What is rational thinking and how to develop it in yourself

The concept of rationality

Before we talk about rational thinking, let's first find out what rationality means in general. The word “rationality” comes from the Latin term ratio, which translates as “reason.”

It is generally accepted that a person endowed with this quality has intelligence, prudence, logic, and practicality. He solves problems effectively and meaningfully, without giving in to emotions and feelings. A rational person can explain any situation from a logical point of view. He is only confident in what he can test and prove in practice.

Based on this knowledge, let's try to define rational thinking.

Rational thinking is a constructive thought process that is built on logical conclusions and is aimed at making decisions and achieving goals.

In simple words, we can say that this is a form of thinking based on logic. It is not subject to emotions. He is guided only by reason.

As a rule, this type of thought process is more typical for men. Although in the modern world there are many women who hold responsible positions, run their own businesses and often have excellent rational thinking.

More than 100 cool lessons, tests and exercises for brain development

Start developing

But if men rarely deviate from this type of thinking, then women can turn to their other sides: intuition, daydreaming. It is worth noting that it is this ability of the female mind that sometimes shows effectiveness in solving certain issues, since not everything can be solved with logic alone.

The structure of logical intellectual activity, as well as thinking in general, consists of such forms of rational knowledge as:

1. Concept.
2. Judgment.
3. Conclusion.

I explain these and other terms in detail in the article on types of thinking.

What do rationalists think they are?

Often these are people whose activities are directly related to the thought process. The characteristics of a rational person are an open mind, an inquisitive mind, a willingness to learn new things, and a passionate desire to gain knowledge. They are skeptical about the truisms imposed by society and question any fact that has not been proven, for example, by a mathematical theorem, that is, in a way that can be repeated.

Often rationalism awakens in perfectionists, since both of them are not satisfied with a certain object, or rather its nature, in the existing picture of the world. In an attempt to restore their balance, they strive at any cost to characterize the object, which sometimes causes misunderstanding among more creative people who perceive the environment as it is, without asking questions.

Principles of rational thinking

Can you call yourself a rational person? Below I will give signs that will help you draw conclusions about your thinking.

So, thinking rationally is:

1. Think about the future more than the past. Rational thinkers care about progress and focus on their goals and objectives, rather than on events of long ago.
2. Note the pros and cons before making decisions. When you think about the consequences, you have to feel less worried.
3. Always ask the reasons first. A rational person will not just do things. He will first ask himself why he needs it.
4. Don't let your emotions take over your reason. Emotions can cloud your view of obvious things. When making important decisions, a rationalist will be guided by a sober assessment.
5. Make plans and follow them step by step. Every task, even the simplest one, requires a clear action plan. A rational person carefully outlines the chain of achieving his goals, defines methods, and sets deadlines. With this approach, solving problems and making progress becomes easier.
6. Be able to quickly find and learn new things. Rationality allows you to easily master any skill, just by devoting enough time, concentration and carefully understanding all the details. Such a person knows what methods can be used to obtain this or that information. He is not too lazy to delve into reference books and ask opinions from more experienced people.
7. Keep a diary. This helps you stay organized and prevents you from forgetting about things.
8. Adequately perceive and take into account other people's comments. There is no need to blindly trust the opinions of others. But in any opinion or criticism you can hear a healthy grain and use it for the benefit of your own goals.

What defines rationalism?

There are several key factors that determine whether an individual belongs to a given idea of ​​​​viewing the world. A rational person is a researcher, he is open to new ideas and considers any knowledge to be a key goal of human development. In his understanding, skills and information cannot be good or bad; they exist to concretize and clarify the world. Those who are constantly thoughtful tend to be rational. From the point of view of this idea, thought determines consciousness and the material environment, and therefore is dominant. A rational person is a person with a huge horizon, who is ready to comprehend new things, regardless of circumstances and his own age.

Historical example

In an everyday sense, rational thinking means the need to turn on a cool head, move away from emotional experiences and analyze what is happening calmly, looking at everything as if from the outside. This can be difficult to do. Especially in critical situations, when feelings go off scale and the brain refuses to think sensibly.

This problem has been recognized since ancient times. Let us recall, for example, Stoicism, an ancient philosophy that arose in Athens. Many people associate the word “stoic” with steadfastness and rock-like solidity. This teaching perfectly describes the saying from the book of thoughts of Marcus Aurelius and Seneca: “A Stoic is one who stands, even if everything around him collapses, and one who fulfills his duty to the end.”

But this quality of a Stoic is not some unique feature of personality or character. The ability not to lose your mind in the most difficult life situations can be cultivated and developed in yourself. I will give one more reflection of the great Roman emperor.

