Let's Start This All Over... - Page 4

@beetree, Shermer didn't come up with the idea of agenticity. It's his way of describing the intentional stance which he got from Daniel Dennett. Patternicity is just his way of describing what is essentially association learning. His writings tend to simplify what he gets from his sources. I don't like him that much because he injects too much of his political leanings in his writings when they have no place there.

I began to form my ideas on rational vs irrational thought when I was a kid watching Star Trek reruns.

I also wouldn't say I have a skeptic's personality as much as I have a curious one. Some people hear or read something and take it as the truth and leave it there. I like to know the source and the facts, not because I am skeptical and disbelieve, but because I want to actually understand something more completely. If it turns out that upon verification it isn't true then so be it but that is not my intention. It's a case of not wanting to believe something is true as much as it is a case of wanting to KNOW it is true (or not). Also, it isn't a case of me wanting to just know if something is true as much as it is a case of wanting to know why it's true.

You also misunderstood my question. I didn't ask what the potential consequences are when a woman doesn't follow her gut feelings, it's obvious what they are. I was asking how many times is that gut feeling wrong? My point being that intuition is not perfect and to rely on it is not the best way to go through life. How many kids would do well on the SATs taking an intuitive approach? Odds are that someone could get a perfect score guessing all the way through but should a kid take a chance that he will be the one?

For the woman in question it is better to act as though her feelings are right all of the time even if she knows that most of the time she will be wrong. Like I said, evolution doesn't care about the times you are wrong, false positives or type 1 errors, since it's the one time you are right that matters. But should a woman live her whole life as though she is alone at night in a parking garage?

@Noitsyou. I don't think I misunderstood your question. The question is somewhat irrational, in that we can't know a correct answer. What I did, was disregard it. You said:

I was asking how many times is that gut feeling wrong?

How would you answer your own question? There really isn't any reason to bother with such a question, because there is no way to quantify being wrong because of feeling foolish. Do you know how or where to find such information? More importantly, you are not acknowledging that the risk can not be compared to the risk of ignoring the gut feeling when she is right. The statistics of rape and murder make that kind of an answer or educated guess much more likely, when we associate the action and the incorrect response (renamed as "patternicity and agenticity") of not listening to our "gut" because it does provide an essential framing of information that works.

Also, I will disregard too, this assertion:

For the woman in question it is better to act as though her feelings are right all of the time even if she knows that most of the time she will be wrong. 

I strongly object to your assumption that when a woman listens to her intuition, it is because she "knows" she must act within an awareness being opposed to her "knowing" she is wrong. That certainly would be irrational, and is simply not true. Her unconscience pattern associations are working in her favor, and the rational thing to do would be to take the path offering the best result. For her to know she is wrong "most of the time" about her intuition means she would have to know the mind and intention of a stranger is mostly or always benevolent, and that is impossible to know. Experience, being conscious and unconsious, bears it out that wicked motives by strangers are very real and not always obvious.

There are other psychology studies with rituals, that I will define as: purposeful, repeated actions creating human action patterns— can be effective and that result is what makes them rational. 

Recent research suggests that rituals may be more rational than they appear. Why? Because even simple rituals can be extremely effective. Rituals performed after experiencing losses – from loved ones to lotteries – do alleviate grief, and rituals performed before high-pressure tasks – like singing in public – do in fact reduce anxiety and increase people’s confidence. What’s more, rituals appear to benefit even people who claim not to believe that rituals work. While anthropologists have documented rituals across cultures, this earlier research has been primarily observational. Recently, a series of investigations by psychologists have revealed intriguing new results demonstrating that rituals can have a causal impact on people’s thoughts, feelings, and behaviors.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-rituals-work/

The fact becomes, that something that should be irrational, can ultimately have a positive effect on the mindset of individuals, is what makes them work. Nothing succeeds, like success.

As for your childhood recollections, how cute and precocious!