author=Richard B. Brandt|year=1959}}</ref>
   
== Use of the term ''rational'' ==
+
==Quality of rationality==
  +
{{Refimprove section|date=July 2013}}
  +
  +
It is believed by some philosophers (notably [[A.C. Grayling]]) that a good rationale must be independent of emotions, personal feelings or any kind of instincts. Any process of evaluation or analysis, that may be called rational, is expected to be highly objective, logical and "mechanical". If these minimum requirements are not satisfied i.e. if a person has been, even slightly, influenced by personal emotions, feelings, instincts or culturally specific, moral codes and norms, then the analysis may be termed irrational, due to the injection of subjective bias.
  +
  +
Modern [[cognitive science]] and [[neuroscience]] show that studying the role of emotion in mental function (including topics ranging from flashes of scientific insight to making future plans), that no human has ever satisfied this criterion, except perhaps a person with no affective feelings, for example an individual with a massively damaged [[amygdala]] or severe psychopathy. Thus, such an idealized form of rationality is best exemplified by computers, and not people. However, scholars may productively appeal to the idealization as a point of reference. {{Citation needed|date=August 2012}}
  +
  +
==Theoretical and practical rationality==
  +
  +
[[Kant]] had distinguished theoretical from practical reason. Rationality theorist [[Jesús Mosterín]] makes a parallel distinction between theoretical and practical rationality, although, according to him, reason and rationality are not the same: reason would be a psychological faculty, whereas rationality is an optimizing strategy.<ref>Mosterín, Jesús (2008). ''Lo mejor posible: Racionalidad y acción humana''. Madrid: Alianza Editorial, 2008. 318 pp. ISBN 978-84-206-8206-8.</ref> Humans are not rational by definition, but they can think and behave rationally or not, depending on whether they apply, explicitly or implicitly, the strategy of theoretical and practical rationality to the thoughts they accept and to the actions they perform. Theoretical rationality has a formal component that reduces to logical consistency and a material component that reduces to empirical support, relying on our inborn mechanisms of signal detection and interpretation. Mosterín distinguishes between involuntary and implicit belief, on the one hand, and voluntary and explicit acceptance, on the other.<ref>Mosterín, Jesús (2002). “Acceptance Without Belief”. ''Manuscrito'', vol. XXV , pp. 313–335.</ref> Theoretical rationality can more properly be said to regulate our acceptances than our beliefs. Practical rationality is the strategy for living one’s best possible life, achieving your most important goals and your own preferences in as far as possible. Practical rationality has also a formal component, that reduces to [[Bayes estimator|Bayesian decision theory]], and a material component, rooted in human nature (lastly, in our genome).
  +
  +
==Examples of Rationality Applied to Different Fields==
  +
  +
Individuals or [[organization]]s are called rational if they make optimal decisions in pursuit of their goals. It is in these terms that one speaks, for example, of a rational allocation of resources, or of a rational corporate strategy. For such "rationality", the decision maker's goals are taken as part of the model, and not made subject to criticism, ethical or otherwise.
  +
  +
Debates arise in these four fields about whether or not people or organizations are "really" rational, as well as whether it makes sense to model them as such in formal models. Some have argued that a kind of [[bounded rationality]] makes more sense for such models.
  +
  +
Others think that any kind of rationality along the lines of [[rational choice theory]] is a useless concept for understanding human behavior; the term ''[[homo economicus]]'' (economic man: the imaginary man being assumed in economic models who is [[logically consistent]] but amoral) was coined largely in honor of this view.
  +
  +
===Artificial Intelligence===
  +
Within [[artificial intelligence]], a ''[[intelligent agent|rational agent]]'' is one that maximizes its expected ''utility'', given its current knowledge. Utility is the usefulness of the consequences of its actions. The utility function is arbitrarily defined by the designer, but should be a function of ''performance'', which is the directly measurable consequences, such as winning or losing money. In order to make a safe agent that plays defensively, a nonlinear function of performance is often desired, so that the reward for winning is lower than the punishment for losing. An agent might be rational within its own problem area, but finding the rational decision for arbitrarily complex problems is not practically possible. The rationality of human thought is a key problem in the [[psychology of reasoning]].<ref>Johnson-Laird, P.N. & Byrne, R.M.J. (1991). ''Deduction''. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.</ref>
  +
  +
==See also==
  +
{{Portal|Thinking}}
  +
<div style="-moz-column-count:3; column-count:3;">
  +
* [[Bounded rationality]]
  +
* [[Coherence (linguistics)|coherent]]
  +
* [[Communicative rationality]]
  +
* [[Counter-intuitive]]
  +
* [[Critical rationalism]]
  +
* [[Evolution]]
  +
* [[Homo economicus]]
  +
* [[Imputation (game theory)|Individual rationality]]
  +
* [[Intelligence]]
  +
* [[Irrationality]]
  +
* [[Logical thinking]]
  +
* [[Perfect rationality]]
  +
* [[Post-purchase rationalization]]
  +
* [[Principle of rationality]]
  +
* [[Rational agents]]
  +
* [[Rational choice theory]]
  +
* [[Rational emotive behavior therapy]]
  +
* [[Rational pricing]]
  +
* [[Rational temperament]]
  +
* [[Rationalism]]
  +
* [[Rationalization (making excuses)]]
  +
* [[Rational living therapy]]
  +
* [[Satisficing]]
  +
* [[Superrationality]]
  +
* [[Value-rational action]]
  +
</div>
   