Independence and calmness before the game of chance. So that for a moment you don’t look at anything except your mind, and always be the same: in acute pain, or having lost a child, or in a long illness.

Marcus Aurelius.

The game of chance in this context is a philosophical attitude towards life. After all, everything that happens around us is nothing more than a chain of events, fate. And if we can’t control something, then why worry? If we can take control of ourselves and our attitude towards what is happening, wouldn’t the best solution be to maintain rational thinking and not give in to excessive emotions?

Of the many philosophical teachings, it is Stoicism that is closest to real everyday life. It helps you learn to make informed decisions even in difficult situations, which is the basis for rational thinking.

Flow Basics

Most researchers agree on where exactly rationalism appeared. Its founder was Socrates (approximately 469-399 BC, Ancient Greece), who called for knowing yourself before exploring the world. Although he was not a convinced supporter of the worldview, he nevertheless formed its foundations. Later, the idea of ​​rationalism was brought to its logical conclusion by scientists Descartes, Leibniz, Spinoza, supporters of the exact sciences and who introduced a certain factor of orderliness into their fields. The Age of Enlightenment is considered the period when rationalism came to the fore. Man gained the ability to think about the sublime and engage in research, since he was no longer in a constant search for food or trying to survive. This paved the way for science.

Thinking Errors

Before we get to the mistakes, as a preface, I would like to mention the fan fiction “Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality”. Fanfiction is amateur writing based on famous literary works. Since 2010 and for 5 years, American artificial intelligence specialist Eliezer Yudkowsky published fan fiction based on the Harry Potter series of novels on his blog.

But what does the book wizard and the topic of our article today have to do with it? Of interest to us is how the hero of Potter's alternate reality work identifies errors in thinking using his truly canonical rational thought process.

So, now about the errors. Let's find out what factors prevent us from thinking logically:

1. Attribution error. This is when a person explains the actions and behavior of other people by their personal characteristics (character), and their personal actions by external circumstances. If we behave badly, we see the reason in fatigue, the chain of unpleasant events that preceded it, etc. Why don’t we make such concessions to other people? The thing is that we do not see what events provoked this or that behavior of another person, and it is much easier for our brain to label and act according to a stereotype. The brain always chooses the thought that requires the least amount of energy.
2. Planning error. It says that a person most often underestimates the time it will take to solve a problem. For example, when you are asked how long a project will be ready, you are more likely to give less time than it actually takes. There are several reasons. First, a person tends to focus on the positive scenario rather than thinking about potential obstacles. Secondly, he is prone to wishful thinking. And third, people may forget about the time they have already spent on a task in the past.
3. Egocentric distortion. It is expressed in the fact that a person overestimates his point of view when looking at the events of his life or trying to put himself in the place of other people. Let me explain with an example. You did something that embarrassed you and you think that those around you will remember it for many years to come. In fact, only you will think about it, suffering and feeling shame, and other people only care about themselves, because everyone is the center of their world for themselves.
4. Bystander effect. It occurs during any emergency. Studies have shown that you are more likely to receive outside help in an accident if there is one witness nearby than with three, five, or even a whole crowd. When a person becomes not the only witness, he always hopes that someone else will help the victim. And a single eyewitness understands that only he can take on this role.
5. Self-deception. This is an attempt to get rid of cognitive dissonance, when a person adjusts reality to his vision of the world, i.e., to personal beliefs and ideas. Or, for example, he completely denies what he does not like or does not correspond to his opinion, refusing to test it in practice.

This is a relatively short list. We covered the topic of thinking errors in more detail in our other article.

What is rationalism in its classical sense?

There is a question and an answer to it. A problem and its solution, which can be found with the help of reason. There is nothing immaterial or not created for understanding in this world, since the entire Universe is material. This is roughly how rationalism can be described. This is a kind of installation for a follower who evaluates the surrounding space solely as questions and answers. He tries to comprehend what is happening, guided by his mental consciousness.

Also, rationalism is the predominance of the arguments of reason over naked conviction. In fact, this idea is at the origins of philosophy, designed to explain to a reasonable person how the world works. Rationalism often manifested itself in the nature and behavior of great mathematicians and physicists, who are precisely engaged in dividing and systematizing the surrounding space, making it possible to understand and accept it.

What is irrational thinking

Irrationalism comes from the Latin irrationalis and is translated as “unconscious, unreasonable.” Irrational thinking is the exact opposite of rational thinking.

