Michael Huemer argues for libertarian anarchism in his book "The Problem of Political Authority: An Examination of the Right to Coerce and the Duty to Obey." I highly recommend it.
you all probably dont give a damn but does any of you know a way to get back into an instagram account? I stupidly lost my password. I would love any tips you can offer me!
@Johnathan Cairo thanks so much for your reply. I got to the site through google and I'm waiting for the hacking stuff atm. Takes quite some time so I will reply here later when my account password hopefully is recovered.
+Cory Chapman If you want to learn a lot more about human irrationality from a psychological perspective, Daniel Kahneman's "Thinking, Fast and Slow" is great on the topic. It centers around decision-making specifically, but is a fantastically useful read. Michael Huemer himself (the speaker in this video) has good books on Ethical Intuitionism and Epistemology, but his most popular work is his famously cool, rational, and straightforward book on political philosophy "The Problem of Political Authority". If you want further reading, there you go.
The interesting thing about Huemer's three touchstones in determining the possibility of irrationality is that points 1 and 3 are equally exhibited by people to whom point 2 doesn't apply. That is, some people are rational about politics, study a wide range of sources, apply rational analysis to them, and form a political views based upon that research. They are very likely to become angry, because they see their opponents are underinformed or willfully evil. And they are quite right.
+quilling1 And if they want to claim he's "supporting" anyone with this talk, they might want to know he's a voluntaryist anarchist first. So that's the angle everything comes from in his ideology.
He made some good points at the end of the discussion and provided some good self-analysis tools. I disagree with the use of the term "irrationality", though. Human beings are always acting in a way to improve their subjective well-being, however defined. Perhaps "emotional" is a better description that "irrational", but I see where he is coming from.
Yes, that's the problem. Most people base their opinions on emotion and not evidence or reason. The majority are feelers in their personality, basing their opinions and decisions on emotion.and not reason and evidence. That is the problem with culture and society in general. The thinkers, using reason and evidence are the glue that keep the world from totally being destroyed and coming unglued.
13:32 "The people I'm most likely to learn something I don't already know from, are the people who disagree with me". Btw also "Unless Love is present, the Truth cannot enter"** also is a Natural Law that I am certain is true based on my own experiment & experience. No use discussing when when ppl are projecting rage or not open to a basic respectful conversation. **Quote by Jesus, but different sources.
Anger in political discussions "might" be a sign of irrationality, but it needn't be. Maybe if there were more anger against the ideas of Stalinists, for example, millions of lives could have been saved.
@lucidmaze I think that you raise a good point but I am still reminded of an old joke: There is a guy standing on the street corner snapping his fingers. A woman walks up him and asks him, "Why are you snapping your fingers?" He replies, "To keep the elephants away." "Why there isn't an elephant within a 1000 miles." She exclaims. "See! It works!"
It's a 14-minute talk about politics, not an exegesis of the current state of the science of cognition. I would also assert that 'rational' is well-understood in common parlance: it means consciously attempting to make optimal choices given your objectives and the constraints under which you operate. It was obvious from the counter-examples: teaching by counter-example has been around since Socrates.
Actually,most people have been irrational at various levels. The reason for it is stated on the video, it just takes energy and effort to be one. Usually, those who are rational most of the time are expending time and effort to be one, aside from being indifferent to the eyes of most.
Politics is irrational. But so is omitting total number of people killed by terrorists. He shouldn't be comparing the world total civilian casualties killed by fighting terror with the U.S. total civilians killed by terror. He should be comparing the world total civilian casualties of fighting terror with the world total civilian casualties of terrorists.
One possibility is that there are actually two or more different ways of interrupting evidence on a subject. One or the other opinion may not in fact be irrational.
Good presentation, and yes I agree we should seek information from sources we disagree with, but what if those sources are propagandists? I don't see the sense in that.
+tpv Well first you have to define what is merely a source you disagree with vs. a propagandist you disagree with. I believe the point he was making is that it's not beneficial to dismiss conflicting ideas simply to appease your cognitive comfort, not that you should pay attention to literally everyone.
TheVoidReturnsNull Yes, that is the challenge. How do we come to know who is who? Trust is the first barrier to overcome before conflicting ideas can be entertained. People are too busy to vet their sources especially when we wade in fever swamps of logical fallacies and fiction masquerading as facts. Where do we go for facts when everyone has their own?
+tpv I start with the assumption that I'm being deceived regardless. I don't remember where it's from, but there's that old proverb that goes along the lines of "If you know you are deceived, then you are not deceived." I go everywhere for facts, but if I cannot vet them and don't have that time or effort to spend, I consciously note that I can't rely on any of it, and if anyone asks me to talk about the subject I just say I can't competently talk about it because I don't know it for myself.
TheVoidReturnsNull I'm talking societally while you are working from a personal perspective. I'm sure I'm pretty good at it too, but I don't really matter when our society is so bad at it.
Don´t know if anyone ever watched "Donnie Darko", they made a simple joke in this movie about a teacher, who thought, that actions are primarily motivated by two emotions - love or fear, ... a simple and smart joke, same problem here, you can make loads of rational choices which are morally completely wrong, life is not that simple, you can say a rational choice is always the right choice, but in reality maybe that is not enough. Aside from that, I think, it is worthwhile to watch this.
I think a prerequisite for a rational choice is that it also needs to be based on a framework of moral consistency. I admit that it's difficult and maybe impossible to figure out objective morality, but at least we can be logically consistent with our moral principles.
+Robert Schneider You can still put morality into your rational thinking, it just depends on how much value you put on hanging on to your moral principles, which for a lot of people may not be very high. But since morality is entirely subjective anyways, who is to judge?
It is worse than this. The whole political class is composed of people whose mission in life is to encourage irrationality. Who is the political class? Certainly politicians and journalists. But also lawyers, marketers, and educators.
