When zombies have you cornered in an abandoned warehouse.

Well, to cite your example, it would not be at all rational to jump into a river to save a child… if you couldn’t swim. Then there would be two victims instead of just one. So while, “Save my child!” is certainly a rational response to an emergency, then “Let’s do something really stupid!” is not rational.

Of course, if zombies have already eaten her brain, then the only rational response is to shoot the zombie in the head.

If you talk to economists and AI researchers, “rational” is tautologically defined as whatever maximizes your utility function. They’re very subjective that way, actually.

” when it isn’t always rational”

If what you do turns out in a positive way. Then it was a rational decision, you were just not aware of it at that time.

Irrational and rational can never cross paths.

@ChazMaz That’s not rational, that’s rationalization. :P

@elenuial “If you talk to economists and AI researchers, “rational” is tautologically defined as whatever maximizes your utility function.”

Does that include enslaving the human race to protect it from destroying itself?

@gorillapaws Aha, you’ve outed yourself, Skynet! Prepare for trouble, and make it double!

I for one can’t think of any scenario where it would not be rational to be rational. It keeps sounding like a logical contradiction to me. Like you’re asking us for a scenario where something that is blue is not blue.
Am I missing something?

I also don’t think it would be irrational to take a risk to save your daughter. If you had an hour to sit and think about it before you had to decide to do it or not, would you have come to a different decision?
It’s hardly a dilemma. It’s obvious that if you don’t jump in to save her and she doesn’t make it, you would probably be unhappy and unable to forgive yourself for the rest of your life. If you do jump after her, then both of you will be in danger, but her chances improve drastically and your life would be a dreary business without her anyway.
No, I’d say it’s a perfectly reasonable risk given the reward of getting her out alive.

And at the risk of starting to sound like a banner ad by now, I’m once again going to recommend reading LessWrong if you want to learn more about rationality.
The Wiki will tell you where best to get started.

I’m reading How We Decide, by Jonah Lehrer. He uses findings of neuroscience to show that emotions are an indispensable part of decision-making, right at the cell level in the brain, and that people who lack the emotional component cannot function as decision makers. I wish Kant and some of the other philosophers who went on about reason and the passions could have seen this evidence.

Since we’re recommending books on the subject… Predictably Irrational by Dan Ariely is one of the most fascinating books I’ve ever read.

@Fyrius I am noting your answer as no. (Btw, I say about my example that I might have a reason, meaning, if I had time to think I would most likely note that my reaction was certainly rationa, well at least reasoned.) Thank you for the links. I will be looking over them they look interesting.

@Jeruba That book seems very inviting to me! I made a point of saying I didn’t think rational meant emotionless because it seems that they must go together somehow. You gave further purpose to tomorrow’s library trip. Thank you.

@gorillapaws Thank you for the recommendation I will look into that one also.

There’s a game theory perspective that describes something like this:

you’re playing a game of chicken (two cars drive towards each other, and whoever swerves first loses), and you’re psyched up to win. Your opponent suddenly walks by, and stabs himself in the hand. “He had a psychotic break last night,” someone whispers.

Might this impact your choice, being a rational person against an irrational person? Essentially, the irrational person tends to win this game.

Nixon tried to use this method in the Vietnam war. He called it Madman Theory. I would argue that Kim Jong Il uses it to excellent effect these days.

@finkelitis I guess it depends on the game you play and the criteria you set for “winning”. If I were “playing” chicken, then I’d consider it a win to walk away alive—but that’s a game I wouldn’t choose to play, in general.

Same with North Korea; I tend to love the places I live and the people I live with / among (on a general rather than a personal level), and I couldn’t put myself in Kim Jong Il’s shoes and feel like I’m scoring any kind of “win” when my people are starving and too afraid to even say, “Hey, we’re starving, you know.”

So he’s scoring some kind of diplomatic and cash (for him) points, and wasting his nation. Some win.

People interested in the Dan Ariely book might also want to take a look at his TED talk. It’ll give you a sense of the the kinds of things that are in the book.

when the house is on fire and you are having the best sex of your entire life

The most practical person may act irrationally if a situation evokes a strong emotion. That’s why it’s best to “sleep on it” sometimes if the scenario involves an important decision. Also, there are times you want to just dump rationality and do what you want to do, even if it seems to make no sense.

@CyanoticWasp Yeah… ethics in game theory are often non-existent. They’re give pretty accurate predictions sometimes though.

@finkelitis
What an interesting example. I hadn’t heard of “Madman Theory” before. It does seem to be a good answer to the question. Or at least it’s on to something.

But isn’t that more like rationally deciding to pretend to be irrational, rather than rationally deciding to actually be so? Nixon didn’t really have his finger on the button.
And to actually become an irrational person for the sake of making your opponent crap his pants would have the nasty side-effect that you’re putting your own side at a terrifying risk too.

@Fyrius Right—at least in theory. However, Nixon’s attempts didn’t really work, arguably, some might say, because he wasn’t actually crazy enough. Kim Jong Il’s arguably, have, perhaps because he legitimately is crazy enough.

Interestingly (and to get back to the original question) often the optimal choice in these game theoretic situations is to be a little random. For example, a pitcher in baseball may have a great fastball. But if he throws it every time (a rational choice, if we consider each pitch separately) then batters will easily hit off him, because they know what’s coming. He should throw his curveball occasionally, just so he isn’t too predictable. So in this case, the rational choice is to have a little random variation. (Of course, it’s hard for us to be truly random, but the closer to it we can be, the better the strategy works).

We (and nature) have this randomness build in to many of our choices. I don’t know if you call that irrationality, but it’s certainly in that direction.

Frankly I don’t really see any connection between random and irrational…

I think this question trips over logic in that one always has a reason for doing or believing something.

The question then becomes, for me, is reason always rational? Which leads me to think about the inherency of reason and the process of, for my lack of a better word, the maturity of reason. What constitutes mature reasoning? What is the role of emotion in reasoning? (these are sort of rhetorical, but if you have a response please share)

I haven’t yet found the heart of what I am wanting to ask, you all have me thinking. I want to do some more pondering.

Before you do that, here’s one more thought.

Don’t trip over semantics, either. There’s “a reason”, a motive for a decision or a cause for something inanimate, and there’s “reason”, an abstract concept of sanity in general.
And even if people always have a reason to do what they do, having a reason is not the same thing as being reasonable. Imagine a war veteran who fought with the Allied Forces, and who still hates all Germans half a century after the war. That’s not a reasonable sentiment to feel at all, but he does feel it for a reason.

@Fyrius I like that. I was thinking reason isn’t always rational, but rational is always reasoned. I get caught up in semantics all the time, it is not something I like.

When your wife is angry about something. Forget rational. Forget finding solutions. Best strategy: gee, bummer, I can totally understand that you’re angry, damn car, damn policy, damn customer…

@mattbrowne I see you and my wife have been talking.