Humans: The Irrational Animal

back to
Past Shows

Notes on show: Original Airdate 06/29/2004

Topic:	Humans: The Irrational Animal
Audio:
Download
Listen Online	This text will be replaced
Guest:	Stephen Stich, Board of Governors Professor of Philosophy, Rutgers University
What is it?	Some psychologists claim to have demonstrated that humans are systematically, deeply and perhaps irredeemably irrational in their reasoning and decision making. But what is rationality and why does it matter? If we are really so irrational, how have we managed to get this far as a species? Maybe rationality isn't such a big deal after all. Tune in as Ken Taylor and guest host Nadeem Hussain size up the human mind.

About the Guest

Professor Stich's primary areas of reasearch are in philosophy of mind and cognitive science. He is currently working on issues centered around the phenomenon of "mind reading" -- the process by which we come to know about the mental states of other people, and around evolutionary psychology, the view that the mind consists primarity of a cluster of mental "organs" or "modules" that were shaped by natural selection to solve specific specific adaptive problems.

His publications include:

From Folk Psychology to Cognitive Science: The Case Against Belief, (Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books / MIT Press) 1983.

The Fragmentation of Reason: Preface to a Pragmatic Theory of Cognitive Evaluation, (Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books / MIT Press) 1990.

Deconstructing the Mind, (New York: Oxford University Press) 1996.

Mindreading (with Shaun Nichols), (New York: Oxford University Press) 2003.

Listening Notes

Nadeem Huassain sits in for John Perry this episode. Are humans basically irrational? Ken introduces the notion of blindness to the base-rate, which is a negative influence on reasoning. How did humanity come so far if we are so irrational? Ken thinks it is because of evolution. Ken introduces Stephen Stitch, professor at Rutgers University. Stitch thinks that humans are programmed to be rational in certain contexts. Recent research into rationality has shown that there are many situations in which professionals will consistently reason to the wrong conclusion, such as the Harvard Medical School Problem. Stitch says that if the situations are changed to be more familiar, then we reason much more correctly.

Humans can reason well about problems if they are formulated in the right way. Does this help us at all since problems aren't always formulated in the right way? Are these situations illusions? Stitch says that the illusion is not easy to remove unless the problems are reformulated. Can we decide to think rationally? Much of modern economic theory is premised on the idea that humans are rationally self-interested agents. Why are logical rules called norms of reasoning since we are so bad at following them? Stitch thinks that philosophy has not made progress on reasoning about ends. Are we less rational in groups?

Do emotions detract from rationality or do they form the basis of it? Does our conception of rationality depend upon our cultural base? Nadeem thinks that logical and statistical reasoning makes sense even if you grew up in a radically different culture. Are our ideas of fairness and justice evolutionary adaptations?

Amy Standen the Roving Philosophical Reporter (Seek to 04:12): Amy talks to an engineer about winning the lottery. Amy also interviews Keith Devlin, a mathematician, about the rationality of human reasoning.