Viser arkivet for stikkord rational

Arguments against evolution.

Usually people dismiss arguments they find no fault in because of some first-hand experience. A perfect example is free will. Everyone are happy to accept determinism arguments when they see a billiard-ball getting bumped around on a billiard-table. But make the table and its shape invisible, along with the other billiard-balls, then humans feel like they see a will at work behind the movements of the billiard-ball we can still see. If the cause of the movements are not easily apparent, it gives the illusion of a will.

This first-hand experience is at work when people refuse to agree to determinism arguments, but hardly anyone are clever enough to realize they use first-hand experience (which is very unreliable scientific evidence) to dismiss rational arguments with perhaps no flaws. The dangerous thing about this phenomena is that people feel dismissing arguments based on first-hand experience is the rational thing to do. But if an argument is rational and good, it should over-rule first-hand experience. Like for example when you find no scientific reason to conclude there is such a thing as colored photons. Even though we experience color, it is not an accurate representation of reality and if we use first-hand experience to dismiss all the arguments against the existence of color based on first-hand experience, we are ultimately irrational.

When it comes to evolution there is a number of first-hand experiences at work, most of which haven’t been found yet. I’d say most involve fallacious ideas about what evolution is, because evolution is such a top-down idea when it is taught in school. In reality it is a bottom-up thing, basic chemicals gradually over time becoming more and more complex molecules because they have the time to go through every temperature, pressure, acidity etc again and again over billions of years. But without a heavy knowledge of chemistry most get the first-hand experience that they are unable to connect the dots from hydrogen and carbon and the rest of the elements, to a self-replicating molecule. A metaphor would be that you can see two points on a map, but you are unable to plot a road between them. Then this first-hand experience prevents them from accepting the arguments, and they feel it is the rational thing to do. The reason they dismiss the arguments for evolution are not because of arguments, it is because of their first-hand experience, so all the arguments they cook up against evolution mirror their misguided reason for dismissing evolution. Since they only dismissed evolution because of some first-hand experience, not arguments, their arguments are always fallacious. The reason for this is that they try to back-up their irrational dismissal of the arguments, they are in essence thinking “I am rational, and I dismissed evolution, therefore evolution must be wrong”. They don’t go out to disprove the theory, they just go out to find indications of it being wrong. In a way, they think “what would a wrong theory look like?”, and then they set off and find drunk researchers, greedy researchers, obvious errors and all the rest of it. They already know the theory is wrong, so they don’t actually remember to find an argument that convinces everyone that it is wrong, they just point out things like comedians. “hey have you noticed how they can not figure it all out after 150 years of study? Have you ever seen a lion give birth to a duck? Do these evil people really expect me to believe this thing they have not figured out completely?”. None of which disprove evolution, but to them, who already feel like they know evolution is wrong, its the funniest thing in the world, and it helps them feel rational for dismissing evolution.

People don’t need the right answer, they just need to feel good about the answer they already have. Its the 100 dollars now is better than 101 dollars in a month bias. We all think our current view of the world is worth a hundred bucks, so our laziness keeps us from expending more energy on it. Our genes make us lazy because we might need that fat for a famine.

A rational approach to hiring people.

You need to be tall to be a basketball player. But the tallest person is not automatically the best basketball player. So why is height a prerequisite for being a professional basketball player? Why do we not simply test their basketball skills and hire them based on only skill, instead of first taking out the potential great basketball players who are short?

A more important question to society is; The person with the best grades from school is not automatically the best at doing the job, why do we then hire people based on grades, and not their direct ability to do the job? It seems counterproductive to hire people with the highest grades and most education, who will demand most pay, when they will not automatically be the best at doing the job.
The rational thing to do is to test the ability of the candidates to do the job, or even train the candidates to do the job, and then hire the person with the highest number from this equation X/Y=Z, where X is skill at doing the job, and Y is the amount of pay he/she demands to do that job. 2 workers who combined do less work than 1 really good worker can be best if they put together demand less pay than the really good worker. Especially when you factor in that pay goes up by a few percents every year, while the ability of the person to do the job can double and quadruple in a year. Anything you do 1750 hours a year (8766 hours in one year) will be something you get good at if you want to or not.

To summarize. Test candidates’ ability to do the job directly, not indirect measures like grades or education, then ask them what pay they would consider fair enough for them to not think about it most of the year. Then take one and divide by the other, and hire the ones with the highest answer (most skill divided by least pay). Especially in places where hiring the wrong people is as expensive as in Norway it is important to hire based on direct evidence for ability to do the job, not indirect evidence. IQ, nationality, language even, education, grades, hobbies, age, structuredness, health, creativity, motivation, social abilities etc, it is all indirect evidence for ability to do the job. The pay is what will be largely unchanged, their ability to do the job will increase automatically.

Irrational intelligence.

We are all irrational, no exceptions. What varies is how we are irrational, and what we are irrational about. Before we act rational despite [insert reason for not choosing the rational option], in every case, we can not call ourselves an intelligent species.

We smoke tobacco despite the fact that it will shorten our lives. We drive fast despite the fact that it will on average shorten our lives. We drink and eat unhealthily despite the fact that it will shorten our lives with as much as 40 years. We do not stop climate-change, despite the fact that it will kill humans. We do not map the asteroids and meteors in the solar-system despite the fact that asteroids and meteors hit earth every day and time and time again kills entire species. We do not put as much effort into curing disease as we are able to despite that disease kills 155 000 people a day. We do not care about long-term thinking despite it always biting us (see drought in USA, floods, deforestation, climate change etc, when it is not a problem we don’t care and when it becomes a problem we can only throw money at it to try to fix it, which rarely works). We do not donate as much processing-power as possible to medical research projects like folding@home and GPUgrid despite the fact that it will statistically extend our lives by atleast days no matter how bad your computer is. I could go on forever, but I am not rational enough to bother mentioning more examples despite the fact that it will extend my life to convince more people that reads this to install folding@home or BOINC programs to donate their computers processing-power to medical research. My irrational reason for not mentioning more examples is that I assume you will likely not be rational enough to do something that only shows clear return on investment half a century from now (because I too have problems sticking to only doing things that make me live a longer and healthier life than the alternative actions).