Praxeology - Episode 5 - The Rationality of Action

[suereed]

When is this Beatles concert anyone?

[dantean]

Did I miss something here? It seems perfectly justified calling Steve's effort to see a concert in New York's Central park--across the street from his Central Park West apartment--as irrational if he goes to JFK Airport to catch a flight to get there via Boston's Logan Airport.

[XulChris]

This one needs a link to the next episode at the end.

[praxgirl]

@XulChris thanks Chris :)

[caisamadrid]

Even the impulsive is rational. The individual values their option differently but still chooses. To deny this would excuse that individual of accountability and I think we know that we are always accountable.

[beretboy22]

I couldn't DISAGREE more. Synonyms for the word "rational" include "reasonable - sensible - sane - logical." For the purposes of economics for example, your definition is neither predictable nor scientific. If everything is rational, then it "rational" behavior is a useless basis for predicting human behavior.

[zebart00]

On the contrary. It is because human, purpose driven action IS rational that it is useful in predicting behavior. (Or at least explaining it) If behavior were not rational, we'd have correlation coefficients of 1 or 0. (Or nearly) We'd end up with perfect predictability or none at all.

[mmaier2112]

This is all very interesting, but I'm failing to see the point of it all. What are the benefits to studying Praxeology?

[RealLiveDebates]

Hmm, here I have a disagreement with Praxeology. I CAN judge someone's actions to be irrational. It's true that an angry person who chooses to hurt another person in spite of the fact that he will go to jail as a result, is doing what at that very moment he considers to be preferable. However, I can judge the decision as irrational because it clearly doesn't benefit the man as much as staying out of jail for the next year or 10 years would.

[tridentmovies]

@RealLiveDebates

How do you know it doesn't benefit him as much? You don't know what benefits him, you only know what would be of benefit to you if you were in his shoes. This is all about subjective value. It may benefit his piece of mind MORE knowing that he hurt someone he hates, than it would to be free but the man he hates to be unharmed. Psychological satisfaction is not exempt from the occasion. Vengeance may make him happier than whatever he can achieve outside of jail without it.

[RealLiveDebates]

@tridentmovies The problem here is valuation in time. In a given moment he might feel that hitting the guy is the greater value, but any person would regret the decision over the years that he is incarcerated. He isn't going to think 10 years from that moment "I sure am satisfied now that even though I could have walked away in my moment of rage I stabbed the guy and now I'm in jail for the better part of my life". I've never heard of a real, flesh and blood, sane person who'd think that way

[zebart00]

@RealLiveDebates

We all think this way. I was once told that maturity is the ability to act as if the future matters. Relatedly, educated people and those with higher IQs tend to have a low discount value of time. So it is entirely seemly that a thuggish brute would discount the future results of his action to a degree that might make it appear irrational. Really, he's acting, consistent with his discount value of time, in order to maximize his net present satisfaction.

[RealLiveDebates]

@zebart00 Yes he's acting in accordance to his value at that instant. That doesn't make it rational. Rational means to reason, deliberate etc. To think beyond the range of the immediate moment. Too bad Mises didn't seem to understand this. He was a great economist though.

[CleverDjembe]

pause at 0:01 lol

[meberic]

What happens when instincts kick in? So... rationally I should be working right now, instead, my instincts brought me here to watch a sexy girl read some of Von Misses work. Was that a rational action? By the way, while writing this I was fired.

[WorBlux]

@meberic

It just means you but a very high discount on future goods, (when distracted by certain things) not that you lack intent.

[GroovePatriot]

"The terms rational and irrational are inappropriate and meaningless with respect to the subjective goals of a man." What if a man's subjective goal is to have no goals? He will never achieve this, not because he is fallible, but because his pursuit is a contradictory plan of action that places his subjective desire above reality. The term rational is inappropriate and meaningless with respect to the actions of a man when his subjective desire seeks to fake it's derivative content: existence.

[tridentmovies]

@GroovePatriot

Nobody can have "no goal". It's a self detonating statement. It doesn't matter what someone says, it only matters what someone does. His actions will always prove that he has goals. It's like saying "It's my goal not to need food". It doesn't matter, because you'll need to engage in rational and purposeful action (EAT) that will conform with the reality of hunger.

[tallabomba]

If all human action is rational because they have a reason or cause (rather than the other definitions of rationality), then so are the actions of billiard balls bouncing around on a pool table or electrons hitting an atom. The only difference is that we have chosen the cause or reason of our action (we have free will). I feel more comfortable with the definition that MichaelWWard (and I think Rand) promotes. Maybe this has been discussed elsewhere?

[prashantpawar]

@tallabomba Its not about what definition you are comfortable with, its about what definition serves our purpose. I could say I prefer the definition of rational as "what god intends", but it doesn't help us at all to study human action. If you define the term "rational" as something other than what praxeologist use as, its not going to have any implication on what their theories are.

