The more I pondered about the concept of rationality, the more I got the feeling that people are actually much more rational than I had believed. If you want to be rational, it’s often neither helpful nor necessary to dig into formal mathematical or philosophical concepts like decision-theory, utilitarianism or Bayesianism. After all, in most situations people have to decide quickly and on the basis of sparse and imprecise information. Additionally, the former mathematical concepts are just simplifying models about how the human mind works, or should work in the ideal case. It’s not to say that those concepts aren’t useful, but it is important to know their limitations and simplifications, as well as the areas in which they are effective, when applied in a rather classical sense (those simplifications would be worthy of some posts on their own). Apart from that, people also have to deal with their own psychological limitations and their lack of skills which could be used to compensate for those limitations. All of those factors make the world extremely complex, so that if you want to be really rational, you have to be rational in a much more general sense. Instead of applying “correct” formal algorithms all the time, you have to use much more fuzzy techniques to find the best course of action, given the numerous limitations you have to consider. And there are much more limitations that people usually have to consider than I had just listed. Add systematic restricting philosophical, religious, ideological, political, economical, societal, neurological, psychological, biological, technical and educational factors, and you get a hint of the massively ugly situation we have to muddle through.
Complexity by nerovivo CC BY-SA
After accounting for all those hindrances, I come to the quite fuzzy conclusion that people are remarkably rational almost all the time. The real problem is not that people are irrational, or evil, or unwilling to do their best. They are indeed rational and benevolent and virtuous, but only up to the level that their own abilities and their whole situation actually admit. It’s a too simple view that the problems of the world simply result from the character flaws of people. What actually causes most problems is the lack of skills to compensate for all the kinds of adverse factors that we have to cope with. People are not bad! They just aren’t skilled enough to be better than they actually are!
To give this line of reasoning a name, let me call it Capability Criticality. This concept means that the ideas and values which people have, depend critically on their capabilities. Let’s take a look at some rather abstract examples:
- People are not good at dealing with inconvenient truths, therefore they tend to believe in false, but convenient ideas. That way, they can avoid the problems they would face when being confronted with the harsh reality. In the case that those people actually don’t have the necessary coping skills to endure the repeating confrontation with certain inconvenient facts, this strategy is actually a rational behavior.
- I think that people mostly adhere to the ethical principles they can actually psychologically afford. More demanding principles create a higher emotional burden and that’s a strong obstacle to adapting them in the first case. Questioning simple moral systems, which are established by parents, authorities, and the society in general, is pretty hard, because it creates moral uncertainty, or even fear of rejection and punishment. If the emotional burden becomes to high, people can actually regress regarding their ethical integrity, and start justifying moral principles which are more convenient for them. In most societies it is hard to be vegetarian or even vegan, and that’s one of the most important reasons why there are so few of them. Most other causes just stem from the difficulty that is connected to those lifestyles. Why even bother thinking about adapting such a lifestyle, if you don’t think you have the necessary skills to keep it up in the first place? But let’s consider something different for now: Why do people commit crimes at all? I guess it’s just because they don’t have the right skills to reach their goals in any other viable way (unless they just think that the laws are illegitimate). If legal or societal restraints become too bothersome, they will be ignored. Moral integrity is a concept that can only be understood correctly, if one understands that people have real psychological limits for what they can afford to care about. Once those limits are reached, meltdown becomes inevitable! And yes, there are other determining factors like intelligence or empathy, which are also critical. After all, increasing your ethical scope only makes sense if you really understand what that’s good for.
In general, people are as bad as they are, because they lack the necessary skills to improve themselves, and they lack the knowledge how to improve their skills. Malevolence, character flaws, and irrationality are just superficial concepts, which hide the fact that people really just can’t do any better at their current capability levels. No amount of moralizing or complaining does any good. In any case, understanding capability criticality is a good reason to stop being judgmental. Don’t punish people or complain about them, simply help them!