In _Myth of the Rational Voter_, Caplan provides evidence showing that what people vote for is not driven by self-interest, and that policy lines up well with what the median voter supports, though he amends this in some posts on his blogs when he learns of Michael Gilens' work on the subject, in which Gilens finds that the median voter doesn't actually have much effect on policy, and that the reason policy is closely aligned with the median voter's preferences and yet diverges in certain areas is because wealthy voters vote in almost the same way as the median voter with divergences in certain areas. Policy aligns with the opinions of the rich, but not the interests of the rich. See Caplan's posts: econlog.econlib.org/archives/2012/09/why_is_democrac.html econlog.econlib.org/archives/2014/09/gilens_page_and.html
Adam Smith is not that father of modern economics. He believed in cost-based theory of value, similar to labor theory of value, but more general to all costs. Cost-based value people think they know what is or isn't "wasteful spending" in government. The real answer is value is subjective, so you don't know what is "wasteful" because you don't know how other people value things. Carl Menger set up subjective value which led to the law of supply and demand 100 years after Adam Smith died.
@bronyaur71 Terrorism never occurs in a vacuum. If one sees an act of terror, one should always ask what political violence preceded it. I maintain that terrorism is everywhere and always a response to political violence, and more specifically by the weak in response to the strong.
11:50 it depends on the political position. Imho it is normal to get angry at people who have certain political positions, e.g. racism. 13:04 imho this actually is what most people do. 13:50 probably most people are not evil, but imho most politicians are evil, because some behaviours that are considererd evil are very helpful if you want to get a political position, e.g. egoism and opportunism.
"Imho it is normal to get angry at people who have certain political positions, e.g. racism." That's your opinion. And if you are angry at people with certain opinion (e.g. racism), then don't be surprised if I'm angry at you for that. Well, angry isn't the word... but people sharing that opinion deeply disappoint me... this is why humanity is condemned to slavery. "probably most people are not evil, but imho most politicians are evil, because some behaviours that are considererd evil are very helpful if you want to get a political position, e.g. egoism and opportunism." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Émile_Chartier That guy theorized this pretty well in a book called "Propos sur le pouvoir" (+/- Thoughts about power). Among other things, it explains that as long as the system gives power to people who want power, then the worsts human beings will always govern. There are solutions. But after the revolutions in 1600-1800, the new form of governments categorically rejected any form of democracy, and made sure we wouldn't even get to think about these solutions. The best move was to re-title their representative governments and name them "democracy", the name of a completely different system... It worked like a charm. Nowadays, democracy means representative government. And we have no words to speak about what democracy used to mean.
snake046 WelI actually know that most racists really are just uneducated and naive, so they fall for people who use people of other races as scapegoates etc. But on the other hand these people are the kind people that the Nazis and other people used for their purposes and many of them not just supported e.g the Nazis or the KKK, and many of these people also committed racist crimes themselves, so I cannot like these people and it makes me angry if some has theses views.
rfvtgbzhn You still have the bias of thinking "most racists are uneducated and naive"... most maybe, but then again: most not-racist people are also uneducated and naive (there's no relation of cause and effect here). And the problem is amongst the non-racist non-educated and naive people. Because these guys, if taught to answer to racism with hate and anger, won't be able to use their reason when it comes to racism. They won't see racism where it really is: they'll see racism wherever someone more educated and less naive tell them to look for it. And this is one of the reason why we can't shake the occidentals soft dictatorships: anyone who tries is flagged as a racist, regardless of what he actually thinks of races (there is *always* a way of making someone appear like a racist or fascist, because, just like "democracy", these words have been emptied of most of their substance). Basically, racism was a way of manipulating the masses... now that racism is pretty much dead and beat (not completely gone, but mostly gone), how to you manipulate the masses ? You create anti-racism: your enemies were wrong because they had the wrong skin color, now they're wrong because they're racist (again, regardless of their true opinions on the matter). What the dude making that conference forget is that people are politically irational, not by nature, but because we've spent hundred of years developing techniques to make sure they wouldn't be able to think rationally.
The truth is, most people actively avoid learning of all kinds, not because the perceived benefits are minuscule, but because of the basic fact that new knowledge tends to challenge one's identity, the most fundamental aspect of our consciousnesses. People behave emotionally, not rationally, and it is the emotions to which we must appeal in order to get people to reconsider their identities.
You can't plagiarize ideas. That implies you own them, which is absurd. How can you own an idea? That said, if you use an idea from someone else, it's nice to give them credit.
@@teenagesatanworship while I agree that the state granted privilege of intellectual property laws are complete BS, the definition of plagiarism is: “the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own.”
He's not saying disagreeing with the is irrational. He's saying disagreeing while not even being able to state their arguments is irrational. Which is almost everyone who supports protectionism. If you understand the arguments, you will almost certainly be converted.
@TheClosestcontinuer Further the original context of my argument was the data he presented. I think there would have been a much higher rate of death due to terrorist action than murders, had we done nothing. Think about it. If you can't raise a standing army to fight an enemy, then you have no choice, but resort to the next best thing: individual acts of terrorism. If you let them get away with the 9/11 attack, then they will have the green light to do more with more.
Well, he could present all of the evidence - empirical data, simple logic, etc - but that would take up time and when you've only got 15 minutes, you have to be very sparing in how you use it. Yes, it's an argument from authority and thus a logical fallacy, but it also happens to be right.
@eviltreesloth Google my PowerPoint "Why Do They (Terrorists) Hate Us Slideshare" It should be the first link at the top. NY Times bestselling historian Tom Woods called it a "very good presentation" on his blog and another guy added "You made this PowerPoint? Someone linked me to it a while back and it really had a big impact on my foreign policy views. That was very good work--thanks for putting it together."
@TheClosestcontinuer I don't know where you are going with the, "CIA", "Al-Qaeda", etc. You just brought that up, not me. We have also been extremely unsuccesful at military interventions. Most of those times, our defensive focus was containing the activities of the Soviet Union, which acted in a much more aggressive and interventionalist way than we could at the time. It's vital to see those re-actions in the context of the Cold War, which was directed against the us.
