NBC has a new TV series this year called "The Irrational". I find that title to be intriguing so I've been thinking about what we might see. According to the preview of the show, we find this, "Alec Mercer is a world-renowned leader in behavioral science who lends his expertise to an array of high-stakes cases involving governments, law enforcement, and corporations with his unique and unexpected approach to understanding human behavior."
This tv series is about a "unique and unexpected approach to understanding." Is he really being "irrational"? The 1828 Webster dictionary defines irrational as "void reason." Doesn't seem like "The Irrational" showcases someone void reason, but rather someone who uses different reason that what we might expect.
Is it possible that we claim someone is irrational (stupid, misguided, wrong, unfair, etc.) when they use an approach that reaches conclusions differently or unexpected from what we would conclude?
Bertrand Russel, noted mathematician and philosopher once wrote this about rationality, “If you wish to become a philosopher, the first thing to realise is that most people go through life with a whole world of beliefs that have no sort of rational justification, and that one man’s world of beliefs is apt to be incompatible with another man’s, so that they cannot both be right. People’s opinions are mainly designed to make them feel comfortable; truth, for most people is a secondary consideration.”
Is he right? Do most people "go through life with a whole world of beliefs that have no sort of rational justification"? I say "NO." Does anyone have a corner on truth because of their rationality? Again, I say "NO."
Then, how do I view or understand "rationality"? The issue with two people coming to two different conclusions is not that one is "void reason." But rather, each person started from a different point. This starting point is called bias or core assumption. It is an endearing belief that is never questioned but used to process ideas rationally.
So, how does this work? Here's some examples:
The reason political conservatives and liberals disagree on policy is not that one is rational and one is not (although that's the argument normally used). The difference is their core assumption about which institution can best meet society's needs. Conservatives assume private markets can, liberals assume government can. Both are rational, both are moral, but each have a different bias on who is best to solve society's problems.
When I was in the Coca-cola system, the bottlers constantly bumped heads with the Coca-cola parent company. My boss at a major bottler would constantly view the parent company as irrational (stupid was normally what he said). I found that neither was irrational, both were smart people who could apply reason in their arguments. It was that each operated from a different business model, which determined core assumptions on what, how and why things needed to be done as they thought best.
Let's try this on something more difficult and complex. Are the Muslims who seek to destroy Western civilization irrational? Is flying planes into buildings killing many including themselves "void of reason"? Is Russia's attacks on Ukraine and Hamas' attacks on Israel irrational, stupid, wrong, etc.?
It certainly appears to those who value Western Civilization that these actions are totally without reason. These actions are seen as wrong, unfair, maybe even evil. Is it possible that there is plenty of reason in these actions but that the rational process sits on top of totally different assumptions about civilization? Is it possible that reason sits on top of tribal biases?
So, why would Bertrand believe that many people are irrational, not interested in truth? It's likely he saw his rationality superior to many others because his conclusions came from biases he had different from others. It's likely the case some people have a greater capacity to think critically and process rationally. Bertrand is likely correct in that people are comfortable with thoughts that match their bias. But this doesn't make them rational and others irrational.
I tend to like the premise of the new TV series "The Irrational." It's biases people have that constrain the expected conclusions they reach. Being "irrational" may simply be a rational process based on biases not commonly held by others and finding answers that others cannot see or undertsand due to their biases.