In a number of kinds of speech, "rational" may also denote a hodge-podge of generally positive attributes, including:
 
   
* [[reasonable]]: "having sound judgement" (Webster's)
 
* reasonable: "not extreme or excessive" (Webster's)
 
* [[justifiable]] on the basis of ''[[reason]]'' (as opposed to [[tradition]] or [[emotion]]al grounds). ([[logical]])
 
* not foolish
 
* sane
 
* good
 
   
 
Useful contrasts may include:
 
Useful contrasts may include:
Line 35: Line 28:
   
 
== See also ==
 
== See also ==
+
<div style="-moz-column-count:3; column-count:3;">
 
* [[Bounded rationality]]
 
* [[Bounded rationality]]
  +
* [[Coherence (linguistics)|coherent]]
  +
* [[Counter-intuitive]]
  +
* [[Evolution]]
  +
* [[Homo economicus]]
  +
* [[Imputation (game theory)|Individual rationality]]
  +
* [[Intelligence]]
 
* [[Irrationality]]
 
* [[Irrationality]]
  +
* [[Logical thinking]]
 
* [[Perfect rationality]]
 
* [[Perfect rationality]]
 
* [[Principle of rationality]]
 
* [[Principle of rationality]]
 
* [[Rational choice theory]]
 
* [[Rational choice theory]]
* [[Rational number]]
+
* [[Rational emotive behavior therapy]]
* [[Satisficing]]
 
 
* [[Rational pricing]]
 
* [[Rational pricing]]
  +
* [[Rationalism]]
  +
* [[Rationalization (making excuses)]]
  +
* [[Reasoning]]
  +
* [[Satisficing]]
  +
* [[Superrationality]]
  +
</div>
  +
   
== External links and references ==
+
==References==
  +
{{Reflist}}<!--added above categories/infobox footers by script-assisted edit-->
   
* [http://ruccs.rutgers.edu/ArchiveFolder/Research%20Group/Publications/Reason/ReasonRationality.htm Reason and Rationality], by Richard Samuels, Stephen Stich, Luc Faucher, examines the broad field of reason and rationality from the descriptive, normative, and evaluative points of view
+
==External links and references==
  +
* [http://ruccs.rutgers.edu/ArchiveFolder/Research%20Group/Publications/Reason/ReasonRationality.htm Reason and Rationality], by Richard Samuels, Stephen Stich, Luc Faucher on the broad field of reason and rationality from descriptive, normative, and evaluative points of view
 
* [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationality-historicist/ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on Historicist Theories of Rationality]
 
* [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationality-historicist/ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on Historicist Theories of Rationality]
 
* [http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/leglreas.htm Legal Reasoning After Post-Modern Critiques of Reason], by Peter Suber
 