Irrationality in economics is too often used to abuse differences in values. Example: someone might say, "you're a smoker, smoking cigarettes is irrational, you are irrational." On the surface, that may seem obvious, it's intellectually disingenuous. On might say, "you say you want to be healthy, you say you don't want to get lung cancer, the data on causality of cigarette smoke to lung cancer is overwhelming, so your smoking cigarettes is irrational." These are actual disparagements of people and ignorance of economics. The truth is, if a person knows smoking is bad for them, and smokes anyways, it's because they value smoking over the consequences, full stop. Value is subjective. Just because you don't hold the same values, just because you can't conceive of the rationality of someone else's values, doesn't make them irrational. It's true, someone may be irrational about their justifications. They may use faulty data or statistical analyses to justify the consequences of their smoking (and this goes both ways, such as many of the health claims of 3rd hand smoke), the smoking its self isn't irrational. It may be irrational to you. Most people are irrational about something, irrevocably so. That is to say, most people cherry pick information that justifies their beliefs. That includes brilliant scientists. In fact, brilliant people are the worst, they're that much more intelligent at justifying their beliefs. Irrationality isn't a bad problem, humans have ALWAYS been irrational. It's only a problem in a way that an unsolved mathmatical equation is a problem. It's something to be solved, uncorrelated to any moral assumptions, it can only be solved on an individual by individual basis, all attempts to educate people on rational thinking has resulted in a eugenics on the exchange of memetics (ie and echo chamber) that limits innovation and understanding.
the thing is a nation is not built based solely upon rationality. it's more complex than that. what about love of nation, patriotism, etc? Isn't those likely being driven by irrationality? and I don't think that irrationality is similar with ignorance: someone that has gathered large amount of information related to some issues could be doing on irrational way either. Irrationality is not something that should be negated from politics, in fact, it has to be taken into account when someone talking about politics. Just remember: Irrationality is not same as violence.
+hangingjeans What are you even trying to say? It's not irrational behaviour that has taken humanity so far. It's one of the things hlding us back (and a major one). Yes, nations have at their very core some irrational thiking, but that doesn't mean you have to accept it as if it couldn't be changed.
@TheClosestcontinuer The only logical error in that argument is the assumption that the United States has the power to hand carve international events at will. I don't think we are as responsible for terror events as we give ourselves credit for. However I would like to think that we, as Americans, have that kind of power.....or is it arrogance?
Having posted this video on FB, I received this reply - How would you answer this objection? Whereas I can fully appreciate what Huemer is attempting to address - ironically, he's done so in a very speciously reductive manner. Like many others, he makes the false assumption that rationality is a binary concept (rational or irrational) - and then develops his entire argument predicted on this faulty premise. To do so conspicuously lacks a rudimentary understanding of epistemology. Let us imagine for a moment that you happen upon two neighborhood boys arguing over which of them has the *better* dog - each of them passionately making their case. Then a man comes along, overhearing their debate, and decides to weigh in - he turns to the first boy and says “I had a dog just like yours, he was a faithful, good-natured mutt . . . I sure do miss that old dog.” To which the 2nd boy retorted “well, my dad's a veterinarian, and he says our dog’s breed is the best dog there is”. At this point, a woman who works with the Humane Society came along and she said she had some statistical information she believed would settle this debate, and began to cite various studies she had read on the topic. Now which of these people were being rational, and which ones were being irrational? The answer is -they all were! They were all being, both rational and irrational - because determining which dog is *better* is an existential task . . . which is invariably an evaluative process, employing a *self-affirming* criterion. So in essence, the debate was no longer about the dogs - but rather, about which criterion was more rational. But because rationality itself, is *also* assessed via an existential criterion - it makes the argument inscrutably moot! This is why I’m always wary of someone who comes along attempting to appeal to rationality - as if rationality was a self-explaining concept . . . because chances are, they’re simply dressing up their own personal opinions with intellectual subterfuge, so that their conclusions would be received as unimpeachably true. In short, an appeal to rationality, within a debate, is more often than not, just a rhetorical gambit . . . It’s helpful to remember - the first thing a crazy person wants you to know about them is . . . just how rational they are being.
I know I'm late to the party, but what you said was either dishonest or not well thought out. Running to "everything is subjective" doesnt help you. It is clearly implied when he is talking about terrorism, the goal is less death and suffering, yes that is subjective, but he is showing that your subjective preferences are objectively irrational. Furthermore when he discusses economic policies, its obvious the goals pursued by public are prosperity, growth, wealth etc. So with those, albeit subjective goals, there is an objectively best way to achieve them. So what is your point? Or was it just a strawman?
2 finish.... I would have probably ignored the comment,if not for one of my older children....I have 5 sons from 15 to their early 20s .. My son asked me ,why I was giving this person cover,by being their fb friend...I was puzzled by this....My teen said if the pro abortion guy,had told you he had thought molesting little boys was okay .What would, I have done??....I would have defriended him instantly.....But what he said was in ways worse,he believes in killing them...
I didn't think it was possible to pack that much meaningless gibberish within the character limit, but you managed to. Logic doesn't constrain choice sets? By DEFINITION it RULES OUT those choices that fail logically. Also, "rational" is so well understood in the philosophical, economic, cog-sci and psychological literature that the VERY FIRST line of the definition on Wikipedia (excerpted from "Reason and Rationality") reflects EXACTLY what I wrote. Repeat Philo 101 until you pass, kiddo.
Note that his argument against the War on Terror is based on statistics - facts, numbers of people killed. There, you see his conclusion before he states it, on the weight of the evidence. His argument against tariffs is based on *authority* - "the vast majority of economists" - which is a very weak argument. You have no evidence for or against his conclusion; he's actually arguing for you to be *irrational* and accept it because its popular, at the moment, with most -but not all- experts.