So, when truly acknowledging the principle of capability criticality, then the apparent solution for our predicaments is to make people more skilled. Usually that process is called education, but I think education is a term that is viewed much to restrictive and is reserved for special “educational” situations, like parenting and learning situations in schools or universities. What we really need is a massive paradigm-shift towards an integrated educational society in which generalized and effective skill-sharing happens everywhere. Is there already an app for that? How would a fully effective educational system look like? Do we need more psychological knowledge beforehand? I’m not sure, but here are some suggestions that ought to help you increase your skill levels in most situations:
- Ask people who really do what you want to do, how they do it, and how they cope with related problems!
- Read excellent self-help books. Here, the word “excellent” is very important!
- For overcoming depression Feeling Good by David D. Burns is pretty ideal. His Feeling Good Handbook helps against more general everyday problems (for example procrastination)and teaches effective communication.
- Once you are happy, you might want to think about what to do with your life. Here Success Built to Last: Creating a Life that Matters by Jerry Porras, Stewart Emery and Mark Thompson might be a great inspiration.
- Succeed: How We Can Reach Our Goals by Heidi Grant Halvorson comes up with the most recent scientific results on how to define and reach your goals in an optimal way.
- If you want to become more organized and efficient, read Getting Things Done by David Allan.
- Great lifestyle design and effectiveness tips can be found in The 4-Hour Workweek by Timothy Ferris.
- Read my post Problem Analysis is useful, but doesn’t help! It explains how scientific self-improvement works.
- Read my post Capability Augmentation Will Solve All Our Problems! It’s quintessential!
- In general, it helps to read the best books about the area in which you want to improve your skills.
- Be very serious about becoming better! It could save your life or even the whole world!
And of course, share your skills and insights with others. That will help turning the world into a place you actually love living in.
- Share to improve your world!
Bookmark on Delicious- Digg this post
- Recommend on Facebook
- Buzz it up
- Share via Reddit
- Subscribe to the comments on this post
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by KiSsMyKaNgArOo, Michael Hrenka. Michael Hrenka said: Capability Criticality: We Are Just As Good, Benevolent and Rational As Our Skills Permit. http://t.co/AW26S2T [...]
Something true lies within this post. But it misses the fact, that a great deal of people use their skills to harm others – even if they could do otherwise.
Obviously your statement is true. Wait! If something’s obvious, then there’s a good chance that it is actually wrong (yeah, I had to study mathematics to learn that). Here, the problem lies in the meaning of the word “could”. What does it mean that they “could” do otherwise? Probably the meaning you have in mind is that it is possible for people to do better by harming others less. But what does it mean that something is possible?
The probably most handy definition of saying that X is possible is to say that there exists a world W in which X is actually the case. If I say that it is possible that all computers run on Linux, then that means that there is a world in which all computers really run on Linux. Of course, we could discuss whether those worlds really exist in an actual sense or whether they are just imaginary worlds. From a philosophically pragmatic perspective it is better to think that those worlds are real, because that makes it harder to invent artificial differences between those other worlds and our world. Those artificial differences would just confuse our thinking, so let’s pretend we are modal realists and we believe that those other “possibility” worlds are real, at least for this discussion.
Now, if you say it is possible that people behaved in a better way, that means there is a world in which they behave in a better way in fact. But the real question is this: How different do worlds in which people behave better have to be? What is different in those other worlds besides people behaving better? Could it be that the only difference is that people in other worlds just decided “Oh, my behavior is not good. In the future I will do better.” some time ago? Nevertheless, the principle of causality implies that people have reasons for their conscious thoughts and actions. What kind of reason would be sufficient for those thoughts to arise and also to be effective? They have to be really good reasons! People don’t just spontaneously become better by thinking it would be good to become better! Seriously, our world would look totally different if that was the case! Reasons which can change behavior do not need to be good in the sense that they are true, or clever, or useful, or even consistent – they just have to effective in the sense that they can actually motivate people to change something! Humans do have their own will and that will is persistent in the sense that pure logic or plausibility don’t help changing it directly. What motivates people are their objectives, with result primarily from their desires and emotions. So, if someone actually thinks “I will do better now”, the motivating reason must be strong enough to overcome the desires and emotions that maintained the status quo. And the point is: That is really extremely hard! We tend to underestimate that difficulty systematically! Even though those psychological limitations don’t seem to be as “real” as physical limitations, they are nevertheless determining our objectives and actions. The principle of capability criticality stresses how strong these limitations are.