[sharperguy]

Oh good, I already have the course textbook for this. Human Action - Mises.

[FeministAvenger]

Load of randian crap.

[sharperguy]

@FeministAvenger Rand always took pleasure in calling people's decisions irrational if she didn't share the same values that they did.

[FeministAvenger]

@sharperguy Of course. That's rational.

[sharperguy]

@FeministAvenger What I'm saying is that when you call this "randian crap" that Rand clearly didn't use this conception of rationality, and so this has nothing to do with her views.

[FeministAvenger]

@sharperguy Rand did use it, but she opportunistically betrayed it when it didn't suit her that moment. Which is, ironically, rational from her momentarily shifted point of view.

[sharperguy]

@FeministAvenger Well by the above definition there is no irony in it being rational because all action is rational.

It isn't really ironic when you use the colloquial definition either, which I guess you could define as "likely to achieve desired goals", since we are talking about two different, though related, concepts.

[FeministAvenger]

@sharperguy Agreed, those are two different concepts. Let me first emphasize the similar randian attitude.

I can point to certain actions, some by my private own as well as some by biological less developed species, which are both relevant to the debate above, and not rational. It is the all-is-rational attitude then, the arrogance of it, that is trying to either overrule these experiences or redefine the initial concept of rationality.

[sharperguy]

@FeministAvenger I don't see it as redefining rationality. I see it as coming up with a definition which is internally consistent to praxeology in order to convey a key concept. It just so happens that the same word is used to mean a different thing outside the realm of praxeology.

[pbzep13]

@FeministAvenger Please, do point to them. Just saying that you can does not help the debate much. Which actions by humans which are not merely reflexive are irrational?

[MichaelWWard]

And I think that all of us have at least one irrational fear, a fear of something for which there is no discernable reason or cause. An irrational fear via which we may act upon, and therefore act irrationally.

Linguistics is a boring and droll subject. Enough paper dolls, context dropping, definition swapping and words games.

[MichaelWWard]

possess a certain RATIONALE (@Heather) it is not rational. It is both unreasonable and completely irrational. Yes, there are reasons for a condition like bulemia, such as early childhood trauma or abuse of some sort. That does not change the facts of natural law, nor the necessity of abiding by it.

Now the simple fact is that all of you here agree with what I am saying. You don't believe that bulemia or the list of other mental conditions are healthy or normal.

[MichaelWWard]

Finally, as I've said before, human beings are the only animals that can be considered rational or irrational. We have the ability to choose to either work for or against our own existence. You say that everyone has a different set of values, and for that reason all action is rational based on those values. However, a value that destroys the valuer is a contradiction in terms. While there may be a reason behind it, it is not within the abstraction of reason that it is formed. While it may

[MichaelWWard]

Now if someone decided not to purchase the air conditioner, that would not be considered irrational. Perhaps they cannot afford it or the electric bill. Perhaps they believe that the temperature will not effect them negatively, and perhaps it won't. But what would be irrational is someone turning the heat on in 100 degree weather. If you even try to argue against that logic, I'm just going to chalk you up to a lunatic and leave it here. I can't even believe I'm sitting here debating this at all

[MichaelWWard]

It is no different today. I have an air conditioner so that I don't die of heat stroke in 100 degree weather. It wasn't some arbitrary decision wherein I said, hey let me put this interesting looking box in the window. There is no other reason for my having an air conditioner other than my wanting to mitigate the effect of temperature. It is objective and comes in response to natural laws, much like ancient peoples staying in caves to mitigate the same temperature effect

[MichaelWWard]

planted, and man was able to stay in one place. Man created new tools to make farming more efficient and faster, and so was able to weather droughts with larger harvests. He traded with others because certain members of the tribe had differing skillsets and were better at certain things than he was. Skilled trades formed, bartering agreements were made, etc.

These are all completely objective and predictable actions undertaken by people sustaining and increasing their quality of life

[MichaelWWard]

That is the first goal on which all others are based. We need to eat, we need to sleep, and we need to survive. Because mankind does not have the physical prowess with which to eat, he designed tools, from the spear to the bow, to the gun so that he could hunt. Man migrated across the globe, following the animals he needed to eat, or to find new sources of food. Man developed clothing to mitigate the effects of temperature. Eventually it was ascertained through ingenuity that crops could be

[MichaelWWard]

@gergenheimer, There can be no such thing as objective criteria to assess human behavior? We live in objective, not subjective, reality. When you wake up in the morning and step out of bed, you don't fall through the floor into a seperate dimension and spend the day hanging out with Leprechauns and Unicorns. We live in a world that is governed by natural laws. You want to talk about first principles, yet the very first principle of all life is ignored from your thesis; staying alive

[MichaelWWard]

@Heather, the vocabulary lesson is purposeless. What is the definition of irrational? Not endowed with reason or understanding (2) Lacking usual or normal mental clarity or adherence (3) Not governed by or according to reason.