Rational requires defining, it's done either through axiomatic methods or dialectic methods. Logic doesn't mean constricted choices, it means the next reasonable choice proposed by a particular course of action. Rational thought is purposefully defined purely on the logical form that is used or the process used during it's evolution. Without that logical basis it is not rational. Congrats you managed to misinterpret how to apply rational thought.
This is an excellent video. He makes some amazing points, however I think he makes only ONE logical mistake. He completely neglects the cost of doing nothing during the war on terror. If in fact, had he included the data on the number of attacks that were prevented, and/or caught by our government then there would be far more deaths from terrorism than from homicide during the same time as the war on terror. Other than that, great video with a lot of insight!
Take the 50 year 1 trillion dollar, and countless lives lost due to the war on drugs. When it was started in 1972, 2.3% of the population were regular drug users. Today 2.3% of the population are regular drug users....THAT'S IRRATIONAL. But the war on drugs could end tomorrow, by just ending the criminalization of substances, because it obviously causes more harm than good.
yo i don't even think he's intentionally trying to be funny, yet the audience keeps laughing like he's doing standup. y'all laughing at your own hypocrisy like it's cute
I'm sympathetic to Dr. Huemer's intellectual tendencies; however, TWOT example is pretty weak. It can be broken down into "about 3,000 died on 9/11 due to a terrorist attack; more people died from non-terrorist attack, therefore, TWOT is irrational, given costs of blood and treasure." Couldn't I make the same argument for World War Two? "'Only 2,403 people died on 1941.1207; many more Americans undoubtedly died that year from non-terrorist/military causes; given that WWII cost 405,399 American lives and +$5.5 Trillion (adjusted for inflation), it was irrational." His underlying thesis is correct; however, he needs to strengthen the examples he uses.
Huemer couched free trade as if it is unanimously cheered by economists. This is false. While all agree there are efficiency gains, this is not enough to cheer lead. There’s also efficiency-to-displacement ratios, which often reveal small gains compared to large domestic displacements; gains in efficiency also tell you nothing of their lags to realization, frequently taking years. The failure of the Washington Consensus in developmental econ should instruct him, but he seems oblivious to it.
Nonsense. In politics there's always the reason given to the public and the real reason for a policy. The War on Terror is more about maintaining control in a region with a strategic resource than fighting terrorists. It's a reasonable thing for an imperialist power to do. That it hasn't gone well is beside the point. Voter irrationality is also irrelevant, nothing important is decided by them. Policies aren't random, someone always benefits. Probably some industry baron.
politics is not about cognitive biases. It is about ideologies, emotions, etc. and these make it "irrational". You may think that this should be changed. But I think this is not possible and realistic. It may even be not desirable? Human life is irrational as a whole.
@xntubes Comparative advantage is one of the hardest concepts in economics for people to get their minds around. I do disagree with your assessment, because the data actually does support it. Further, what you are confusing is "trade in simialr goods" between nations, which Krugman is a respected expert in as well. You are also confusing absolute advantage. Further, a nation can't be priced out of all markets. At worse, you will produce what you have a least disadvantage in.
He's good at rhetoric. Which is instrumentally rational. But he seems almost too good at it to be epistemically rational. Basically, he makes a plausible (though far from bulletproof) argument that there's a problem, then presents one plausible explanation for that problem. Even if his explanation (or two, if that's how you count) is/are part of the truth, there's no reason to believe they're the most important part. In fact, even if everyone were rational, plurality voting would still suck.
The only two policies Huemer presented as examples of irrationality were opposition to free trade and support for the war on terror, which are far cries from anarcho-capitalism. Caplan defines voter irrationality as systematic disagreement with experts on issues where the experts clearly know more. In the case of economics, the experts are primarily moderate Democrats, which is again a far cry from the anarcho-capitalist views of either.
magentawave They were very effective. And though I don't agree with his philosophical brand of ethical intuitionism, the way he frames his arguments are very useful against people who _do_.
this guy is a genius. near the end i started to get really angry because he kept proving me to be extremely irrational.
it was vicious.
Michael Huemer argues for libertarian anarchism in his book "The Problem of Political Authority: An Examination of the Right to Coerce and the Duty to Obey."
I highly recommend it.
you all probably dont give a damn but does any of you know a way to get back into an instagram account?
I stupidly lost my password. I would love any tips you can offer me!
@Johnathan Cairo thanks so much for your reply. I got to the site through google and I'm waiting for the hacking stuff atm.
Takes quite some time so I will reply here later when my account password hopefully is recovered.
@Johnathan Cairo it worked and I finally got access to my account again. Im so happy:D
Thanks so much, you really help me out !
@Kamryn Finn Glad I could help :)
Interesting. Thanks for sharing
I got a very good sense of Huemer from this. Thanks!
This is more applicable now than ever.
This really showed me how irrational i've been
+Cory Chapman If you want to learn a lot more about human irrationality from a psychological perspective, Daniel Kahneman's "Thinking, Fast and Slow" is great on the topic. It centers around decision-making specifically, but is a fantastically useful read. Michael Huemer himself (the speaker in this video) has good books on Ethical Intuitionism and Epistemology, but his most popular work is his famously cool, rational, and straightforward book on political philosophy "The Problem of Political Authority". If you want further reading, there you go.
And this is how we are at this point where we are now.
That's my favorite Ted Talk ever
Absolutely excellent presentation! I guess since I didn't get all freaked out by this lecture then I must be uber-rational! :-)
The interesting thing about Huemer's three touchstones in determining the possibility of irrationality is that points 1 and 3 are equally exhibited by people to whom point 2 doesn't apply. That is, some people are rational about politics, study a wide range of sources, apply rational analysis to them, and form a political views based upon that research. They are very likely to become angry, because they see their opponents are underinformed or willfully evil. And they are quite right.
Michael Huemer's book on libertarianism made me angry. Then I watched this video and felt embarrassed that I was angry.