Thankfully, capability criticality also explains, that it is possible for people to overcome psychological barriers by having better knowledge and better skills. The problem is just that those capabilities don’t arise simply by desiring them. If people were able to improve themselves easily by increasing their determination also, we would live in a world, where there are few people with serious overweight and addictions. It would be a world in which people were happy, effective, benevolent and on the road to perfection. Why? Because it is totally straightforward to desire just that. In a world where will shapes mental reality easily, there would be few inner barriers which make people rethink their positive ambitions.
Shen, your comment is very appropriate here, because it shows that it is very hard to believe that “soft psychological barriers” can make people adapt horribly bad value systems. But they really do! A priori, humans don’t feel good about doing things which harm others, once they understand that those harmful effects are real. One is inclined to think that the feelings of empathy or even reflected self-interest were strong enough to prevent harmful behavior. But usually, they are not! If they were, we would live in Gandhi World! The normal human being doesn’t have the extraordinary psychological strength of Gandhi, or Martin Luther King, or Diogenes. Most people also don’t know how they can get that strength. If they knew, they would build up their willpower, become better and do less harm, simply because it would make them feel better.
So, why don’t people live in a permanent state of misery in which they lament their own weaknesses and the bad consequences of them? Well, some actually do, but others simply numb themselves and play down the negative consequences of their imperfections. Not doing so makes people totally imbalanced! They would be out of their minds! And indeed, people go through phases in which they are really out of their minds, but the gravity of normality pulls them back into a state of high indifference, in most cases. I couldn’t even write this reply in this way if I wasn’t emotionally detached from the dramatic suffering in this world, at this moment. People don’t like thinking about all that negative stuff. It keeps them from functioning properly. Perhaps people would really more motivated to change themselves to the better, if they were more open to all the problems and consequences of their own actions. But hey, who wants to live that way? Who is motivated to live that way? Only those who can afford facing an enormous challenge, because their skills enable them to do so.
Change is difficult, except you have no other choice.
A world in which people often thought “Hey, I will do better!” wouldn’t really look much different than ours, except that in that fancy world, people are even less willing to realize that their possibilities are limited by their actual skills.
A world in which people harm others less is a world in which they have attained the necessary skills to live that way.
My answer therefore is yes. Yes, people use their skills to harm others and they could do otherwise, but not without getting the necessary skills to live that way. Capable people can afford high standards. Incapable people can’t afford them psychologically (without becoming depressed or crazy), and therefore are unwilling to adopt them.
Let us put Gaddafi in the “could change his behaviour” set. Well, maybe it is to late at this point, but what about the past? He had all the power, the position and money to do something for his country. He didnt. Same with Mubarak, same with a lot other arabian states. You could argue, that they really believed their doing isnt that bad. But I dont think so. They just dont care, and why should they? Mubarak lost his position, oh thats hard, maybe the 50 billion dollar will dry his tears.
Another, more accessible example: A corrupt public official in a western state. He (or she) has already a good income, the future is perfectly safe, no kind of misfortune troubles him. Nevertheless, the official misuses his given power for selfish purpose, because he can and it feels nice that way.
In Germany, the worst thing a dishonestly, trickery person can become is minister of defense. Perhaps the ghost writer was an idiot, but after all, it paid-off.
Maybe I cant agree with you, due to an different understanding of “skill”. For me, skill has nothing to do with my mind, my desire or motivation. It is the tool I will use to get what I want.
(Btw: The actual Why-Does-Someone-What-He-Does-Model is Emotion -> Motive -> Motivation -> Attitude -> Volition).
