RE: If people were 100% rational, would the world be better?
July 24, 2021 at 6:34 am
(This post was last modified: July 24, 2021 at 7:24 am by The Grand Nudger.)
You're being unkind, I'd give you more than 5%. Still, I'd avoid dumping my negatives as irrational. Perhaps capitalism and nationalism are rational, and objection to either/or is the 95% of you/us that's a-rational.
Don't you think it's strange that the things we don't like..are the things we commonly imagine to be irrational? That the things we do like would be what we would do, if we were more rational? Supposing we were 5% rational and we did that, if we were 35% rational..would we do less of that, or be more convinced in the strength of our arguments to that effect?
Would a more rational nationalist or capitalist advocate be more convincing, and would a more rational audience have fewer objections than you or I might to a given idea poorly situated in either of our a-rational valuations? The percentages could float, what we're discussing would be gain of function. Doesn't gain of function apply to propaganda just as much to philanthropy? Is the relationship between them linear, such that a gain of rational function makes propaganda more effective, but makes people equally more effective at spotting it (whether internal or external) and it all washes out, our could one thing be a more effective function multiplier than the other?
I suppose, in a nutshell, I'm wondering whether you see your position on those matters as arguable - as rational, or is it a function of how you see the world that both those things (or any other example) are fundamentally a-rational and non arguable as such. If we were more rational, perhaps we'd expect the world to be more rational. What positions are rational by default? Anti-nationalism and anti-capitalism? What objections to either do you think people might have if they were more rational, how do you come to possess them at our currently meagre rationality, and are they truly representative of an increase in rationality and accordance to the rational default?
Let's take a couple that I think you and I might share an opinion of. Nationalism ala third positionism. Trumpism. A populist white ethnostate. Do you think that it wouldn't work, or that it would be ethically wrong? Full on free market oxygen-by-the-second-for-profit capitalism. Again, that it wouldn't work, or that it would be ethically wrong? Why would we not do those things, or would they hold less sway, if we were more rational? Do you think that avoiding practical irrationality would prevent that, or is this a comment about wrong avoidance as a rational default. Something like, "If people were more rational, they'd be more ethical"?
Don't you think it's strange that the things we don't like..are the things we commonly imagine to be irrational? That the things we do like would be what we would do, if we were more rational? Supposing we were 5% rational and we did that, if we were 35% rational..would we do less of that, or be more convinced in the strength of our arguments to that effect?
Would a more rational nationalist or capitalist advocate be more convincing, and would a more rational audience have fewer objections than you or I might to a given idea poorly situated in either of our a-rational valuations? The percentages could float, what we're discussing would be gain of function. Doesn't gain of function apply to propaganda just as much to philanthropy? Is the relationship between them linear, such that a gain of rational function makes propaganda more effective, but makes people equally more effective at spotting it (whether internal or external) and it all washes out, our could one thing be a more effective function multiplier than the other?
I suppose, in a nutshell, I'm wondering whether you see your position on those matters as arguable - as rational, or is it a function of how you see the world that both those things (or any other example) are fundamentally a-rational and non arguable as such. If we were more rational, perhaps we'd expect the world to be more rational. What positions are rational by default? Anti-nationalism and anti-capitalism? What objections to either do you think people might have if they were more rational, how do you come to possess them at our currently meagre rationality, and are they truly representative of an increase in rationality and accordance to the rational default?
Let's take a couple that I think you and I might share an opinion of. Nationalism ala third positionism. Trumpism. A populist white ethnostate. Do you think that it wouldn't work, or that it would be ethically wrong? Full on free market oxygen-by-the-second-for-profit capitalism. Again, that it wouldn't work, or that it would be ethically wrong? Why would we not do those things, or would they hold less sway, if we were more rational? Do you think that avoiding practical irrationality would prevent that, or is this a comment about wrong avoidance as a rational default. Something like, "If people were more rational, they'd be more ethical"?
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