* [http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/leglreas.htm Legal Reasoning After Post-Modern Critiques of Reason], by Peter Suber
* Spohn, W. (2002). [http://www.uni-konstanz.de/FuF/Philo/Philosophie/Mitarbeiter/spohn_files/wspohn45.pdf The Many Facets of the Theory of Rationality]. <I>Croatian Journal of Philosophy 2</I>: 247-262.
+
* Spohn, W. (2002). [http://www.uni-konstanz.de/FuF/Philo/Philosophie/philosophie/files/wspohn45.pdf The Many Facets of the Theory of Rationality]. ''Croatian Journal of Philosophy 2'': 247–262.
  +
* [[Lucy Suchman]] (2007). Human-machine Reconfigurations: Plans and Situated Action. Cambridge University Press.
  +
* [[Cristina Bicchieri]] (1993). Rationality and Coordination, New York: Cambridge University Press
  +
* [[Cristina Bicchieri]] (2007). “Rationality and Indeterminacy”, in D. Ross and H. Kinkaid (eds.) The Handbook of Philosophy of Economics, The Oxford Reference Library of Philosophy, Oxford University Press, vol. 6, n.2.
  +
* Anand, P (1993). ''Foundations of Rational Choice Under Risk'', Oxford, Oxford University Press.
  +
* Habermas, J. (1984) ''The Theory of Communicative Action Volume 1; Reason and the Rationalization of Society'', Cambridge: Polity Press.
  +
* Mosterín, Jesús (2008). ''Lo mejor posible: Racionalidad y acción humana''. Madrid: Alianza Editorial. 318 pp.&nbsp;ISBN 978-84-206-8206-8.
  +
* Nozick, Robert (1993). ''[[The Nature of Rationality]].'' Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  +
* Eagleton, M. (ed) (2003) ''A Concise Companion to Feminist Theory'', Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
  +
* Simons, H. and Hawkins, D. (1949), “Some Conditions in Macro-Economic Stability”, Econometrica, 1949.
  +
* Johnson-Laird, P.N. & Byrne, R.M.J. (1991). Deduction. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
  +
* Garcés M. (2009) [http://www.daxnatur.com/Investigacion/Emotional_Theory_of_Rationality_2.pdf, ''Emotional Theory of Rationality'', ''"Entertainment = Emotion" workshop, C.C Benasque, Spain'' ] – [http://www.benasque.org/2009emotion/papers/EmotionalTheoryofRationality_img.pdf]
   
[[Category:Rationalism| ]]
+
{{Philosophy topics}}
   
[[de:Rationalität]]
+
[[Category:Autonomy]]
[[es:Racionalidad]]
+
[[Category:Concepts in epistemology]]
[[fr:Rationalité]]
+
[[Category:Philosophical logic]]
[[gl:Racional]]
+
[[Category:Philosophy of mind]]
[[no:Rasjonalitet]]
+
[[Category:Philosophy of psychology]]
[[fi:Rationaalisuus]]
+
[[Category:Reasoning| ]]
{{enWP|Rationality}}
+
[[Category:Thinking]]
  +
[[Category:Underlying principles of microeconomic behavior]]

Latest revision as of 00:15, August 27, 2013

Assessment | Biopsychology | Comparative | Cognitive | Developmental | Language | Individual differences | Personality | Philosophy | Social |
Methods | Statistics | Clinical | Educational | Industrial | Professional items | World psychology |

Philosophy Index: Aesthetics · Epistemology · Ethics · Logic · Metaphysics · Consciousness · Philosophy of Language · Philosophy of Mind · Philosophy of Science · Social and Political philosophy · Philosophies · Philosophers · List of lists


This article needs rewriting to enhance its relevance to psychologists..
Please help to improve this page yourself if you can..


An action, belief, or desire is rational if we ought to choose it.[1] Rationality is a normative concept that refers to the conformity of one's beliefs with one's reasons to believe, or of one's actions with one's reasons for action. However, the term "rationality" tends to be used differently in different disciplines, including specialized discussions of economics, sociology, psychology, evolutionary biology and political science. A rational decision is one that is not just reasoned, but is also optimal for achieving a goal or solving a problem.