Reason, in the context of rational or irrational does not mean A reason. I can take a pen right now and stab myself in the eye because I'm curious to know what it feels like. That is a 'reason', but it is not 'reasonable', therefore it is irrational.

[gergenheimer]

Thanks for this Episode - as it happens I've been debating with someone on another channel who insists that free markets are a nice idea, but in practice they fail because people are "irrational". I challenged him to provide an example of irrational behavior, and he gave the behavior of the stock market as an example of irrational behavior. He seems to be attributing group outcomes with rationality/irrationality. A group can be neither rational nor irrational.

[HeathersiPhoneApp]

@MichaelWWard it's pretty clear that you and gergenheimer (and Praxgirl) are in a battle over definitions. Those of us who understand Praxeology would define what you are talking about as RATIONALE. All purposeful action is rational because BY DEFINITION it is done for a reason. Even psychology admits that "schizos and the mentally ill" act purposefully. Your contention is that they act without RATIONALE (set of principled reasons), not without REASON (purpose). Do you see the difference?

[MichaelWWard]

believes himself to be a rational person, undertaking rational actions, is going to seek help for an obvious problem that destroys their lives and the people around them? Do you really think that a drug or alcohol addiction makes someone happy? The alleviation of stress or pain through certain means does not make the means themselves rational.

And no, I completely disagree with you regarding the housing market. People are not that stupid, they simply do not care enough to think ahead

[MichaelWWard]

There is a very hard line between rationalizing and being rational. This is purely rationalization at its base level. But let's take this from a different perspective. What exactly are you trying to promote here? Would you like skitzophrenics, bulemics, anorexics, alcoholics, drug users, rapists, killers, child molesters, people who cut or hurt themselves, and potential suicide victims, to believe that, because they are taking some action, they are rational? How likely is it that someone who

[MichaelWWard]

@gergenheimer Okay, sure. It's not irrational to shoot up a few vials of heroin for the immediate pleasure that you derive from it. It's not irrational, even if the chance that you are going to die from OD are pretty strong. Sure. Likewise, its not irrational to run around on the highway for a cheap thrill, even though the possibility that you may die is astronomically high. What kind of crap are you helping to promote?

[gergenheimer]

@MichaelWWard OK - let's start with first principles - you need to understand that there can be no such thing as objective criteria to assess the outcomes of individual human behavior - human goals, beliefs and preferences are totally subjective. You seem to be using a definition of rationality that imposes arbitrary, external criteria onto the judgments of individual human minds. If rationality is a characteristic external to the individual mind, then whose criteria of rationality do we use?

[Brownyman]

Damn...I caught up fast!

[orthzar]

Dammit, now I can't call statists irrational for wanting to imprison non-violent law-breakers. Damn your rationallity... I mean, damn logical consistency!

[gergenheimer]

@orthzar You're absolutely right - we can't call Statists "irrational" - they are assessing the incentive structure that has been created around them, and their response to these incentives will be informed by their values. What we CAN say about Statists is that they are intellectually dishonest (because they refuse to acknowledge the unintended harmful consequences of the policies they promote), and unethical because they use the violence of government to impose their will on other people.

[pbzep13]

@gergenheimer Expertly said!

[MichaelWWard]

I am sure some of the people who see this video will use it and integrate it into their thinking, and state unequivocally that their actions, regardless of what they are, are rational. But back in reality, if we ever expect our economy to be strong again, or for people to be more responsible, then we need to take this "non-judgmental" attitude out of the equation. How can we expect people to act smarter, if they are told that all actions are completely rational and equally valid?

[MichaelWWard]

, it stands to reason that if what brings one pleasure in the immediate moment will lead to disaster in the future, then that is not a rational action. A great real-world example of this is the housing market. Sure, purchasing a 10 bedroom mansion made people extremely happy. They didn't actually have money to afford the house, but in the immediate moment they sought their pleasure and gained it. Then they went broke and were homeless. Living well above their means was not rational.

[gergenheimer]

@MichaelWWard No, it doesn't stand to reason that a choice like you describe can be called "irrational". If you choose the short-term pleasure despite the possibility of bad outcomes later, it's because you valued the current pleasure more than you feared the bad things that MAY come later - this is rational, if somewhat childish. As for the housing market, people acted according to the signals they were being sent - the Fed flooded us with cheap money, creating a false sense of prosperity.

[MichaelWWard]

@prashantpawar I agree with what you're saying, however praxeology does deal with metaphysics which is a branch of philosophy. From what I gather from the video, she is saying that, because each person views things from their own subjective viewpoint, their actions are always rational (at least to them). But using examples like whether to go to the park or to a concert to define all actions being rational is just silly. While I am absolutely for seeking out pleasure as being rational

[akjones498]

This seems to be a tautological argument of definition, basically saying that action can't be irrational because I say it can't be irrational. Goals can be irrational and the approach to them can be irrational - few people even understand logic. I'd agree that all action has a purpose, but that purpose is insufficient for making it rational.

