Kelley wrote:
>> Irrational actors have reasons, but the reasons aren't rational and
>> are psychologically anchored in a way that makes them immune to
>> rational critique.
>
> huh? that's presuming I'm interested in changing their minds!
No. It's contradicting Fish's claim that: "Irrational actors are by definition without rhyme or reason, and there's no point in reasoning about them on the way to fighting them." The psychologically anchored aspect explains why ordinary methods of rational persuasion don't work; it also explains the inability to learn from experience. It's also not true that irrationality can't be reasoned about and understood. Keynes, for instance, who claimed there was significant irrationality in the behaviour dominant in financial markets, made a large fortune through rational "speculation" which he defined as "the activity of forecasting the psychology of the market" and "aping unreason proleptically."
> one thing that I find strange is this obsession with seeing them as
> crazy mo fos just because what they do doesn't make sense from _our_
> persepctive. of course it doesn't! if they could see our side of it,
> they wouldn't be doing it! :)
>
> OK. Nevermind. I can't convince you of anything, just like we can't
> convince Fish, and you can't convince me (which is actually contrary
> to my own experience of discussion lists and rational discussion more
> generally). But, I'm convinced of what you say... :)... so, I can see
> that it is a waste to have a discussion list at all.
This wouldn't be a rational reason for seeing them as irrational. A common way of invoking "perspective," however, involves the assumption that our experience is constructed by us in a way that prevents it from being direct experience of reality. The necessary logical implication of this is radical skepticism - "solipsism of the present moment." It's therefore self-contradictory to claim, having made this assumption about "perspective," that we can know the perspective of others. Irrationality is indicated by immunity to rational criticism e.g. to a reductio ad absurdum argument or a demonstration of self-contradiction.
The premise that irrationality is present to some degree in all of us doesn't imply that rational argument is impossible or useless. It points to an more or less serious obstacle in the way of making and being persuaded by rational arguments. The point of Keynes's self-criticism was that it's a mistake, and very likely itself an indication of some residual irrationality, to assume that irrationality plays a significant role in human affairs and then to act as if everyone is perfectly rational.
Ted