Determining optimality for rational behavior requires a quantifiable formulation of the problem, and making several key assumptions. When the goal or problem involves making a decision, rationality factors in how much information is available (e.g. complete or incomplete knowledge). Collectively, the formulation and background assumptions are the model within which rationality applies. Illustrating the relativity of rationality: if one accepts a model in which benefitting oneself is optimal, then rationality is equated with behavior that is self-interested to the point of being selfish; whereas if one accepts a model in which benefiting the group is optimal, then purely selfish behavior is deemed irrational. It is thus meaningless to assert rationality without also specifying the background model assumptions describing how the problem is framed and formulated.

Theories of rationalityEdit

Max Weber Edit

The German sociologist Max Weber proposed an interpretation of social action that distinguished between four different idealized types of rationality. The first, which he called Zweckrational or purposive/instrumental rationality, is related to the expectations about the behavior of other human beings or objects in the environment. These expectations serve as means for a particular actor to attain ends, ends which Weber noted were "rationally pursued and calculated." The second type, Weber called Wertrational or value/belief-oriented. Here the action is undertaken for what one might call reasons intrinsic to the actor: some ethical, aesthetic, religious or other motive, independent of whether it will lead to success. The third type was affectual, determined by an actor's specific affect, feeling, or emotion – to which Weber himself said that this was a kind of rationality that was on the borderline of what he considered "meaningfully oriented." The fourth was traditional or conventional, determined by ingrained habituation. Weber emphasized that it was very unusual to find only one of these orientations: combinations were the norm. His usage also makes clear that he considered the first two as more significant than the others, and it is arguable that the third and fourth are subtypes of the first two.

The advantage in Weber's interpretation of rationality is that it avoids a value-laden assessment, say, that certain kinds of beliefs are irrational. Instead, Weber suggests that a ground or motive can be given – for religious or affect reasons, for example — that may meet the criterion of explanation or justification even if it is not an explanation that fits the Zweckrational orientation of means and ends. The opposite is therefore also true: some means-ends explanations will not satisfy those whose grounds for action are 'Wertrational'.

Weber's constructions of rationality have been critiqued both from a Habermasian (1984) perspective (as devoid of social context and under-theorised in terms of social power)[2] and also from a feminist perspective (Eagleton, 2003) whereby Weber's rationality constructs are viewed as imbued with masculine values and oriented toward the maintenance of male power.[3] An alternative position on rationality (which includes both bounded rationality (Simons and Hawkins, 1949),[4] as well as the affective and value-based arguments of Weber) can be found in the critique of Etzioni (1988),[5] who reframes thought on decision-making to argue for a reversal of the position put forward by Weber. Etzioni illustrates how purposive/instrumental reasoning is subordinated by normative considerations (ideas on how people 'ought' to behave) and affective considerations (as a support system for the development of human relationships).

Psychology of Reasoning Edit

In the psychology of reasoning, psychologists and cognitive scientists have defended different positions on human rationality. One prominent view, due to Philip Johnson-Laird and Ruth M.J. Byrne among others is that humans are rational in principle but they err in practice, that is, humans have the competence to be rational but their performance is limited by various factors.[6] However, it has been argued that many standard tests of reasoning, such as those on the conjunction fallacy, on the Wason selection task, or the base rate fallacy suffer from methodological and conceptual problems. This has led to disputes in psychology over whether researchers should (only) use standard rules of logic, probability theory and statistics, or rational choice theory as norms of good reasoning. Opponents of this view, such as Gerd Gigerenzer, favor a conception of bounded rationality, especially for tasks under high uncertainty.[7]

Richard Brandt Edit

Richard Brandt proposed a 'reforming definition' of rationality, arguing someone is rational if their notions survive a form of cognitive-psychotherapy.[8]

Quality of rationalityEdit

Template:Refimprove section

It is believed by some philosophers (notably A.C. Grayling) that a good rationale must be independent of emotions, personal feelings or any kind of instincts. Any process of evaluation or analysis, that may be called rational, is expected to be highly objective, logical and "mechanical". If these minimum requirements are not satisfied i.e. if a person has been, even slightly, influenced by personal emotions, feelings, instincts or culturally specific, moral codes and norms, then the analysis may be termed irrational, due to the injection of subjective bias.