[MichaelWWard]

How can we sit here and state that subjective reasoning is the end-all be-all to what comprises a rational thought? We live in reality, not in some fantasy illusion created in our minds. We need to eat and sustain ourselves. We need appropriate objective value judgements to decide what is important and what is not. To say that someone is rational because they just shot someone in the face is absurd, regardless of whatever end they were trying to achieve.

This is a crap philosophy.

[prashantpawar]

@MichaelWWard You are right its a crap philosophy. Because its not a philosophy, she differentiated the studies different aspects of human action in some video(I think its second or first video). Praxeology studies the logical implications of universal formal fact that people act, that they employ means to try to attain their chosen ends. Technology deals with HOW to achieve ends by adoption of means, psychology deals with the question WHY people adopt various ends, and how do they adopt them.

[prashantpawar]

@MichaelWWard Ethics or moral philosophy(as you are considering Praxeology to be) deals with the question of what ends, or values, people should adopt. And history deals with ends adopted in the past, what means were used to try to achieve them - and what the consequences of these actions were. So see, Praxeology isn't a philosophy, when it says all actions are rational, it means "from the viewpoint of purposefulness of actions, all actions are purposeful"

[MichaelWWard]

Because we are sentient beings, it is our ability to judge and to make decisions that determines our successes or failures, even for those base goals such as existing at all. If a farmer decides to sit around all season and not plant his crops, then he will have no food and no money. He will not be able to sustain himself. He cannot simply ignore the consequences of action and hope they go away. This is absolutely irrational behavior that works against his own life.

[MichaelWWard]

Sorry, but this sounds like a lot of nonsense to me. Anything that goes against your base needs is irrational, period. If you choose to go purchase heroin instead of purchasing food or clothes, or paying rent, that is entirely irrational on the basis that you are working against your own existence.

Human beings are sentient beings, that is what differentiates us from other animals. A mule cannot work against its own existence. Its actions are without morality because it lives through instinct

[gozxdesastros]

Oh crap, this sounds so interesting to me but im having a real hard time to understand such complex sentenses in english. But i really like what i onderstood so far. And you are also pretty :-P

[noiselull]

See on this Rozeff at mises.org/daily/2249

[bjdweck]

@Jbrouhaha correct. Praxeology just holds that every purposeful action undertaken is INTENDED to alleviate some uneasiness of the actor. This is always true. It doesn't make value judgments about the goal, nor does it assume that humans are infallible and that every action actually does (or is the best way to) alleviate the uneasiness. The action may exacerbate the uneasiness so a 3rd party (who assumes he knows the goal of the action) might then refer to the actor as an 'irrational' person.

[bjdweck]

@Jbrouhaha Psychology is a science with its own terms like "insane" and "irrational" which have meanings within the context of psychology (which i know very little about). In praxeology, a man can never be called "irrational". Same word, two difference concepts. In fact, praxeology is not concerned with labeling a man at all - just his actions.

[bjdweck]

@Jbrouhaha no, you mat not. It is meaningless to declare someone's goals as either "rational" or "irrational" in and of themselves. Further, all of a man's actions are ultimately aimed at the satisfaction of some desire of his and are therefore rational actions. Finally, it is irrelevant whether or not his actions are the most appropriate means of attaining his goals. Praxeology does not assume that man is infallible. He takes purposeful action toward the attainment of his goals.

[shad455]

This is amazing.

[SpeakMouthWords]

I believe you forgot to include cute last-second shoulder lift. Apart from that, good lesson as usual!

[CernelJoson]

@SpeakMouthWords I didn't notice that she did that in every other episode until I read this comment and went back to check.

[tsummerlee]

If praxeology is value free, of what value is praxeology? I understand praxeology is the base science of economics, but defining it as "value free" seems like an error.

[t3hsauce]

@tsummerlee It is value free in that the economist does not apply value judgments to the conclusions of economic analysis.  When economists say that a policy is "bad" there is no normative implication; it simply means that the policy does not achieve its stated goal.

[tsummerlee]

@t3hsauce You're right. Thanks so much.

[XAlejossX]

@tsummerlee I agree. Its seems that it is a mistake to say that praxeology is value free (becouse of what value is praxeology?). I would say preaxeology doesnt recognize it "itself". That is, the task of recognizing "praxeologys values does not correspond to praxeology.

[bjdweck]

@tsummerlee physics is also a "value free" science but i don't think anyone would say that it has no value. It provides us with an understanding of how the physical universe operates as praxeology provides us with an understanding of how the economy operates (without making any value judgments)