In the broadest sense of the word, irrationalism means denial or limitation of the role of reason in understanding the world. If rational thinking is based on logic, then its antipode is based on feelings, intuition, emotions, faith, instincts.

To demonstrate examples of irrational thinking, I will give three main categories:

1. Exaggeration. This is when we think something like: “They definitely didn’t like me,” “He noticed that I have low self-esteem,” etc.
2. Overgeneralization. For example: “They didn’t pass this exam, which means I won’t be able to cope,” “Last time I forgot the words of the report, which means it will be the same this time,” etc.
3. Mind reading. For example: “I know what you think about me” or “She thinks I’m rude,” etc.

All these thoughts are not based on any facts. This is purely human perception or, if you like, intuition.

Principles of rationalism

The movement is largely formed thanks to certain cornerstones laid by its researchers and founders. In the case of rationalism, such a foundation is its principles:

• Knowledge is obtained by reason. Any information or skill must be comprehended by the human mind. In fact, knowledge is a product of the study of a particular object by the thought of an individual. It's priceless. It is knowledge that is the main value of supporters of rationalism.
• The world is material. Rationalists believe that the entire world around us is material and suitable for knowledge. Objects distant from humanity are only things hidden from thought, but they can be recognized by using new knowledge. Thus the cycle of knowledge is closed. Therefore, some people call rationalism an endless race for knowledge for the sake of information itself, and not for a higher goal.
• Science comes first. Everything in this world can be identified and studied using scientific instruments. Rationalists put science as the only possible way to understand ourselves and the world.
• The “spiritual” does not exist without the material. In this case, spirituality means, for example, a sense of beauty or good taste. They are a product of human mental perception, which, in turn, is based on the thought process, the mind, which is material in nature.
• Morality is a product of the material, since it is designed to prohibit and prevent damage to an object capable of generating thought.

Rational people are often disciplined and rely heavily on their reason. You should not expect support from them in spiritualism or occultism; a supporter of this movement simply will not understand the speaker. However, as mentioned earlier, rationalists are open to new knowledge.

How to learn to think rationally

The formation of the foundations of rational thinking in a child is completed around the age of 12. Further, constant targeted training is required.

There are several ways to develop a logical form of thinking:

1. Solve as many intellectual problems and puzzles as possible.
2. Evaluate everything you read from a critical point of view. There are a lot of irrational posts and articles on the Internet with a bunch of blunders and errors. Study what you read carefully. Over time, you will be able to figure out various counter-intuitive things easily and quickly.
3. Practice writing essays. You can choose a literary work or news event as a topic. Express your thoughts in detail, provide facts, justify your conclusions and express your position.
4. Study materials on logic. Both simple university textbooks and more complex works may be suitable.
5. Chat on different topics. It’s good if among your friends or acquaintances there are those who can support any discussion, discuss what they’ve read, understand current world news, etc.
6. If you are faced with any task, write down in detail on paper point by point all the nuances, possible solutions, ideas, snags, notes and everything that comes to mind. This kind of brainstorming will help you study the situation in detail and come up with new solutions.
7. Always find answers to your questions. Did you remember something and became interested in learning about it? Google it and satisfy your curiosity.
8. Before making any decision, ask yourself why you think this way and whether this is really your thought and not imposed by someone else.
9. Write down all your strange or negative thoughts and try to analyze them from a critical point of view.

If you are interested, I recommend reading our article about what analytical thinking is and how to develop it.

Contrast with empiricism

Despite the fact that the ideas of rationalism and empiricism cannot be opposed in their primary form, supporters of these two worldview ideas often enter into confrontation regarding the methods of understanding the world. So, for example, rationalists advocate giving an object a qualitative characteristic based only on the thought process, while an empiricist must touch, try, experience it. The opposition of thought to experience is illogical, but it still occurs. Leibniz himself directly notes in his work “Monadology”:

“We are all three-quarters empiricists.”

This indicates that proponents of rationalism are often empiricists and vice versa.

Advantages and disadvantages

Undoubtedly, rational thinking has a number of advantages. In particular:

• allows you to adequately respond to current events and not regret what you did or said in the heat of the moment;
• helps you make informed decisions without unnecessary emotions, which in certain situations simply get in the way;
• allows you to draw conclusions based on real facts, and not on personal speculation and intuition.

However, rationality also has its drawbacks. Mainly it is a low level of feeling. People with a predominant logical type of thinking may have difficulty expressing emotions and feelings, because they perceive the surrounding reality from the position of “not proven - does not exist.”