Why did it make you angry?
I wish he was able to discuss more about the irrationality of protectionism instead of just saying that experts say so.
Fascinating how many commenters here describes the talk as something that supports their individual ideologies. I think you missed the point.
+quilling1 And if they want to claim he's "supporting" anyone with this talk, they might want to know he's a voluntaryist anarchist first. So that's the angle everything comes from in his ideology.
lol
i think it's more laughing at themselves, because the traits he mentions for irrationality i think are things we're probably all guilty of at times.
This was great.
He made some good points at the end of the discussion and provided some good self-analysis tools. I disagree with the use of the term "irrationality", though. Human beings are always acting in a way to improve their subjective well-being, however defined. Perhaps "emotional" is a better description that "irrational", but I see where he is coming from.
Yes, that's the problem. Most people base their opinions on emotion and not evidence or reason. The majority are feelers in their personality, basing their opinions and decisions on emotion.and not reason and evidence. That is the problem with culture and society in general. The thinkers, using reason and evidence are the glue that keep the world from totally being destroyed and coming unglued.
Huemer is irrationally rational.
Why
13:32 "The people I'm most likely to learn something I don't already know from, are the people who disagree with me".
Btw also "Unless Love is present, the Truth cannot enter"** also is a Natural Law that I am certain is true based on my own experiment & experience. No use discussing when when ppl are projecting rage or not open to a basic respectful conversation.
**Quote by Jesus, but different sources.
Anger in political discussions "might" be a sign of irrationality, but it needn't be. Maybe if there were more anger against the ideas of Stalinists, for example, millions of lives could have been saved.
@lucidmaze
I think that you raise a good point but I am still reminded of an old joke:
There is a guy standing on the street corner snapping his fingers.
A woman walks up him and asks him, "Why are you snapping your fingers?"
He replies, "To keep the elephants away."
"Why there isn't an elephant within a 1000 miles." She exclaims.
"See! It works!"
It's a 14-minute talk about politics, not an exegesis of the current state of the science of cognition.
I would also assert that 'rational' is well-understood in common parlance: it means consciously attempting to make optimal choices given your objectives and the constraints under which you operate.
It was obvious from the counter-examples: teaching by counter-example has been around since Socrates.
@ClarksonsinUSA
Everyone knows someone who is irrational. It's all of us.
Actually,most people have been irrational at various levels. The reason for it is stated on the video, it just takes energy and effort to be one. Usually, those who are rational most of the time are expending time and effort to be one, aside from being indifferent to the eyes of most.
The irony of these comments is astonishing.
Politics is irrational. But so is omitting total number of people killed by terrorists. He shouldn't be comparing the world total civilian casualties killed by fighting terror with the U.S. total civilians killed by terror. He should be comparing the world total civilian casualties of fighting terror with the world total civilian casualties of terrorists.
At 0:13 he should have said, "and yes: I promise that I'll be done in my allotted time."
Excellent stuff.
One possibility is that there are actually two or more different ways of interrupting evidence on a subject. One or the other opinion may not in fact be irrational.
You can't agree with him unless you first hear arguments from another point of view. But doing so, means that you agree with him. It's a catch 22!
STREAK FOR THE CASH?
most people are irrational about everything
Which means he is building on the premise of irrationality. Rational thought requires defining.
Good presentation, and yes I agree we should seek information from sources we disagree with, but what if those sources are propagandists? I don't see the sense in that.
+tpv Well first you have to define what is merely a source you disagree with vs. a propagandist you disagree with. I believe the point he was making is that it's not beneficial to dismiss conflicting ideas simply to appease your cognitive comfort, not that you should pay attention to literally everyone.
TheVoidReturnsNull Yes, that is the challenge. How do we come to know who is who? Trust is the first barrier to overcome before conflicting ideas can be entertained. People are too busy to vet their sources especially when we wade in fever swamps of logical fallacies and fiction masquerading as facts. Where do we go for facts when everyone has their own?
+tpv I start with the assumption that I'm being deceived regardless. I don't remember where it's from, but there's that old proverb that goes along the lines of "If you know you are deceived, then you are not deceived." I go everywhere for facts, but if I cannot vet them and don't have that time or effort to spend, I consciously note that I can't rely on any of it, and if anyone asks me to talk about the subject I just say I can't competently talk about it because I don't know it for myself.
TheVoidReturnsNull I'm talking societally while you are working from a personal perspective. I'm sure I'm pretty good at it too, but I don't really matter when our society is so bad at it.
Yes, some sources are outright dishonest. For example, I cannot bring myself to read Salon.
@3:20 win!
Don´t know if anyone ever watched "Donnie Darko", they made a simple joke in this movie about a teacher, who thought, that actions are primarily motivated by two emotions - love or fear, ... a simple and smart joke, same problem here, you can make loads of rational choices which are morally completely wrong, life is not that simple, you can say a rational choice is always the right choice, but in reality maybe that is not enough. Aside from that, I think, it is worthwhile to watch this.
I think a prerequisite for a rational choice is that it also needs to be based on a framework of moral consistency. I admit that it's difficult and maybe impossible to figure out objective morality, but at least we can be logically consistent with our moral principles.
+Robert Schneider You can still put morality into your rational thinking, it just depends on how much value you put on hanging on to your moral principles, which for a lot of people may not be very high. But since morality is entirely subjective anyways, who is to judge?
It is worse than this. The whole political class is composed of people whose mission in life is to encourage irrationality. Who is the political class? Certainly politicians and journalists. But also lawyers, marketers, and educators.
