From "In ‘Rationality,’ Steven Pinker Sticks Up (Again) for Reason’s Role in Human Progress" by Jennifer Szalai (NYT).
Prince wasn't calling himself the Artist Formerly Known as Prince when "Let's Go Crazy" came out (or when he last walked the face of the earth), but I guess the idea is to highlight his connection to the irrational. Ironically, Pinker's writing employs irrationality in an effort to convince us that people don't value rationality. Maybe that's rational. If we're irrational and he wants to persuade us that rationality is good, maybe he needs to scare us about the threat of irrationality.
পোস্টগুলি
৩৭টি মন্তব্য:
Did I miss the huge cultural backlash agains the idea that human progress is linked to human reason?
It's irrational to believe we should always embrace rationality.
The Artist Formerly Known as Prince can't be formerly known as Prince until he's currently known as something else. Which he never was. The tortured attempt at compliance with his absurd "name change" is self-refuting.
It would be nice if rationality extended at least to the extent of seeing perverse consequences. That would be a step up from feelings.
I know it’s completely irrational but I can’t take him seriously with that hairstyle.
But also, I think it’s important to embrace irrationality from time to time. Think of how much necessary irrationality goes into the act of love. To be so selfless that you would devote your life or even give it up for someone you love can be the ultimate beautiful act of irrationality.
Also, rationality is obviously uncool, because coolness is intuitive.
If a lily pad doubles in size every day, how long does it take to cover a pond?
A - 20 days.
B - 30 days.
C - 48 days.
Arnold Kling reviewed Pinker's book and had some interesting points: A Pinker Disappointment.
Rational or irrational is a judgement. The real choice is reasoning versus emotionalism.
Mr. Smart Professor Guy should know that not all pop songs are anti-intellectual manifestos.
Over-intellectualizing things outside their field of expertise is all too common with professorial types. I would argue it's more irrational than rational.
We all have our blind spots but it seems the "smartest" also seem to be the blindest.
Did I miss the huge cultural backlash agains the idea that human progress is linked to human reason?
Althouse promotes emotionalism over rationality on a fairly constant basis.
Rationality is uncool
Wait...what?!?
I had it on good authority that it was Hip to be Square.
People give the finger to rationality, OK. But if you don't say "be rational" and instead say, if you do this you will be worse off, they usually don't deliberately do that thing. For example, when asked if they would pay $10 more in taxes to "combat climate change" the majority say no.
Does it make sense to talk about the value, or lack thereof, of rationality without a theory of rationality? As a serious student of artificial intelligence, including from the perspective of analytic philosophy, I'm always struck by the way people toss around the undefined word "rationality," then proceed to make arguments about it while leaving it undefined.
If you have any doubts about what Pinker is on about, Google "insane engineering". I've done it and got 55,500 hits. Most of the top hits use insane as an adjective of approbation -- a word embracing the meanings of meticulous, painstaking, precise, conscientious, proficient, ingenious, innovative, and visionary. If insane is good, then sane must be ungood.
Flipping the meanings of words, particularly words bearing on life and death is cool, but stupid and dangerous as many cool things are.
The problem with the champions of rationalism is they are often less interested in rationalism and more interested in using their superior intellect to lord over other people. The fact that many of these people do not, in fact, own a superior intellect, and/or are provable ignoramuses on the topics they discuss does not shake this stereotype. It also does not help matters that they rarely seem to admit error and if they do it comes with caveats blaming everyone else for their failures or, in special moments, decrying reality for refusing to conform.
RELATED: See Politifact.
Also, rationality is obviously uncool, because coolness is intuitive.
Generally not true. Coolness is 99% imitative and only 1% intuitive. All intuitiveness is uncool until the behavior becomes imitative.
If a lily pad doubles in size every day, how long does it take to cover a pond?
What's the point, Fernandinande? Seems like a roundabout way to demonstrate not understanding the problem.
tim maguire said...
"The Artist Formerly Known as Prince can't be formerly known as Prince until he's currently known as something else. Which he never was."
Um... I DEFINITELY remember knowing him as Prince before he was known as T.A.F.K.A.P. so...
I'm reading a bio of Frederick the Great. Frederick wrote a book that criticized Machiavelli. In the book, Frederick maintained that the ruler had an obligation to the health and welfare of his subjects. He claimed that war was intrinsically evil and that a ruler should not engage in war save for defensive or preventive reasons. In the following year, he got initiated a war with Austria in order to seize the territory of Silesia. The war was neither defensive or preventive but was carried out solely to increase the glory and domain of Frederick.....There's a a theory that Frederick was never more Machiavellian than when he appeared in the guise of an anti-Machiavellian. In any event, Frederick impressed the cool kids like Voltaire and Diderot even while he was in the process of establishing the militaristic state of Prussia.......Maybe a convincing argument for rationality can be presented if it is delivered by someone with tattoos and long hair. Einstein with his long, frizzy hair looked sort of cool. The theory of relativity would have never caught on if he looked as dull and button down as Oppenheimer.
