If people were 100% rational, would the world be better?

[The Grand Nudger]

That’s generally taken to be the difference between a rational thing and a rationalized thing, no?

I think that the sort of rationality being described might exclude that by default. A happy accident rather than the rigorous application of formal process.

[Angrboda]

That’s generally taken to be the difference between a rational thing and a rationalized thing, no?  

I think that the sort of rationality being described might exclude that by default.  A happy accident rather than the rigorous application of formal process.

I was thinking differently, somewhat, recently. My distinction between rational and rationalizing was whether the reasons were ad hoc or well established.

[The Grand Nudger]

Ad hoc rationalizations as happy accident, well established as rigorous application of process. Deemed so afterward, vs pursued explicitly from the outset.

Very very little in our lives falls in the latter category, or so it seems to me in my experience. Is that what we’re trying to discuss ( or part of it) with whatever the difference is between us and full rationality?

If so, I can see us being a whole lot better and a whole lot worse. More competent in explicitly pursuing some goal, whatever that goal may be.

[vulcanlogician]

Ok another question. In this 100% rational world would the rationale be known before the decision or could we deem it rational afterwards.

I meant the former. The rationale would be known beforehand.

[The Grand Nudger]

So, (and this is a hypothetical if only to short circuit argument on the particulars) if a person explicitly set out to and did follow rational processes that necessitated or directly lead to the rejection of any climate change action, that would count as candidate 100% rationality, wouldn’t it?

[vulcanlogician]

It would indeed qualify as rational. But one must wonder what rationale was used in selecting such a goal.

[The Grand Nudger]

In the thought experiment- whatever you would consider a valid/logical one, even if it straight up blew.

Outside of the hypothetical, and back to the anecdotal…I could be a very persuasive 100% rational objector to climate action. I do face to face work, I’ve heard it all. Plenty of the arguments can be zeroed out as batshit, but not all of them. Some of the remainder are challenging. Those anti-advocates who offer them are effective. Which is to say that I end up spending a lot of time genuinely asking myself those questions and can’t always answer them.

Just imagine how much better they’d be as opposition if they weren’t human. If they were 100% rational.

No easy rebuttals, hundreds more hours of labor to collect data to offer counter argument.

[vulcanlogician]

In the thought experiment- whatever you would consider a valid/logical one, even if it straight up blew.

Outside of the hypothetical, and back to the anecdotal…I could be a very persuasive 100% rational objector to climate action.  I do face to face work, I’ve heard it all.  Plenty of the arguments can be zeroed out as batshit, but not all of them.  Some of the remainder are challenging.  Those anti-advocates who offer them are effective.  Which is to say that I end up spending a lot of time genuinely asking myself those questions and can’t always answer them.

Just imagine how much better they’d be as opposition if they weren’t human.  If they were 100% rational.

No easy rebuttals, hundreds more hours of labor to collect data to offer counter argument.

That's the kind of problem that makes Kantian ethics fail right out of the gate.

Which sucks really. Because I rather like Kantian ethics. Kant really tries (and almost succeeds) at tying up ethics neatly in a logical bow. But alas, what if your rule or maxim is to do bad shit? I don't really fault Kant for not seeing this. After all, who sets out to do bad shit intentionally (just for the sake of doing it)?

Turns out, plenty of people. 

Also turns out, you could frame preventing climate change as a completely evil thing... and then, yes, the obvious course of action is to "prevent the preventing" of climate change if one buys into this.

But this particular thing is not an issue in a 100% rational world. It may be the only strength a 100% rational world has over a 99% rational one. In a 100% rational world, the obvious thing to do is scrutinize the case for anthropogenic climate change. Then act accordingly. This (which is what most of us skeptics have already done) would prevent the problem of acting rationally according to bad ideas issue.

[Neo-Scholastic]

IMHO, motivated reasoning is perfectly acceptable if the underlying motivation is virtuous...I am not vey disturbed by Gettier problems.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think that you’re still framing the issue as though 100% rationality would lead to our conclusions about addressing climate change.

That all rational roads must by force lead to us and our position. That it takes a bad faith argument or the insistence that climate action as conceived would be evil - but that all of this would be zeroed out by 100% rationality.

That’s not been the case in my experience. While I don’t know any 100% rational people I’ve heard many 100% rational arguments from people against what we like to call the transition to appropriate technology and methodology.

They’re little mirrors of large scale arguments against the same. It is unclear, for example, why a completely rational producer would abandon massive investments in infrastructure and equipment specific to their models in order to service an ideological imperative held by others which they themselves have no personal a-rational attachment to.

It is similarly unclear that a 100% rational developing or disadvantaged producer( or society, for that matter) would forgo the benefits of rapid industrialization and mechanization, of petro-chemical agriculture and integrated pest management.

It’s unclear why a producer would abandon or fail to seek those subsidies and programs on the table for crops and methods deemed inappropriate in light of climate change.

It’s unclear why a producer would do -anything- to save the world knowing that a significant number of other people will refuse or simply not be able to comply, and in this, factually prevent the satisfaction of that goal.

Unclear in the case of full rationality- but a super easy pitch if the producer has some pre-existing a-rational attachment to the issue or goal. In this, I’d go so far as to say that the entire movement is made up of True Believers, for better and for worse. Climate action as conceived of is not a 100% rational goal. It’s rationalizable, after the fact, if it works, which it may not. The hook is always always always some personal conviction. That’s the difference between people who show up for free food and merchandise and snore through the presentations, the difference between people who see the dollars and cents but don’t care for the goal and the people who will pursue it at great expense to themselves.

People look for alternative models after they’re already hooked. They want to do something- and mist of them would like to see at least the pretense of rational expectations of success. Personal success, global success. It’s not always the case that these objectors are loons or making bad faith arguments or even that they have bad goals. Plenty of them want to be involved, but it actually and literally doesn’t make sense for them to do so. That’s the work that remains. They can’t be rationally argued out of their positions because their position is inarguably true until we find a solution that fits them.

Reason, rationality at any percentage, does not produce good outcomes..or at least outcomes you and I would call good. That’s not it’s function, not it’s effect. Our good outcomes may in fact be on the side of irrationality or a-rationality. Our motivation in this may be part of the set we’re zeroing out in the thought experiment. A world full of fully rational people may assess the issue outside of those zeroed out impulses and very legitimately conclude that climate action is a pleasant but indefensible fiction.

That it doesn’t work, won’t work, can’t work, and we’d only be harming people if we dive in headfirst.