[extropy-chat] Humans--non-rational mode

[Lee Corbin]

Keith writes

> [Hal wrote]
>
> > reasonable heuristic for a rational observer with potentially stringent
> > bounds on his available computational capacity; or whether you see it
> > as irrational behavior in terms of getting at the truth, but justified
> > in terms of other benefits, such as social advantages.
> 
> In the last year or two I have been subjected to a dawning horror that 
> genes have not only built mechanisms into humans to allow them to think 
> rationally, but mechanisms to shut off rational thinking when doing so is 
> in the interest of the gene.

Of course, what you write here is by no means an attack on
rationality, because, as you say, our interests and our genes'
interest at times diverge, and naturally we want what's best for us.

> I about half way suspect that non-rational behaviors may
> all have roots in the same evolved brain mechanism.  [E.g.]
> humans have capture-bonding mechanisms because of heavy selection.

Well, I have quite a number of questions, but they boil down to
wondering about all the assaults on rationality. The emphasis
here is different from yours; I take the default hypothesis to
be that evolution knew what it was doing (at least in the EEA),
and that "irrationality" is not ipso-facto a bad thing each time
it's identified.

The assaults on rationality that come to mind:

1. (the first one I ever heard of) Schelling's examples of how
   it is sometimes very rational to be irrational (the words
   here are very problematic, obviously)

2. general emotional behavior: anger, love, envy, and so forth
   surely have evolutionary explanations, and moreover, one
   easily sees that the *propensity* to become angry, for
   example, in many situations pays dividends

3. the famous Damasio card experiment in which (as I understand 
   it) one cannot rationally keep track of so much data, and so
   feelings of disfavor towards situations are necessary for
   optimal human performance. (I dare say that such brain
   processing can literally create a bad taste in one's mouth.)

4. Gladwell's book "Blink" which I have not read and do not
   recommend, but joins the parade of claims that many situations
   are best *not* dealt with rationally (e.g. the legend of "The
   Marines vs. the Wall-Street brokers)

and there was, I think, at least one paper at the Society for
Personality and Social Psychology conference held recently that
made the news. It was about the same thing, but I can't find it
right now.

How much should these change our perspective?
 
Lee