...and it's always the irrational people whinging about rationality.
Prince was only TAFKAP for about 7 years. It was part of a colossal legal brawl with his record company. He returned to "Prince" in 2000, after he signed with another record company. I guess not everyone knows this.
Chris-2-4 said...Um... I DEFINITELY remember knowing him as Prince before he was known as T.A.F.K.A.P. so...
So...what? If you think I was saying he was never known as Prince, then you missed my point.
Seems like a roundabout way to demonstrate not understanding the problem.
Exactly. I'm surprised that the problem as typically posed isn't immediately understood by nearly everyone.
Google "insane engineering". I've done it and got 55,500 hits.
It's not rational to trust google's numbers since there are only about 80 actual results for "insane engineering" and about 155 results for "insane" "engineering".
If you doubt it, try going to result numbers, say, 90 and 165 for the two search strings.
'Rationality is uncool,' he laments."
"It isn’t seen as 'dope, phat, chill, fly, sick or da bomb.'
But would a a rational person really be swayed by the opportunity to be 'dope, phat, chill, fly, sick or da bomb?'
And isn't rationality supposed to be "cool" in the sense of being unemotional?
Rationality and intellectuality were "cool" back in the days of JFK, but those poses turned out to be just poses, and to have bad results.
Rationality may be distrusted for being boring and desiccated, but also because rationalists often don't foresee the consequences of what they do and often aren't critical of their own ideas and motives.
In the latter case, the alternative isn't madness, but prudence.
Doctor Everything Won't Be Alright.
"But would a a rational person really be swayed by the opportunity to be 'dope, phat, chill, fly, sick or da bomb?'"
That's my point. He needs an irrational argument for rationality and he knows it.
You introduce the Lily Pad Problem with the wrong title is what is confusing us. The answer to the heading is indefinite, but the actual question in the links is what part of the pond was covered the day before the entire pond was covered. I agree, it is shocking how many people have trouble with that question.
"tim maguire said... "The Artist Formerly Known as Prince can't be formerly known as Prince until he's currently known as something else. Which he never was."/Um... I DEFINITELY remember knowing him as Prince before he was known as T.A.F.K.A.P. so..."
I think maguire fails to recognize "The Artist Formerly Known as Prince" as something Prince was known by at the time when he was referred to as "The Artist Formerly Known as Prince."
It makes some sense. Take "The Horse With No Name." That's just impossible, right? If you're calling him "The Horse With No Name," then that's his name: "The Horse With No Name." I'm sure I'm not the first person to point that out.
But I don't think Prince called *himself* The Artist Formerly Known as Prince. I think he had the curlicue symbol in place of a speakable name.
The History for Atheists blog has an interview that discusses Steven Pinker and the Enlightenment.
https://historyforatheists.com/2021/09/interview-ted-mccormick-on-steven-pinkers-enlightenment/
The theme of the day is Norman.
Ann Althouse said...I think maguire fails to recognize "The Artist Formerly Known as Prince" as something Prince was known by at the time when he was referred to as "The Artist Formerly Known as Prince."
Except he wasn’t. Can you even imagine talking music with someone and asking, do you have anything by The Artist Formerly Known as Prince? Of course not. You never did, nobody ever did.
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world;
The best lack all conviction (the cool), while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity (da bomb).
There is no syllogism but Party syllogisms, comrade.
"Except he wasn’t. Can you even imagine talking music with someone and asking, do you have anything by The Artist Formerly Known as Prince? Of course not. You never did, nobody ever did."
Newspapers did.
Blogger was 'whoopsy' today.
Let's see. Pinker. Smart guy, sometimes he's right, sometimes he's wrong; people complain about smart people "lording it over" others but I wonder where in modern America one sees that? Seriously. Not the mere credentialed, or the pretend-smart, but really smart people
lording it over others.
Personally, and as far as I know, I have never suffered from the intelligence (per se) or the rationality of others. I've known and seen a whole library full of suffering caused by irrationality.
I'm a big fan of the Enlightenments as I understand them, but rational historians, not least military historians, recognize that irrationality plays a huge role in human affairs--as Nietzsche said, in individuals madness is rare, but in groups, parties, nations, and epochs it is common.
William, I don't know what bio you're reading of Frederick II, but Asprey's has a great moment where he describes the intellectual and cultural life of Berlin, brightened by Moses AND Mendelssohn. (It's a donnish gag.)
Not every flute-playing warrior king gets a gusty Romantic cheerleader like Carlyle.
I don't know if it is the same today, but when I cared about being cool, being cool meant not caring about it. Just being it. If that has changed, I don't care, now.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন