Emotionally Preformed Decisions and Reason

Anyone who values truth should stop worshiping reason” 


In this interesting article in NYT, while talking about politics, the author argues that the decisions are emotionally preformed and we use reasoning to justify these emotional decisions.

 

The author writes:

 

“Recently, however, some social scientists, most notably the psychologist Jonathan Haidt, have upped the cynical ante. In Haidt’s view, the philosophers’ dream of reason isn’t just naïve, it is radically unfounded, the product of what he calls “the rationalist delusion.” As he puts it, “Anyone who values truth should stop worshiping reason. We all need to take a cold, hard look at the evidence and see reasoning for what it is. [1] Haidt sees two points about reasoning to be particularly important: the first concerns the efficacy (or lack thereof) of reasoning; the second concerns the point of doing so publicly: of exchanging reasons. “

 

According to Haidt, not only are value judgments less often a product of rational deliberation than we’d like to think, that is how we are supposed to function. That it is how we are hardwired by evolution. In the neuroscientist Drew Westen’s words, the political brain is the emotional brain.

 

Often “reasoning” really seems to be post-hoc rationalization: we tend to accept that which confirms what we already believe (psychologists call this confirmation bias). And the tendency goes beyond just politics. When people are told that they scored low on an I.Q. test, for example, they are more likely to read scientific articles criticizing such tests; when they score high, they are more likely to read articles that support the tests. They are more likely to favor the “evidence,” in other words, that makes them feel good. This is what Haidt calls the “wag the dog” illusion: thinking that reason is the tail that wags the dog of value judgment.”

Read full article;

 

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/30/hope-for-reason/?emc=eta1

What Brings Happiness? Moral or Immoral Life or Both? ( Reason Part II)

Interesting discussion about PLato’s moral arguments,   reasoning and its refutation by Haidt.


Jonathan Haidt’s “The Righteous Mind” is an important and exciting book, from which I’ve learned a great deal about the limitations of human reasoning.  I was, however, disappointed at what struck me as its cavalier treatment of some highly relevant work by philosophers.  To illustrate my concerns, I begin by reflecting on Haidt’s effort to refute Plato’s central argument in “The Republic.”  This is where Plato tries to show why a just (morally good) life is superior to an unjust (immoral) life.

 

Socrates (as usual, Plato’s spokesman) responds to a view put forward by his young friend Glaucon. On this view, someone who devoted his life to nothing but satisfying his selfish desires would be entirely happy. At the most, Glaucon suggests, happiness would require a person’s keeping his selfishness secret and enjoying a reputation for virtue. Glaucon does not believe this claim, and he hopes to see Socrates refute it and show how morality, just by itself, brings happiness.

 

To read full article click:

 

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/04/jonathan-haidts-plato-problem/

Interesting Simple Math Quiz on Birthday

How many people would be enough to make the odds of  birthday match at least 50-50?


Guess the answer and then read the following paragraph;

You have to stay with the explanation for a while to finally get it.

 

By an amazing coincidence my sister, Cathy, and my Aunt Vere have the same birthday: April 4 Actually, it’s not so amazing. In any extended family with enough siblings, aunts, uncles and cousins, you’d expect at least one such birthday coincidence. Certainly, if there are 366 people in the family — more relatives than days of the year — they can’t all have different birthdays, so a match is guaranteed in a family this big. (Or if you’re worried about leap year, make it 367.) But suppose we don’t insist on absolute certainty. A classic puzzle called the “birthday problem” asks: How many people would be enough to make the odds of a match at least 50-50? The answer, just 23 people, comes as a shock to most of us the first time we hear it. Partly that’s because it’s so much less than 366. But it’s also because we tend to mistake the question for one about ourselvesMy birthday.

To read explanation click on article below:

 

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/01/its-my-birthday-too-yeah/?emc=eta1