In _Myth of the Rational Voter_, Caplan provides evidence showing that what people vote for is not driven by self-interest, and that policy lines up well with what the median voter supports, though he amends this in some posts on his blogs when he learns of Michael Gilens' work on the subject, in which Gilens finds that the median voter doesn't actually have much effect on policy, and that the reason policy is closely aligned with the median voter's preferences and yet diverges in certain areas is because wealthy voters vote in almost the same way as the median voter with divergences in certain areas. Policy aligns with the opinions of the rich, but not the interests of the rich. See Caplan's posts:
econlog.econlib.org/archives/2012/09/why_is_democrac.html
econlog.econlib.org/archives/2014/09/gilens_page_and.html
Adam Smith is not that father of modern economics. He believed in cost-based theory of value, similar to labor theory of value, but more general to all costs. Cost-based value people think they know what is or isn't "wasteful spending" in government. The real answer is value is subjective, so you don't know what is "wasteful" because you don't know how other people value things. Carl Menger set up subjective value which led to the law of supply and demand 100 years after Adam Smith died.
@bronyaur71 Terrorism never occurs in a vacuum. If one sees an act of terror, one should always ask what political violence preceded it. I maintain that terrorism is everywhere and always a response to political violence, and more specifically by the weak in response to the strong.
11:50 it depends on the political position. Imho it is normal to get angry at people who have certain political positions, e.g. racism.
13:04 imho this actually is what most people do.
13:50 probably most people are not evil, but imho most politicians are evil, because some behaviours that are considererd evil are very helpful if you want to get a political position, e.g. egoism and opportunism.
"Imho it is normal to get angry at people who have certain political positions, e.g. racism."
That's your opinion. And if you are angry at people with certain opinion (e.g. racism), then don't be surprised if I'm angry at you for that. Well, angry isn't the word... but people sharing that opinion deeply disappoint me... this is why humanity is condemned to slavery.
"probably most people are not evil, but imho most politicians are evil, because some behaviours that are considererd evil are very helpful if you want to get a political position, e.g. egoism and opportunism."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Émile_Chartier
That guy theorized this pretty well in a book called "Propos sur le pouvoir" (+/- Thoughts about power). Among other things, it explains that as long as the system gives power to people who want power, then the worsts human beings will always govern.
There are solutions. But after the revolutions in 1600-1800, the new form of governments categorically rejected any form of democracy, and made sure we wouldn't even get to think about these solutions. The best move was to re-title their representative governments and name them "democracy", the name of a completely different system...
It worked like a charm. Nowadays, democracy means representative government. And we have no words to speak about what democracy used to mean.
snake046 WelI actually know that most racists really are just uneducated and naive, so they fall for people who use people of other races as scapegoates etc. But on the other hand these people are the kind people that the Nazis and other people used for their purposes and many of them not just supported e.g the Nazis or the KKK, and many of these people also committed racist crimes themselves, so I cannot like these people and it makes me angry if some has theses views.
rfvtgbzhn You still have the bias of thinking "most racists are uneducated and naive"... most maybe, but then again: most not-racist people are also uneducated and naive (there's no relation of cause and effect here).
And the problem is amongst the non-racist non-educated and naive people. Because these guys, if taught to answer to racism with hate and anger, won't be able to use their reason when it comes to racism.
They won't see racism where it really is: they'll see racism wherever someone more educated and less naive tell them to look for it.
And this is one of the reason why we can't shake the occidentals soft dictatorships: anyone who tries is flagged as a racist, regardless of what he actually thinks of races (there is *always* a way of making someone appear like a racist or fascist, because, just like "democracy", these words have been emptied of most of their substance).
Basically, racism was a way of manipulating the masses... now that racism is pretty much dead and beat (not completely gone, but mostly gone), how to you manipulate the masses ? You create anti-racism: your enemies were wrong because they had the wrong skin color, now they're wrong because they're racist (again, regardless of their true opinions on the matter).
What the dude making that conference forget is that people are politically irational, not by nature, but because we've spent hundred of years developing techniques to make sure they wouldn't be able to think rationally.
The truth is, most people actively avoid learning of all kinds, not because the perceived benefits are minuscule, but because of the basic fact that new knowledge tends to challenge one's identity, the most fundamental aspect of our consciousnesses. People behave emotionally, not rationally, and it is the emotions to which we must appeal in order to get people to reconsider their identities.
Watching this I was thinking “Did Bryan Caplan plagiarize Michael Hummer’s ideas?” Then at the end everything became clear.
You can't plagiarize ideas. That implies you own them, which is absurd. How can you own an idea? That said, if you use an idea from someone else, it's nice to give them credit.
@@teenagesatanworship while I agree that the state granted privilege of intellectual property laws are complete BS, the definition of plagiarism is:
“the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own.”
Plagiarism is a form of lying, not stealing.
He's not saying disagreeing with the is irrational. He's saying disagreeing while not even being able to state their arguments is irrational. Which is almost everyone who supports protectionism. If you understand the arguments, you will almost certainly be converted.
@TheClosestcontinuer Further the original context of my argument was the data he presented. I think there would have been a much higher rate of death due to terrorist action than murders, had we done nothing. Think about it. If you can't raise a standing army to fight an enemy, then you have no choice, but resort to the next best thing: individual acts of terrorism. If you let them get away with the 9/11 attack, then they will have the green light to do more with more.
The 25 dislikes were most likely from irrational people.
solve the war on drugs with one paragraph overnight. end criminalization of all substances.....solved....rational.
👍Vices are not crimes!
@xntubes Comparative advantage does not require an absolute advantage.
Well, he could present all of the evidence - empirical data, simple logic, etc - but that would take up time and when you've only got 15 minutes, you have to be very sparing in how you use it. Yes, it's an argument from authority and thus a logical fallacy, but it also happens to be right.
@eviltreesloth Google my PowerPoint "Why Do They (Terrorists) Hate Us Slideshare" It should be the first link at the top. NY Times bestselling historian Tom Woods called it a "very good presentation" on his blog and another guy added "You made this PowerPoint? Someone linked me to it a while back and it really had a big impact on my foreign policy views. That was very good work--thanks for putting it together."
