The Effect of Context on Rationality

When I saw the topic of rationality was going to be discussed in class, I was expecting something different. I never thought to examine rationality from a scientific standpoint. it always seemed to be a more existential function of the human conscience. I was even more surprised when I learned that humans aren't the most consistent with rational thinking. In fact, in many situations, humans are worse at thinking rationally than other non-human animal. 

When we discussed rationality in class, we learned that it should not be considered as the best way of thinking, rather the ideal way. We examined one concept of rational thinking which viewed the process as an equation (called the Expectancy-Value Theory). This concept stated you can compute the Net Value of a decision through the "simple" equation of (Chance of outcome happening) x (Value of the outcome) = Net Value. I put the word "simple" in quotation marks, because while this equation only has two variables, it assumes multiple concepts which are unattainable by humans. First, we would need to assign a single metric that could be universally applied to all things in order to understand "value." Second we would need to be endowed with perfect knowledge of all things and all outcomes to be able to compare the values of all outcomes as well as compute their likelihood. This is clearly not the process that humans take to form decisions. However, while humans do not use the Expectancy-Value Theory, it is still worth noting that the equation represents the ideal way of thinking.

I used to believe humans to be the most able to think rationally in any event. However, after the lecture, and reading up on rationality in Humanscape as well as a journal article by Keith Stanovich, I learned that we can't possibly be capable of true rational thinking all the time. We have learned that true rational thinking means making a decision whose outcome with result in the highest expected value. Unfortunately humans and other complex organism have one more variable than most non-human animals, context. Keith Stanovich, in his article, adeptly explains why the context of a situation makes it harder for humans to think rationally:

Because the strength of each preference—the utility of that option—exists in the brain before the option is even presented, nothing about the context of the presentation should affect the preference, unless the individual judges the context to be important (to change the option in some critical way). This general property of rational choice—context independence—actually makes the strictures of rational preference more difficult to follow for more complex organisms. (Pg. 4)

When discussing the decisions of humans, it is not wrong to say we aren't built for true rational thinking. Not just because of context, but a multiple of other factors important to rational thinking. Humans, are speedy thinkers that, "Place a premium on cognitive speed" (De Young, 10/26). We are also guilty of having limited capabilities to process information and live in changing environments.
Understanding that humans are not built for rational thinking will be important if we begin to transition into a energy descent scenario. We will have to acknowledge that humans won't think rationally when asked to change daily habits or consumption and must take these factors into account when looking forward.

References:

• De Young, Raymond. "Rationality." Environ 360: Behavior and Environment. Dana 1040, Ann Arbor. 26 Oct. 2016. Lecture.
• Stanovich, Keith E. "Why Humans Are (sometimes) Less Rational than Other Animals: Cognitive Complexity and the Axioms of Rational Choice." Thinking & Reasoning 19.1 (2013): 1-26. Web. 26 Oct. 2016. <http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13546783.2012.713178>.