But with this approach, we must not forget that rationality is not the only way to understand the world. It is no coincidence that we are endowed with a wide range of different feelings and sensations that help solve life issues in which logic may be powerless. All artists, poets, composers have irrational thinking, which helps them create, fantasize, and reproduce images from their heads.

We can say that rational and irrational types of thinking are two sides of the same coin. For a harmonious perception of the world and full success, you need to have skills of both types.

Making decisions without logic or control

Irrational thinking is a choice that is made spontaneously without the use of logical conclusion, analysis or collection of information. Every person accepts similar options in his life. The mistakes from which everyone learns are irrational decisions.

A. Beck, the famous researcher of human psychology, divided thinking into three levels , which explain why in some cases people think irrationally.

1. The author refers to the first level as uncontrolled, superficial and unconscious thoughts by the person himself. This leads to making the wrong decision.
2. The second level is similar to the first, but here we are talking about automatic thoughts. That is, a person makes a decision in an apathetic or unconscious state.
3. An irrational decision is made in conditions of low level of thinking or one's own conviction. Principles can influence the adoption of the optimal option.
4. There are situations when all three levels influence a person’s consciousness, which is why he does not analyze his choice, but does everything automatically.

A. Beck called thoughts that lead to taking the wrong path cognitive errors . For example, situations can lead to such a choice when a person downplays or exaggerates a problem, does not have sufficient information, uses personal principles or emotions, or personalizes the problem. Minor failures that have occurred throughout life can also influence your choice. As a result, good choices simply fall away due to fear of repeat failure.

Books on the topic of rational thinking

If you want to develop rationality and logic, one article on the topic and a few exercises may not be enough. For greater understanding, I recommend a selection of books:

1. David Rock "Brain" Instructions for use. How to use your capabilities to the maximum and without overload” (electronic version on liters, paper version on Labyrinth).
2. Keith Stanovich “Rational Thinking. What aptitude tests don’t measure” (Labyrinth).
3. Eliezer Yudkowsky “Harry Potter and the Methods of Rational Thinking” (you can purchase a paper version of the book to order through the Reglet copy center website or through the official community on VKontakte).
4. Richard Nisbett “Brain Accelerators” (liters).
5. Joseph O'Connor, Ian McDermott “The Art of Systems Thinking. Necessary knowledge about systems and a creative approach to problem solving” (LitRes).
6. Ryuta Kawashima “Japanese system for the development of intelligence and memory” (Labyrinth).
7. Barbara Oakley “Think like a mathematician. How to solve any problems faster and more efficiently” (liters).

You can find even more books about thinking on the blog iklife.ru.

New in blogs

We continue the topic of the previous article “On the relationship between animal instincts and reason in modern man, called Homo sapiens” [https://gidepark.ru/community/1282/article/475738/]. The topic, of course, is complex, not entirely pleasant, revealing, it contradicts the calmness of a person who has already found peace of mind, but at the same time it is relevant. Without its deep assimilation, a person will not be able to respond to the challenges of accelerating social evolution.

We are talking about increasing the depth of a person’s self-awareness of his nature. Previously, for thousands of years, this was secretly done only by religion and all sorts of esoteric (occult) creeds among a limited circle of select people. The science that arose in the New Age was not very interested in the origins of man, relying on the Bible, and, having proclaimed faith in the omnipotence of the human mind, until Charles Darwin, it did not want to compare human behavior with the behavior of his younger animal brothers on the evolutionary ladder. And human self-awareness, as the highest level of development of his consciousness, began to manifest itself en masse only recently, somewhere in the 16th-17th centuries.

Charles Darwin (1809-1882) established the origin of man from apes. Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) was the first to shake faith in the rationalism of the New Age and the power of the human mind, beginning to talk about a certain cosmic will unconscious to man that controls everything and everyone, including man at his unconscious level. Thus, for the first time, the unconscious emerged from the darkness and appeared before the human gaze. Further, Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900), who greatly revered Darwin and considered himself a follower of Schopenhauer, even more strongly questioned the rational basis for human actions and explained their irrationality by the Dionysian principle previously known in ancient Greece (the energy of immeasurable human passions). Nietzsche, believing only in a superman who can arise from the class of aristocrats, a superman - the bearer of immense thirst and a strong will to power, at the same time, going against Christian morality, calls ordinary people “bungled and botched”.

Thus, Charles Darwin, A. Schopenhauer and F. Nietzsche cleared the way for the psychoanalysis of Sigmund Freud (1856-1939), after which no one questions the truth that “a person’s consciousness is just an island in the ocean of his unconscious.” Since then, psychologists have been only clarifying the content of the concepts of mind, consciousness and the unconscious for almost a hundred years. As for reason (a literary concept), scientists usually identify it with consciousness, considering them synonymous (and so do we), and in terms of the content of unconscious agreement there is less agreement among scientists. However, the debate is on secondary issues. There is no longer any doubt about the prevalence of instincts over reason in human nature and behavior. The questions are in the details.

Instincts, as we know, are species-specific behavior programs stored in genetic memory. According to Freud, instincts are mental images of bodily needs. Freud argued that any human activity, including perception, remembering, imagination, thinking, is determined by instincts. The influence of instincts on human behavior can be either direct and expressive, or indirect, disguised, or combined. Reason can serve instincts, but never vice versa.

Freud considered the most influential on human behavior to be Libido - the instinct of sexual desire, procreation, the source of vital energy, and the instinct of aggression - Thanatos, which ultimately leads to death. Today, having familiarized ourselves with the views of dozens of psychologists, we believe that Freud is certainly right when it comes to Libido. Things weren't so simple with Thanatos.

But Freud, as we see, simply did not have enough time to understand the whole multitude of instincts, the entire breadth of their manifestations.

Throughout the twentieth century, attempts continued to somehow organize and classify human instincts. This work is not yet completed. If we try to generalize the opinions of famous psychologists, then the set of human instincts must include: 1) twelve basic types of human instincts, described by V. McDougall (1871-1938); 2) personal and collective unconscious of C. G. Jung (1875-1961) with a huge unknown number of instincts; 3) innate egoistic desire for superiority by A. Adler (1870-1937); 4) five basic existential human needs, as seen by Erich Fromm (1900-1980); 5) ten neurotic needs described by Karen Horney (1885-1952); 6) five levels of needs of A. Maslow’s pyramid (1908-1970). Instincts also predominate in one third of the sixteen basic traits of Raymond Cattell's (1905-1998) personality model. According to Hans Eysenck (1916-1997), all three types (superfactors) of the organization of human behavior - extraversion, neuroticism and psychoticism - to a large extent (three-quarters according to the author) depend on genetic factors and instincts.

As we see, the views of psychologists do not coincide. So what should we do? What to choose?

And there is no need to choose the most correct one. We must proceed from the principle of complementarity , already generally accepted in modern science when studying complex phenomena. And it turns out: both he is right and he is right.

***

The first person to notice the article mentioned above was Hyde Park member Vladislav Gerasimov . His comment was: “Complete nonsense. The man has read a lot of crap and is trying to post it here...”

Nothing special. I already read somewhere about this perception. I remembered. I take the book off the shelf and find on page 519 the introduction of the literary editor Ya. Levchenko to the new chapter of the book “Frager R. Fadiman D. THE BIG BOOK OF PSYCHOLOGY. PERSONALITY. Theories, exercises, experiments”, translated from English into Russian. He writes: “Recall that the perception of the unusual occurs, as a rule, in three stages. At first we say: this is complete nonsense. On the second: there is something in this. And finally, on the third one: it’s excellent.” In general, you have to read the unusual three times.

***

The first positive one was a commentary addition to the topic by Vitaly Khlynovsky . He gave a link to his article “Homo, sapiens at 3-5%” [http:/gidepark.ru/user/1644797384/article/ 276650/], where we talk about the same thing, but in other words, relying more on theosophy , rather than on psychology and philosophy.

The author focuses on the criteria for proper education of the younger generation. He writes that correct education should be considered one that is based on a correct idea of ​​the existing reality and a person’s place in it. Young people must understand that our modern life has little in common with what it can and should be in reality. This is exactly what we are concerned with at the moment.

My attention was also drawn to the seven levels of energy-information exchange, the levels of human unity with the Universe. Yes, there are already people (there are few of them) who, in addition to the 2nd signal system (speech), also have the 3rd, 4th and 5th level systems.

***

Discussing the previous article “On the relationship between animal instincts and reason in modern man, called Homo sapiens,” Hyde Park member Dmitry Kakovkin asks on November 28, 2011 at 12:05 pm the following questions clarifying the topic:

“What kind of instincts do people have other than animals?

What is the rational mind? And what else can it be?”

We answer Dmitry Kokovkin’s first question in the words of Lev Vygotsky, an outstanding Russian psychologist:

“We consider one of the most fruitful in theoretical terms the idea that genetic psychology is mastering before our eyes, that the structure of the development of behavior in some respects resembles the geological structure of the earth’s crust,” wrote L. Vygotsky, exploring the history of the development of higher mental functions . - Research has established the presence of genetically different layers in human behavior... what Kretschmer calls the law of stratification in the history of development. With the development of higher centers, lower centers, older in the history of development, do not simply move aside, but continue to work in a common union as subordinate authorities, so that with an intact nervous system, they usually cannot be identified separately” [Vygotsky L.S. Psychology of human development. - M.: Publishing house Meaning; Eksmo Publishing House, 2004 - 1136 p. P. 349-350].

In other words, everything that human ancestors had during the previous hundreds of millions of ongoing evolution has not gone away, and in one form or another is present in the nature of modern man, including instincts. Therefore, there is nothing offensive to humans in the adjective “animals”. Rather, on the contrary, we should be grateful to all ancestors in the animal world for the creation and development of perfect energy, metabolic and information mechanisms. Instincts supply a person with vital energy.

It is interesting that the manifestations of the “geological” law of stratification were known back in ancient China and were formulated in the form of a saying “All animals sit in every person, but there is not a single beast with at least one person sitting inside of it.”

The place of man in the classification of representatives of the world of Living Nature is known. Man is not a plant, but an animal. Phylum: chordates, class: mammals, order: primates, family: hominids; genus: people, species: homo sapiens, subspecies: (?). Do humans have species instincts that other members of the hominid family do not have? Yes, I have. I consider such instincts, instinctoid needs, the needs of the 4th and 5th levels of A. Maslow’s pyramid. These are the needs of respect and self-esteem, the needs of self-actualization and self-realization. They are based on hominid instincts. I would also classify as purely human instincts sympathy for one’s neighbor, conscience, and a sense of duty to the community of people. They are based on the instinct of altruism, which arose among animals with a social organization of life. Of course, these are new, purely human instincts; they are already developed in some people, while in others they are still in their infancy, underdeveloped.

As for the second question about the types of mind, about the rational mind in particular, I would answer this way. Reason is synonymous with consciousness. Consciousness, as a form of reflection of reality, is possessed by everything living and moving (as defined by A. Bergson), even amoeba. Thinking is consciousness in dynamics, in movement.

Of course, we must take into account that a person’s consciousness has its own characteristics, its own additives that his predecessors do not have. This is, first of all, synesthesia of sensations and feelings, the ability to reflect reality with symbols and signs, and a developed imagination. These new qualities are expressed in abstract thinking, in the ability to analyze and synthesize, to evaluate from the point of view of various pre-selected criteria and to forecast. Some scientists tend to call only these additives human consciousness

As for thinking, there are different classifications of its types. The author of the popular textbook “Psychology” R. Nemov sees the main types of thinking in humans as follows: practical thinking, consisting of visual-effective and visual-figurative thinking, and theoretical thinking, consisting of figurative and conceptual. Visual-effective thinking is the simplest type of thinking. Probably animals, our younger brothers, also have it.

Speaking about human rational thinking, we meant his ability to highlight the essential, abstract, analyze, synthesize in a new way, and predict. According to R. Nemov, this refers to theoretical thinking, purely human thinking, which animals lower on the ladder of evolution do not have. It cannot be said that an ordinary, ordinary person masters it sufficiently. Focusing on the rationality of thinking, we would like to see at the disposal of an ordinary, ordinary person the ability to systematically see problems, the ability to make choices, i.e. make optimal decisions based on pre-selected criteria, incl. find solutions in multicriteria selection problems. This is already taught in universities, but not every person has such rational thinking. And such rational thinking is not a whim; without it today it is impossible even to correctly elect members of parliament and the president of the country. If there is no such rational thinking, then one has to use instincts and objectively effective practical thinking, which in turn only serves the instincts. This is what we see all the time.

Strictly speaking, so far only individual people on planet Earth are the bearers of rational thinking. In general, humanity is at the mercy of instincts. A lot of evidence can be given. This is the thoughtless use of natural resources, and the principle of unlimited consumerism as the driver of the capitalist economy, this is the current global financial crisis, which arose as a result of the so-called “soap bubbles” - unjustified loans, the lives of entire nations in debt, Greece, Italy, Iceland, Portugal are examples of this. .

A striking example of the underdevelopment of the rational mind of the people of Earth is the beginning of the 1st World War. Witnesses of those events in Russia, for example, left the following memoirs: the mood of the masses was so patriotic that the government could not help but declare war. And what did they get? But everything could have been different in the development of the country. It was the same in England. Bertrand Russell (1872-1970), an outstanding philosopher of the 20th century, for example, was expelled from Cambridge, where he taught, for his pacifist slogans, and sent to prison for six months. The 1st World War, however, did not teach the ruling elites of most countries anything. The outbreak of World War 2 was also based on the animal instincts of Hitler and Stalin. And the masses had no choice but to be patriotic “cannon fodder.” Let's see how events will develop in the 21st century. All eyes of hope are turned to Angela Merkel...

“Actually, I wanted to draw the author’s attention to the need to use precise terminology. Without this, it is easy to confuse yourself and others in your reasoning,” Dmitry Kakovkin .

- Yes, we need to use precise terminology. However, it is not yet in the science of Psychology. And everyone puts partially their own subjective meaning into words-concepts, depending on the stock of knowledge available in their head at that moment, called a thesaurus. The difficulties of presenting fresh thoughts increase with the transition to the “popular science platform.”

I completely share the sentiments of Dmitry Kakovkin, reflected in his words:

“As a former researcher, i.e. a person, spoiled by many years of scientific work and not entirely adequate, I try to invent and climb into the unknown... I see the world differently... all this does not come without consequences. The more a person knows and thinks, the more reasons for sadness. There is a feeling: something needs to be done before it’s too late. ...The number of questions is growing.”

I agree, I am like that myself. Here we can only add a well-known aphorism: “The more the range of our knowledge expands, the greater the line of our contact with the unknown becomes.”

***

Mikhei Lesovoy , discussing the topic, touched on a very subtle issue about the responsibility of scientists for the use of their knowledge in technology. He is concerned that modern science is quite capable of building an effective technology for “the complete enslavement of man, which will contribute to the division of humanity into two layers: subhumans and the elite...”. And asks: “Where will you end up? What about your children and grandchildren? Yes, I must admit, there is such a tendency to stratify the structure of the community of people into only two layers, it exists. And this is a very, very serious question. To avoid this, a greater depth of self-awareness of each person is needed, much more than it is. Everyone should understand life from, I would say, systemic-psychological-synergistic positions. Everyone must understand that in the community of people there is a layer of egoistic strong “chosen creatures” who are interested in having everyone else as a cattle mass. And capitalism’s stimulation of “unlimited consumerism” contributes to this. Let's hope that in the society of people on Earth there are other laws leading to Harmony and Good.

Mikhei Lesovoy’s concern about dividing the community of people into two layers is shared by Valery Kosarev from Moldova. And as for the rationality of man in general, he agrees: “And Homo sapiens is a man’s compliment to himself.”

***

Gennady Uss tries to explain that among the candidates in the 2010 presidential elections in Ukraine there was no one better than Yanukovych Fedorovich and suggests that the author of the article on the relationship between instincts and reason did not vote for Yanukovych. Yes, the author of the article did not vote for Yanukovych and here’s why. He knew the elementary truths from developmental psychology (although his main specialty was “radiophysics and electronics”), which stated that if a person had “mental problems” in childhood, adolescence and early adolescence, then their negative trace remains for the rest of his life. In other words, if a person under the age of 18 behaved like a hooligan, took hats, rings from hands and earrings from the ears of passers-by in dark gateways, then was convicted and underwent additional education in a colony, received the nickname “boor” there, then this is for life. Relapses are inevitable in one form or another for the rest of your life! And, as we see, the “handwriting” is visible in the “boy’s” later life. Let's take his professionalism, for example. In the West, in more developed countries, for such professionalism a person would not be allowed within a cannon shot of public activity. But we are a backward country. Our “ordinary” people say: “Look! What a wealth of experience this fellow candidate has!” Of course, life experience is rich. You can entrust him with many positions, from garage manager and above. However, this is not the position of the president and the responsibilities of the guarantor of the country’s Constitution. We see what comes out of this today. And we will see a lot more, God bless us.

***

The comments of female Hyde Park participants are noteworthy; they are distinguished by “childish spontaneity”, “naive simplicity” and sincerity. Elena Mari , for example, reacts on November 27, 2011 at 20:39 to the content of the article: “Complete nonsense. The thickness of the layers, damn it... can’t it be shorter? And what state am I in..." Lyubov Gaiduchenko , a specialist in the grammar of the Russian language, on November 27, 2011 at 20:52, reacted to the grammar of the article, without seeing its content, as follows: “...Only illiterate cleaners express themselves this way.” Larisa Smirnova , November 28, 2011 at 2:50 p.m., was more restrained: “Complex, smart, scientific, but... The author is “very far from the people.” Thank you for your attention, you read it anyway.

***

It was noticed that in the comments to the above-mentioned article, Hyde Park members Dmitry Radchenko , Viktor Yushin and Robin Kruzo stood with the author on the same side of the “barricade”. It's nice to see like-minded people.

***

The author gratefully accepts links to other materials that complement the topic of the article on the relationship between instincts and reason in humans:

https://gidepark.ru/user/1644797384/article/276650/ from Vitaly Khlynovsky,

https://samlib.ru/k/kishinec_w_m/nanosapiens.shtml/ from robin kruzo,

https://altruizm.novpanacea.ru/ierarhia.html/ from Evgeniy BEvgeNL,

https://kosarev.press.md/Religion.htm/ from Valery Kosarev.

***

And in conclusion, here's what. Having two university degrees, one in physics, technology and mathematics and one in humanities, management, and the corresponding work experience, I ask myself the question: “Has the question ever occurred to me about the relationship between animal instincts and the mind within a person?” - No never. - But why? After all, this is a key question for a correct understanding of human social life today and until today. I see the answer as follows: apparently, I lacked the depth of self-awareness, and the education system did not help.

Varieties and methods

Rationalization, considered as a psychological defense mechanism, comes in two types:

• direct - the individual justifies his own actions, thoughts and feelings;
• indirect—external objects are involved in justification.

Also in psychology there are several subtypes of this process:

1. Personal or group rationalization. In the first case, the individual protects exclusively himself. In the second - a group of people with which he associates himself.
2. Current rationalization. Valid for a short period of time.
3. Anticipatory rationalization. The unpleasant situation has not yet occurred, and the person already begins to look for excuses for his actions in advance.

Rationalization as a method of psychological defense is characterized by the use of different methods. There are 6 of them in total:

1. Depreciation of the goal. The loss in the competition is explained by bad prizes, which it would be foolish to strive for.
2. Discrediting the victim. Let's say a person offended someone. In his defense, he will say that the opponent himself is to blame and in a similar situation would have acted in exactly the same way.
3. Strengthening the role of circumstances. When rationalizing, circumstances are always used to justify what happened.
4. Harm for good. Many people sincerely believe in the rightness of their actions towards others. They explain them with the words: “it will be better for them,” “I tried for their own good.”
5. Discrediting oneself. A person makes himself a victim. He demonstratively agrees that he did a bad thing and talks about how bad it makes him. Who would argue with such a sufferer?
6. Self-deception.

Each of the listed methods of rationalization causes certain harm to the human personality.

Results

Dan's Tips: 1. The world is not in the mood to help you achieve your long-term goals.
Passivity will not lead to the desired result. 2. Be aware of your surroundings, or the environment will begin to control you. Optimize your workspace according to what needs to be done. 3. Write down what needs to be done in a diary. You are more likely to do what is on paper. 4. You have two hours of maximum productivity, usually in the early morning. Take care of this time and use it wisely. 5. Meetings, emails, multitasking and structured procrastination are major time killers. 6. No, you don't need a break to check your email. Changing activities reduces efficiency, as it requires a switch in thinking. The more often you do this, the lower your productivity will be (read about 7 bizarre historical ways to achieve amazing productivity here). You don't have to count every minute. You shouldn't worry about wasted seconds. This is unlikely to improve the situation. None of us are infallible. Here's what Dan says about work-life balance:

I fight for this every day. We are busy with this interview, but today is Saturday. So, no one is perfect. But Dan's advice can help us become more adept at managing our time.

PS We recommend another article on the topic - The formula for failure: how to stop sabotaging yourself.
The author of the translation is Vyacheslav Davidenko, founder of MBA Consult.

At-risk groups

Rationalization as a way to protect the psyche from unwanted emotions is quite popular. Many people use it. But most often those who really need psychological help. There are 2 categories at risk:

1. Obsessive personalities. They doubt everything. And it doesn’t matter what it is - the person himself, his abilities, the people around him, his work, etc. All the doubts they have over time become obsessive thoughts.
2. Sociopaths. It is difficult for such people to build adequate relationships with society, as well as accept generally accepted rules and norms. They often show aggression and impulsiveness.

Rationalization is dangerous in any case, regardless of whether the person is at risk or not.

Summary

• Rational behavior is a decision-making process based on choices that lead to an optimal level of benefit or utility.
• Rational choice theory is an economic theory that assumes rational behavior on the part of people.
• Rational behavior may not involve maximizing monetary or material gain, since the satisfaction obtained may be purely emotional or non-monetary.

And that’s all for today about rational human behavior in economics. I hope the article was useful to you. Share the article on social networks and instant messengers and bookmark the site. Good luck and see you again on the pages of the Tyulyagin !

• 3
  Shared