On 12/5/06, BillK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Your reasoning is getting surreal. You seem to have a real difficulty in admitting that humans behave irrationally for a lot (most?) of the time. Don't you read newspapers? You can redefine rationality if you like to say that all the crazy people are behaving rationally within their limited scope, but what's the point? Just admit their behaviour is not rational. Human decisions and activities are mostly emotional and irrational. That's the way life is. Because life is uncertain and unpredictable, human decisions are based on best guesses, gambles and basic subconscious desires. "What's the point?" - I think that's an even better question than defining
degrees of local rationality (good) vs irrationality (bad) The whole notion of arbitrarily defining subjective terms as good or better or bad seems foolish. If we're going to talk about evolutionary psychology as a motivator for actions and attribute reactions to stimuli or enviornmental pressures then it seems egocentric to apply labels like "rational" to any of the observations. Within the scope of these discussions, we put ourselves in a superior non-human point of view where we can discuss the "human decisions" like animals in a zoo. For some threads it is useful to approach the subject that way. For most it illustrates a particular trait of the biased selection of those humans who participate in this list. hmm... just an observation... ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=303