Modern cognitive science and neuroscience show that studying the role of emotion in mental function (including topics ranging from flashes of scientific insight to making future plans), that no human has ever satisfied this criterion, except perhaps a person with no affective feelings, for example an individual with a massively damaged amygdala or severe psychopathy. Thus, such an idealized form of rationality is best exemplified by computers, and not people. However, scholars may productively appeal to the idealization as a point of reference. [citation needed]

Theoretical and practical rationalityEdit

Kant had distinguished theoretical from practical reason. Rationality theorist Jesús Mosterín makes a parallel distinction between theoretical and practical rationality, although, according to him, reason and rationality are not the same: reason would be a psychological faculty, whereas rationality is an optimizing strategy.[9] Humans are not rational by definition, but they can think and behave rationally or not, depending on whether they apply, explicitly or implicitly, the strategy of theoretical and practical rationality to the thoughts they accept and to the actions they perform. Theoretical rationality has a formal component that reduces to logical consistency and a material component that reduces to empirical support, relying on our inborn mechanisms of signal detection and interpretation. Mosterín distinguishes between involuntary and implicit belief, on the one hand, and voluntary and explicit acceptance, on the other.[10] Theoretical rationality can more properly be said to regulate our acceptances than our beliefs. Practical rationality is the strategy for living one’s best possible life, achieving your most important goals and your own preferences in as far as possible. Practical rationality has also a formal component, that reduces to Bayesian decision theory, and a material component, rooted in human nature (lastly, in our genome).

Examples of Rationality Applied to Different FieldsEdit

Individuals or organizations are called rational if they make optimal decisions in pursuit of their goals. It is in these terms that one speaks, for example, of a rational allocation of resources, or of a rational corporate strategy. For such "rationality", the decision maker's goals are taken as part of the model, and not made subject to criticism, ethical or otherwise.

Debates arise in these four fields about whether or not people or organizations are "really" rational, as well as whether it makes sense to model them as such in formal models. Some have argued that a kind of bounded rationality makes more sense for such models.

Others think that any kind of rationality along the lines of rational choice theory is a useless concept for understanding human behavior; the term homo economicus (economic man: the imaginary man being assumed in economic models who is logically consistent but amoral) was coined largely in honor of this view.

Artificial IntelligenceEdit

Within artificial intelligence, a rational agent is one that maximizes its expected utility, given its current knowledge. Utility is the usefulness of the consequences of its actions. The utility function is arbitrarily defined by the designer, but should be a function of performance, which is the directly measurable consequences, such as winning or losing money. In order to make a safe agent that plays defensively, a nonlinear function of performance is often desired, so that the reward for winning is lower than the punishment for losing. An agent might be rational within its own problem area, but finding the rational decision for arbitrarily complex problems is not practically possible. The rationality of human thought is a key problem in the psychology of reasoning.[11]

See alsoEdit

.


Useful contrasts may include:

See also Edit


ReferencesEdit

  1. Rationality. (1999). The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy 2nd edition.
  2. Habermas, J. (1984) The Theory of Communicative Action Volume 1; Reason and the Rationalization of Society, Cambridge: Polity Press.
  3. Eagleton, M. (ed) (2003) A Concise Companion to Feminist Theory, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
  4. Simons, H. and Hawkins, D. (1949), “Some Conditions in Macro-Economic Stability”, Econometrica, 1949.
  5. Etzioni, A. (1988), “Normative-Affective Factors: Towards a New Decision-Making Model”, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 9, pp. 125–150.
  6. Byrne, R.M.J. & Johnson-Laird, P.N. (2009). 'If' and the problems of conditional reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13, 282–287
  7. Sturm, Thomas (2012). The “rationality wars” in psychology: Where they are and where they could go. Inquiry, 55, 66-81.
  8. Richard B. Brandt (1959). Ethical Theory: The Problems of Normative and Critical Ethics, Prentice-Hall.
  9. Mosterín, Jesús (2008). Lo mejor posible: Racionalidad y acción humana. Madrid: Alianza Editorial, 2008. 318 pp. ISBN 978-84-206-8206-8.
  10. Mosterín, Jesús (2002). “Acceptance Without Belief”. Manuscrito, vol. XXV , pp. 313–335.
  11. Johnson-Laird, P.N. & Byrne, R.M.J. (1991). Deduction. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

External links and referencesEdit

  1. redirectTemplate:Philosophy

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki