The Context of Rationality

Understanding the Tension of Rationality and Human Error

Human beings are inherently irrational—or so experimental research often suggests. This raises a profound question: If we are so prone to errors in reasoning, where do we derive our standards of rationality? Philosopher Jonathan Cohen, in a seminal 1981 article, argued that these standards must come from within us, yet this creates a paradox. How can a species riddled with errors set such high benchmarks for logic, mathematics, and probability?

The Euthyphro Paradox and the Source of Norms

The philosopher Plato addressed similar concerns in the Euthyphro Paradox:

“Is something good because God says it’s good, or does God say it because it is good?”

If rationality comes from an external source, it risks being arbitrary. True rationality must be participatory—something we actively engage with and internalize. Cohen’s insight that humans are the source of rational norms is crucial. However, it leads to a deeper question: If we set the standards, why do we frequently fall short?

Competence vs. Performance Errors

Cohen’s distinction between competence (our inherent capability) and performance (our execution under various circumstances) provides a potential answer. For example:

A drunk person’s slurred speech represents a performance error; their competence in language remains intact.
Conversely, brain damage may represent a competence error, affecting the underlying ability itself.

This distinction clarifies that many human errors arise not from flawed competence but from circumstantial interference in performance.

However, later research by Stanovich and West (2000) challenged this view. They introduced the concept of systematicity in errors, demonstrating that the mistakes people make in reasoning tasks are often consistent across contexts. This indicates that errors may arise from competence itself rather than mere performance issues.

Rationality Beyond Logicality

A critical insight emerges: rationality is not equivalent to logicality. While logical reasoning is essential, human rationality encompasses far more:

Logicality is the manipulation of propositions according to strict rules.
Rationality, derived from the Latin ratio (proper proportion), involves balancing multiple cognitive processes, including relevance realization and perspective-taking.

Stanovich further argued that intelligence is necessary but not sufficient for rationality. People can be highly intelligent yet profoundly irrational. Rationality, therefore, involves a unique cognitive style that goes beyond mere intellectual capacity.

Active Open-Mindedness as a Cognitive Style

To cultivate rationality, Stanovich emphasized the importance of active open-mindedness, which involves:

Recognizing cognitive biases.
Training oneself to counteract biases.
Engaging in dialogue with humility and good faith.

This aligns with practices like Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) and Stoicism, which teach individuals to reflect on their thought processes and develop habits that mitigate self-deception.

“Active open-mindedness is not just about thinking differently; it is about participating in a way of knowing that challenges self-deception and fosters growth.”

Rationality in an Ecological Context

Stanovich’s model of rationality, while groundbreaking, has limitations. It primarily focuses on the individual and neglects the role of the environment in shaping rational behavior. This leads to the concept of ecological rationality, which emphasizes:

The interplay between computational limitations and environmental constraints.
The importance of dynamic, context-sensitive reasoning.

For example, in real-world scenarios, heuristics often outperform formal optimization strategies due to their adaptability to uncertain and changing environments.

Toward an Ecology of Practices

To develop rationality, individuals must engage in an ecology of practices that balance different modes of cognition. This includes:

Mindfulness practices to reduce interference from inferential machinery.
Active open-mindedness to enhance self-awareness and bias correction.
Dynamic practices like Tai Chi or contemplation to foster cognitive flexibility.

These practices cultivate a proper proportioning of attention, aligning with the deeper meaning of ratio—not merely logic, but balance and harmony.

Rationality, Technology, and the Future

As artificial intelligence advances, the distinction between intelligence and rationality becomes increasingly urgent. We face a choice:

Silicon Monsters: Machines that are highly intelligent but prone to self-deception.
Silicon Sages: Machines that embody rationality and wisdom.

“Our moral obligation is to become wiser and more rational—not only to guide emerging technologies but to serve as templates for their development.”

By cultivating rationality and wisdom within ourselves, we ensure that future technologies enhance, rather than endanger, human flourishing.

Conclusion

Rationality is not a fixed trait but a dynamic process of self-correction, proper proportioning, and participation. It is deeply tied to our environments, our practices, and our aspirations for transcendence. As we strive to become more rational, we not only improve our individual lives but also shape the collective future of humanity.