@TheClosestcontinuer I don't know where you are going with the, "CIA", "Al-Qaeda", etc. You just brought that up, not me. We have also been extremely unsuccesful at military interventions. Most of those times, our defensive focus was containing the activities of the Soviet Union, which acted in a much more aggressive and interventionalist way than we could at the time. It's vital to see those re-actions in the context of the Cold War, which was directed against the us.
@CrassHeretic True...
Why is this not focused on?
Irrationality in economics is too often used to abuse differences in values.
Example: someone might say, "you're a smoker, smoking cigarettes is irrational, you are irrational."
On the surface, that may seem obvious, it's intellectually disingenuous.
On might say, "you say you want to be healthy, you say you don't want to get lung cancer, the data on causality of cigarette smoke to lung cancer is overwhelming, so your smoking cigarettes is irrational."
These are actual disparagements of people and ignorance of economics.
The truth is, if a person knows smoking is bad for them, and smokes anyways, it's because they value smoking over the consequences, full stop. Value is subjective. Just because you don't hold the same values, just because you can't conceive of the rationality of someone else's values, doesn't make them irrational.
It's true, someone may be irrational about their justifications. They may use faulty data or statistical analyses to justify the consequences of their smoking (and this goes both ways, such as many of the health claims of 3rd hand smoke), the smoking its self isn't irrational. It may be irrational to you.
Most people are irrational about something, irrevocably so. That is to say, most people cherry pick information that justifies their beliefs. That includes brilliant scientists. In fact, brilliant people are the worst, they're that much more intelligent at justifying their beliefs.
Irrationality isn't a bad problem, humans have ALWAYS been irrational. It's only a problem in a way that an unsolved mathmatical equation is a problem. It's something to be solved, uncorrelated to any moral assumptions, it can only be solved on an individual by individual basis, all attempts to educate people on rational thinking has resulted in a eugenics on the exchange of memetics (ie and echo chamber) that limits innovation and understanding.
Phenomenal comment...
The primary reason for it not having 1000 likes is due to such highly pervasive irrationality...
Fucking brilliant!
That's hilarious. Do you know the last vote of your congressmen in the legislature? One hand goes up. Woohoo!
Must have been the congressman that raised his or her hand.
the thing is a nation is not built based solely upon rationality. it's more complex than that. what about love of nation, patriotism, etc? Isn't those likely being driven by irrationality? and I don't think that irrationality is similar with ignorance: someone that has gathered large amount of information related to some issues could be doing on irrational way either. Irrationality is not something that should be negated from politics, in fact, it has to be taken into account when someone talking about politics. Just remember: Irrationality is not same as violence.
+hangingjeans What are you even trying to say? It's not irrational behaviour that has taken humanity so far. It's one of the things hlding us back (and a major one). Yes, nations have at their very core some irrational thiking, but that doesn't mean you have to accept it as if it couldn't be changed.
@lucidmaze Do you have such data to share? I've never seen anything like the numbers you're talking about.
11:36 So, Javier Milei could be irrational?
Javier Milei es un violento
Ancap recruiter no1
what if irrational arguments make you angry? ..I usually just say nothing and/or leave..still fuming inside the whole time.. :P lol.
@TheClosestcontinuer The only logical error in that argument is the assumption that the United States has the power to hand carve international events at will. I don't think we are as responsible for terror events as we give ourselves credit for. However I would like to think that we, as Americans, have that kind of power.....or is it arrogance?
God, why do people keep laughing?
Having posted this video on FB, I received this reply - How would you answer this objection? Whereas I can fully appreciate what Huemer is attempting to address - ironically, he's done so in a very speciously reductive manner. Like many others, he makes the false assumption that rationality is a binary concept (rational or irrational) - and then develops his entire argument predicted on this faulty premise. To do so conspicuously lacks a rudimentary understanding of epistemology.
Let us imagine for a moment that you happen upon two neighborhood boys arguing over which of them has the *better* dog - each of them passionately making their case. Then a man comes along, overhearing their debate, and decides to weigh in - he turns to the first boy and says “I had a dog just like yours, he was a faithful, good-natured mutt . . . I sure do miss that old dog.” To which the 2nd boy retorted “well, my dad's a veterinarian, and he says our dog’s breed is the best dog there is”. At this point, a woman who works with the Humane Society came along and she said she had some statistical information she believed would settle this debate, and began to cite various studies she had read on the topic.
Now which of these people were being rational, and which ones were being irrational? The answer is -they all were! They were all being, both rational and irrational - because determining which dog is *better* is an existential task . . . which is invariably an evaluative process, employing a *self-affirming* criterion. So in essence, the debate was no longer about the dogs - but rather, about which criterion was more rational. But because rationality itself, is *also* assessed via an existential criterion - it makes the argument inscrutably moot!
This is why I’m always wary of someone who comes along attempting to appeal to rationality - as if rationality was a self-explaining concept . . . because chances are, they’re simply dressing up their own personal opinions with intellectual subterfuge, so that their conclusions would be received as unimpeachably true. In short, an appeal to rationality, within a debate, is more often than not, just a rhetorical gambit . . .
It’s helpful to remember - the first thing a crazy person wants you to know about them is . . . just how rational they are being.
Que grande resposta! Maravilha de debate!
In enlgish: What a great answer! Wonder of debate!
I know I'm late to the party, but what you said was either dishonest or not well thought out. Running to "everything is subjective" doesnt help you. It is clearly implied when he is talking about terrorism, the goal is less death and suffering, yes that is subjective, but he is showing that your subjective preferences are objectively irrational. Furthermore when he discusses economic policies, its obvious the goals pursued by public are prosperity, growth, wealth etc. So with those, albeit subjective goals, there is an objectively best way to achieve them. So what is your point? Or was it just a strawman?
2 finish....
I would have probably ignored the comment,if not for one of my older children....I have 5 sons from 15 to their early 20s ..
My son asked me ,why I was giving this person cover,by being their fb friend...I was puzzled by this....My teen said if the pro abortion guy,had told you he had thought molesting little boys was okay .What would, I have done??....I would have defriended him instantly.....But what he said was in ways worse,he believes in killing them...
I didn't think it was possible to pack that much meaningless gibberish within the character limit, but you managed to.
Logic doesn't constrain choice sets? By DEFINITION it RULES OUT those choices that fail logically.
Also, "rational" is so well understood in the philosophical, economic, cog-sci and psychological literature that the VERY FIRST line of the definition on Wikipedia (excerpted from "Reason and Rationality") reflects EXACTLY what I wrote.
Repeat Philo 101 until you pass, kiddo.
Note that his argument against the War on Terror is based on statistics - facts, numbers of people killed. There, you see his conclusion before he states it, on the weight of the evidence. His argument against tariffs is based on *authority* - "the vast majority of economists" - which is a very weak argument. You have no evidence for or against his conclusion; he's actually arguing for you to be *irrational* and accept it because its popular, at the moment, with most -but not all- experts.
Rational requires defining, it's done either through axiomatic methods or dialectic methods. Logic doesn't mean constricted choices, it means the next reasonable choice proposed by a particular course of action. Rational thought is purposefully defined purely on the logical form that is used or the process used during it's evolution. Without that logical basis it is not rational.
Congrats you managed to misinterpret how to apply rational thought.
This would be labelled "far right" in 2022
It really wouldn't.
This is an excellent video. He makes some amazing points, however I think he makes only ONE logical mistake. He completely neglects the cost of doing nothing during the war on terror. If in fact, had he included the data on the number of attacks that were prevented, and/or caught by our government then there would be far more deaths from terrorism than from homicide during the same time as the war on terror. Other than that, great video with a lot of insight!
where I can see data on that?
I wish he would have defined what it means to be rational, or at least what he means. I don't think it's as obvious as it seems.
Take the 50 year 1 trillion dollar, and countless lives lost due to the war on drugs. When it was started in 1972, 2.3% of the population were regular drug users. Today 2.3% of the population are regular drug users....THAT'S IRRATIONAL. But the war on drugs could end tomorrow, by just ending the criminalization of substances, because it obviously causes more harm than good.
yo i don't even think he's intentionally trying to be funny, yet the audience keeps laughing like he's doing standup. y'all laughing at your own hypocrisy like it's cute
It is interesting...he never actually defines rationality which is the starting point of his entire argument
I'm sympathetic to Dr. Huemer's intellectual tendencies; however, TWOT example is pretty weak. It can be broken down into "about 3,000 died on 9/11 due to a terrorist attack; more people died from non-terrorist attack, therefore, TWOT is irrational, given costs of blood and treasure." Couldn't I make the same argument for World War Two? "'Only 2,403 people died on 1941.1207; many more Americans undoubtedly died that year from non-terrorist/military causes; given that WWII cost 405,399 American lives and +$5.5 Trillion (adjusted for inflation), it was irrational." His underlying thesis is correct; however, he needs to strengthen the examples he uses.
World War II was certainly irrational.
Huemer couched free trade as if it is unanimously cheered by economists. This is false. While all agree there are efficiency gains, this is not enough to cheer lead. There’s also efficiency-to-displacement ratios, which often reveal small gains compared to large domestic displacements; gains in efficiency also tell you nothing of their lags to realization, frequently taking years. The failure of the Washington Consensus in developmental econ should instruct him, but he seems oblivious to it.
Don't confound reason with logic.
What's the difference between them?
Nonsense. In politics there's always the reason given to the public and the real reason for a policy. The War on Terror is more about maintaining control in a region with a strategic resource than fighting terrorists. It's a reasonable thing for an imperialist power to do. That it hasn't gone well is beside the point. Voter irrationality is also irrelevant, nothing important is decided by them. Policies aren't random, someone always benefits. Probably some industry baron.
politics is not about cognitive biases. It is about ideologies, emotions, etc. and these make it "irrational". You may think that this should be changed. But I think this is not possible and realistic. It may even be not desirable? Human life is irrational as a whole.
@xntubes Comparative advantage is one of the hardest concepts in economics for people to get their minds around. I do disagree with your assessment, because the data actually does support it. Further, what you are confusing is "trade in simialr goods" between nations, which Krugman is a respected expert in as well. You are also confusing absolute advantage. Further, a nation can't be priced out of all markets. At worse, you will produce what you have a least disadvantage in.
Power, geopoplitics, propaganda, strategy... of course the War on Terror is rational.
He's good at rhetoric. Which is instrumentally rational. But he seems almost too good at it to be epistemically rational.
Basically, he makes a plausible (though far from bulletproof) argument that there's a problem, then presents one plausible explanation for that problem. Even if his explanation (or two, if that's how you count) is/are part of the truth, there's no reason to believe they're the most important part.
In fact, even if everyone were rational, plurality voting would still suck.
I can't make it through the whole video, the sheer number of baseless assumptions that he makes is just too much for me personally.
Name one please
well done. I was privileged enough to make the next speech, My speech was titled why Michael Huemers a virgin.
Most economist agree free trade is good.
Krugman is a gawd awful example of an economist that believes in free trade.
He's also talking about religion lmfao
So if I don't agree with your idea's of anarcho-capitalism the problem is clearly because I am the irrational one. Got it.
The only two policies Huemer presented as examples of irrationality were opposition to free trade and support for the war on terror, which are far cries from anarcho-capitalism. Caplan defines voter irrationality as systematic disagreement with experts on issues where the experts clearly know more. In the case of economics, the experts are primarily moderate Democrats, which is again a far cry from the anarcho-capitalist views of either.
magentawave *Unless some of his arguments are false, of course. I tend to think that the meat of it is correct, though.
magentawave I didn't see any. But it's important, when being rational about these things, to accept the possibility that there are.
magentawave
They were very effective. And though I don't agree with his philosophical brand of ethical intuitionism, the way he frames his arguments are very useful against people who _do_.
Those clapping are Democrats