If I have no empathy, rape is a perfectly reasonable move. Even with! Empathy is exclusive, while I can be benevolent to some, harming others does not break my integrity. All what skill changes, is the likelihood of being captured. Therefore, a higher degree in skillfulness enables me to exploit others a good deal more. (And feeling better than the non exploiters).
Oops, I’ve just written a long reply, but I accidentally pressed the wrong button and it disappeared!
Anyway, let me compress my long reply by coming to the conclusion directly:
Better empathic, psychological, intellectual and philosophical skills make people pursue wiser goals and reaching them in a better way. The people you’ve written about lack those skills. Your skills don’t only determine how good you are at reaching your goals, but also how good you are at defining good goals for yourself.
A very convenient view, I would like to see it backed up by strong empirical data
What kind of data would be most interesting to you? I would also like to find more empirical data on all kinds of matters. But in this case it seems to be especially difficult to find really meaningful quantities, which would be meaningful. How do you rate the quality of goals? Only measuring success would be misleading, because simple goals are easier to reach.
Perhaps it would be the easiest approach to check the quality of the results of applying my point of view vs. alternative views. In any case, my post marks a paradigm-shift for me and my blog. I want to focus more on my philosophy and what’s so good about it and how to deal with its implications psychologically. One can get severely distracted by lamenting too much. See the beginning of deathrant.net
Grade A stuff. I’m unequtsoinably in your debt.
I disagree with some parts. People are willingly irrational and evil and unwilling to do their best some of the time. Don’t we all have the experience of knowing, without doubt, that X is the best and most rational course of action given our value but doing Y instead? Don’t we have the experience of seeing self or others do things they consider actually wrong/evil because they seemed more convenient at the time or it seemed possible to not suffer particularly bad consequences from doing so? Haven’t we seen self or others fuzz out thinking to keep from reaching as rational and clear a decision as we are we know we are capable of as we have already decided we are going to do X whether it is contrary to what our clear and honest thinking (if we allowed it) would recommend? I think all of the above are quite easy to observe happening over and over again in human beings. Doing much less clear thinking and acting upon it is quite often a character flaw.
Calling a truth “inconvenient” is admitting that one has values much higher than adherence to reality aka rationality. This is a character flaw. It may be one can’t cope or simply that one thinks one cannot. But it is still a flaw. We don’t develop character or coping skills or strength in general by avoiding what may be a challenge or push our limits.
That said there is a valid defence mechanism against holding irrational standards of ethics that is to ignore/evade them so one can get on with living. But this simply says that great care needs to be taken as to the standards one wishes to adhere to. One of the evils of fiat morality from on high is that it ruins integrity if it is accepted.
Many many people do not improve not because they lack the knowledge but because to date they haven’t developed the strength of character and self-mastery to apply the knowledge. But that does not mean there is no such thing as malevolence or character flaws or irrationality or that these things are superficial.
As to being judgemental, it is your duty to yourself and the value of your own life to judge! By this I mean that discriminating what is for you and conducive to achieving and maintaining your values is utterly critical to your happiness and well-being. It is also highly unjust to treat those who exhibit more integrity to more rational and well-founded values exactly the same as you treat someone who acts like a total flake to all values they claim to hold.
I actually agree with most of your statements. It is actually a very common phenomenon that we know X is the best thing to do, but we capture ourselves doing Y instead. The easiest way to explain that phenomenon of akrasia is to assume that our willpower is actually limited. Some of the latest research in psychology had shown that willpower can be compared to a muscle. It’s possible to train willpower, and willpower can be exhausted and regenerates after “not using it” for a while. From an absolute perspective it is easy to say that people are willingly irrational and evil and unwilling to do better. But akrasia is a real problem that should be considered when making actually practical decisions. If one wants to be fair about judging people (if one is inclined to do so at all), then it is important to treat akrasia as real handicap, as well as other limiting factors, like missing psychological capabilities. I think the akrasia management of most people is pretty terrible, and therefore they mess up things pretty badly. Who’s to blame about that? Well, blame doesn’t solve problems. It would be more rational to look for possible solutions. Building up better psychological knowledge and skills would help enormously. During the last 8 months I’ve learnt so much that it transformed me to an unprecedented degree. I wouldn’t have come that far if others just blamed my imperfections. Seriously, blame doesn’t tell people HOW to do things in a better way. It’s simply not effective.
