Rational Irrationality
Rational irrationality is the hypothesis that humans unconsciously trade off epistemic rationality for instrumental rationality to achieve social and emotional goals, but the author argues that we systematically overvalue soldier mindset, choosing irrationality more often than optimal.
THE IDEA
ARE WE RATIONALLY IRRATIONAL?
Scout mindset seeks accurate beliefs; soldier mindset defends beliefs we want to hold. Since we make trade-offs between them, are we any good at it? Are we good at intuitively weighing the costs and benefits of knowing the truth, in a given situation, against the costs and benefits of believing a lie?
The hypothesis that the human mind evolved the ability to make these trade-offs well is called the rational irrationality hypothesis, coined by economist Bryan Caplan.[1] If the name sounds like a paradox, that’s because it’s using two different senses of the word rational: epistemic rationality means holding beliefs that are well justified, while instrumental rationality means acting effectively to achieve your goals.
Being rationally irrational, therefore, would mean that we’re good at unconsciously choosing just enough epistemic irrationality to achieve our social and emotional goals, without impairing our judgment too much. A rationally irrational person would deny problems only when the comfort of denial is sufficiently high and their chance of fixing the problem is sufficiently low. A rationally irrational CEO would inflate his perception of his company’s health only when the positive impact on his ability to persuade investors was large enough to outweigh the negative impact on his strategic decision-making.
So, are we rationally irrational?
If we already struck an optimal balance, I couldn’t claim that more scout mindset would make us personally better off. My answer is that we are far from that balance: we systematically misjudge the costs and benefits of truth. We overvalue soldier mindset and undervalue scout mindset, choosing comforting beliefs more often than serves our own goals.
When to use it
A business leader ignoring negative feedback to maintain team morale, potentially leading to strategic failures.
Avoiding confronting personal relationship issues to keep harmony, preventing resolution.
Citizens supporting a political narrative that ignores evidence of policy flaws because it aligns with their social identity.
Researchers clinging to a favored hypothesis despite contradicting data, slowing scientific progress.
FROM THEORY TO EVERYDAY LIFE
In practice
CEO's company health overestimation
A rationally irrational CEO would inflate his perception of his company’s health only when the positive impact on his ability to persuade investors was large enough to outweigh the negative impact on his strategic decision-making.
Personal denial of problems
A rationally irrational person would deny problems only when the comfort of denial is sufficiently high and their chance of fixing the problem is sufficiently low.
A MOMENT TO REFLECT
Put it to work.
Think of a time you chose to believe a comforting falsehood over an uncomfortable truth. What were the costs and benefits of that choice?
In what areas of your life might you be overusing soldier mindset at the expense of scout mindset?
How can you intentionally increase your scout mindset in situations where it is most valuable?
CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION
Source texts
- The Scout Mindset (Julia Galef)