Stars Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 Sorry, this is rubbish.You are sat in front of the reason why. Injin; come out of cryptic mode and tell me what's on your mind Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 Injin; come out of cryptic mode and tell me what's on your mind What are you sat in front of? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Steve Cook Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 (edited) We're having a rational discussion.I am normal. You state as a "fact" that people are rational. Care to back that up? I am more than happy to back any of my own assertions up. Even you must admit that a great number of humans act irrationally. Thus, your argument must rest on an assumption that this seemingly irrational behaviour is based on a lack of knowledge rather than an intrinsic irrationality. I would argue it doesn't actually matter which is true. The reason being that either people are intrinsically irrational and so it doesn't matte how much information you throw at them. Or their irrationality is, indeed, only based on ignorance. In which case, it is logistically impossible to ensure that all humans are in receipt of the same information. Unless you are secretly an advocate of massive social control.... Edited June 12, 2009 by Steve Cook Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 You state as a "fact" that people are rational. Care to back that up? I am more than happy to back any of my own assertions up. Even you must admit that a great number of humans act irrationally. Thus, your argument must rest on an argument that this seemingly irrational behaviour is based on a lack of knowledge rather than an intrinsic irrationality. I woukld argue it doesn't actually matter which is true. The reason being that either people are intrinsically irrational and so it doesn;t matte rhow much ionfiormation you throw at them. Or, their irrationality is, indeed, only based on ignorance, in which case, it is practically impossible to ensure that all humans are in reciept of the same informatiuon.unloess you are secetly an adviocate of massive social control.... Steve, you are another one disproving your own thesis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smith Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 What makes these the right and wrong direction? Well, in the final analysis I suppose that's just an individual's judgement, based on their moral viewpoint. My personal view is that 'fairness', just as it is fundamental to our justice and legal system, should be intrinsic to our economic system too, and that currently it isn't sufficiently represented. From a more pragmatic perspective you could argue that some of the current hot potatoes of anti-social behaviour, drugs, petty crime, vandalism are at least in part caused by jealousy resulting from inequality. So there may be some 'rational' reason to address it on these grounds, even if you don't agree with the moral standpoint. Smith Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stars Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 What are you sat in front of? My desk, my monitor, my wall, this discussion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laughing Gnome Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 (edited) A snappy aphorism, but not necessarily true.Relative poverty only kills the mind if one allows oneself to be consumed by envy. It is entirely possible to learn to be content with what one has, and grateful for it - whether it be a lot or a little. In fact, relative poverty has significant benefits - one does not have to be concerned about preserving one's non-existent wealth, for starters. No need for insurance policies, burglar alarms, investment advice, etc and all those other things that worry the wealthy. There is a freedom to be found in a lack of personal property. And an inventiveness, too. Necessity is the mother of invention, as the saying goes. All one has to do to avoid any "killing of the mind" as you put it, is to obey the 10th commandment. “You shall not covet your neighbour's house; you shall not covet your neighbour's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbour's.†And then, follow the example of Paul recorded in Philippians 4:11-12 "....for I have learned to be content whatever the circumstances. I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want." Thank-you vicar. And what would hankering after a housepricecrash be? Politics of envy, lack of gratitude? Edited June 12, 2009 by Laughing Gnome Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Spaniard Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 Your argument invoked perfect rationality, which you imagined. Jolly nice of you to say so, but I wouldn't claim "perfect rationality", just did my best at the time. If you imagined it, you've got it - therefore humans can be perfectly rational, You usually adopt the opposite stance on the relationship between the imagined and the real, e.g. your many references to Santa Claus or unicorns. Also, there's a lot of difference between "can be perfectly rational" and "are perfectly rational". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Steve Cook Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 Steve, you are another one disproving your own thesis. Care to expand? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 My desk, my monitor, my wall, this discussion? Exactly! HPC forum is proof that your model is wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 Jolly nice of you to say so, but I wouldn't claim "perfect rationality", just did my best at the time. Your idea of perfect must be perfect, by definition. You usually adopt the opposite stance on the relationship between the imagined and the real, e.g. your many references to Santa Claus or unicorns. Right, but this isn't one of those - this is the relationship of ideas to themselves - totally conceptual. Also, there's a lot of difference between "can be perfectly rational" and "are perfectly rational". I can see that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smith Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 You state as a "fact" that people are rational. Care to back that up? I am more than happy to back any of my own assertions up. Even you must admit that a great number of humans act irrationally. Thus, your argument must rest on an assumption that this seemingly irrational behaviour is based on a lack of knowledge rather than an intrinsic irrationality. I would argue it doesn't actually matter which is true. The reason being that either people are intrinsically irrational and so it doesn't matte how much information you throw at them. Or their irrationality is, indeed, only based on ignorance. In which case, it is logistically impossible to ensure that all humans are in receipt of the same information.Unless you are secretly an advocate of massive social control.... I find myself agreeing with Steve more than I'm used to agreeing with people. Steve, have you read either of the two Irrationality books I mentioned? Really interesting. Smith Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Spaniard Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 Hi, Steve. I'll hold him down and you hit him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Steve Cook Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 Exactly!HPC forum is proof that your model is wrong. Ooooh...that's really deep Care to expand? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 Care to expand? You are arguing rationally why people aren't rational. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Spaniard Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 You are arguing rationally why people aren't rational. Surely that must be irrational? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bogbrush Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 You state as a "fact" that people are rational. Care to back that up? I am more than happy to back any of my own assertions up. Even you must admit that a great number of humans act irrationally. Thus, your argument must rest on an assumption that this seemingly irrational behaviour is based on a lack of knowledge rather than an intrinsic irrationality. I would argue it doesn't actually matter which is true. The reason being that either people are intrinsically irrational and so it doesn't matte how much information you throw at them. Or their irrationality is, indeed, only based on ignorance. In which case, it is logistically impossible to ensure that all humans are in receipt of the same information.Unless you are secretly an advocate of massive social control.... So you're open to the idea that all people are rational. Great, let's think about how we stop filling their heads with nonsense* from birth, then we can look forward to a brighter future. * I don't mean fill their heads with "sense" as defined by anyone either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bogbrush Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 Surely that must be irrational? No, just misinformed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 Ooooh...that's really deepCare to expand? If good schooling and ownership of real estate is a needed precursor to making good decision - how come HPC exists, eh? "Forum full of half mad renters" who saw the bubble for what it was, can tell you all about pretty much any financial thing you care to name (in fine debating style I might add) and is provided to the user almost completely free. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Steve Cook Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 Hi, Steve.I'll hold him down and you hit him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Methinkshe Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 You are arguing rationally why people aren't rational. Because, don't you know, it's always other people who are irrational..............! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 Surely that must be irrational? It's a mistake - process doesn't guarantee result. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stars Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 Exactly!HPC forum is proof that your model is wrong. I should not have said nobody questions it - obviously i do But the substantial part of my point remains Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bogbrush Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 Well, in the final analysis I suppose that's just an individual's judgement, based on their moral viewpoint.My personal view is that 'fairness', just as it is fundamental to our justice and legal system, should be intrinsic to our economic system too, and that currently it isn't sufficiently represented. From a more pragmatic perspective you could argue that some of the current hot potatoes of anti-social behaviour, drugs, petty crime, vandalism are at least in part caused by jealousy resulting from inequality. So there may be some 'rational' reason to address it on these grounds, even if you don't agree with the moral standpoint. Smith Fairness equals sameness then? What about sameness of opportunity to gain wealth? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Steve Cook Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 Fairness equals sameness then?What about sameness of opportunity to gain wealth? This assumes that you can ensure sameness of opportunity. You can't. Even if you ensure all external resources are made equitable in terms of their availability (which is a rather odd argument to make given your apparent abhorrence of social control), there is the final thorny issue of inherent individual differences in cognitive capacity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.