It is certainly the case that different people have different strengths and weaknesses. Some may have very few of them, others a lot. It might be a convenient abbreviation to call certain weaknesses character flaws. Yes, but what does it help to call them that way? I strive for a really practical and effective point of view and I don’t see any value in concepts like “character flaws”. They are too strongly associated with inferiority and blame. How do you treat people who think you are inferior and at fault? Usually, you ignore them, or you might do the same with them. Such a reaction is not helpful at all, so it’s good strategy to look for ways to minimize the probability of those reactions.
“Calling a truth “inconvenient” is admitting that one has values much higher than adherence to reality aka rationality.” Yes, but it is important to acknowledge that such a valuation happens more on the subconscious rather that at the conscious level. Humans are creatures who naturally value their own survival and well-being higher than a strict adherence to truth. In most cases it suffices to stick to the truth in 90% of all cases and bend your mind into believing that the 10% which are left are also true, although they are not, but doing so saves your status or life. It’s really hard to have a lot of philosophical integrity while being under real social pressure. That might be called a weakness, yes. Objectively, it’s probably just an adaption to social evolution. The best way to deal with this problem at the moment, is probably to find ways which make people more resilient to social pressures and creating alternative (sub)societies in which those pressures aren’t so strong, or push people into a more truthful direction.
“We don’t develop character or coping skills or strength in general by avoiding what may be a challenge or push our limits.”
Sure. But blindly pushing one’s limits is hardly the best way to go. What would make a lot of sense, is to develop some kind of personal training program. I’m open for suggestions how that would ideally look like. I guess a lot of people would be interested in such programs, if they were shown to work.
“That said there is a valid defence mechanism against holding irrational standards of ethics that is to ignore/evade them so one can get on with living. But this simply says that great care needs to be taken as to the standards one wishes to adhere to. One of the evils of fiat morality from on high is that it ruins integrity if it is accepted.”
I’m not sure what you are meaning here. What’s “fiat morality” exactly? I think people naturally tend towards more benevolent ethical standards once they think they can do so without losing too much. The problem is just that people are so afraid of losing all kinds of rather worthless stuff and pleasures they hold on to. However, if people can’t be convinced that they can get more in return than what they might lose, then they won’t be willing to change. Heck, why aren’t there good advertisements for better moral behavior?
“Many many people do not improve not because they lack the knowledge but because to date they haven’t developed the strength of character and self-mastery to apply the knowledge.”
Yes, but here it becomes a little bit circular. You also need to know how to develop your strength of character and self-mastery. Those are certain meta-skills, which are of critical importance. Unfortunately, they aren’t easy to get. It’s not just a matter of trying really hard. That doesn’t work. I’ve tried that for years and it didn’t work out.
“But that does not mean there is no such thing as malevolence or character flaws or irrationality or that these things are superficial.”
Of course that depends on how those characteristics are defined. My stance on that is not to define them at all and to avoid them. I can’t see how their use can really help. I want to dispose of all useless memetic garbage.
“By this I mean that discriminating what is for you and conducive to achieving and maintaining your values is utterly critical to your happiness and well-being”
Absolutely! But that’s totally not what I meant by being “not judgemental”. What I meant is that it doesn’t make a lot of sense to criticize others on moral matters without providing any real help how to do better. And no, saying “just try harder” or “you are wrong in this, because X Y Z” doesn’t count as real help.
“It is also highly unjust to treat those who exhibit more integrity to more rational and well-founded values exactly the same as you treat someone who acts like a total flake to all values they claim to hold.”
Sounds reasonable. But which exact differences in treatment do you propose? This is a highly difficult matter.
[...] Capability Criticality: We Are Just As Good, Benevolent and Rational As Our Skills Permit. [...]