TRPers (me included) schooled by Yale psychology professor

September 3, 2015

TLDWatch; Understanding and accepting your emotions is a big factor on whether you can control and shape your mindset.

Body of text :

Being 'emotional' isn't just being stupid and passionate. Emotions are programs set in our brains that were the most fit to ensure reproduction. In some situations, it doesn't apply to modern days. In others, it does. As an example, people who had the frontal lobe damaged and lost part of their emotions turn they lives in complete garbage after that, not being able to set goals for themselves and completelly not giving a fuck for being alive or productive.

Yes, men are less emotional and more rational then women, but that doesn't mean it isn't a gray area. The speaker shows examples where being rational is UNOPTIMAL, specially when your REPUTATION is on the line : a 100% rational person is predictable, thus exploitable.

Lessons learned : Understanding and accepting your emotions is a big factor on whether you can control and shape your mindset.

part I part II

edit: Good that this is fomenting discussion and etc, but you gotta WATCH the videos if you think this subject is worth discussing. Repeating TRP ideas is unnecessary and circlejerking. We have many comments, but nothing related to the video. This post would be more productive if there were rebuttals than your "off the point" comments.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill content, including various subreddits and blogs. This post has been archived from the subreddit /r/TheRedPill.

/r/TheRedPill archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

Post Information
Title TRPers (me included) schooled by Yale psychology professor
Author RICCIedm
Upvotes 0
Comments 19
Date September 3, 2015 7:21 PM UTC (5 years ago)
Subreddit /r/TheRedPill
Archive Link
Original Link
Similar Posts
Red Pill terms in post

[–]2Sepean6 points7 points  (16 children) | Copy Link

Being rational is NEVER unoptimal. If you read game theory you will find a rigorous study on how to avoid being predictable and getting exploited - it doesn't entail being emotional. Depending on the details of the game you can calculate the exact chance you should assign to eqch option and then decide randomly according to that weight.

What this professor is referring is the stupid Hollywood version of rationality like how Spock always complains "but Captain Kirk that maneuver only has 3.87% chance of success!" and Kirk always makes it but somehow Spock never makes the rational conclusion: that he is fucking inept at second guessing Kirk.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

being irrational can be a rational strategy. Always be unpredictable, and the best way to do that is to be aware of the rational response, and do otherwise.

During the cole war, the US strategy with nukes was to present as an irrational force, to discourage the USSR to avoid any sort of conflict, because the US would be the madman with the doomsday device (basically avoiding the naked guy on the subway because he's crazy, even if you could beat him in a fight)

rational can most certainly be sub optimal, precisely because of it's predictability. But in order to consistantly capitalize on it, you need to rationally consider it as an option.

[–]2Sepean1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

When you say "being irrational can be a rational strategy", we need to define what the words mean.

Sorry to get technical, but are we talking rationality as a layman's term, or as it is used in mathematics and behavioral sciences, as defined by Neumann and Morgenstern?

[–]momomotorboat0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, I think it's more apt to say seeming irrational, so as to fool others.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

There are also other considerations involved, like time scale.

There may be many strategies that are highly successful in the short term, but awful long-term as people adapt to your actions.

So, depending on how long you intend to "stay in the game", the "rational" strategy (which I take for the sake of argument to be equivalent to the optimal one) can vary.

As an example, playing a very aggressive poker game is usually a good strategy just sitting down with new players. If you plan to leave soon, it's OK. However, long-term, you're going to piss people off and the players will start acting weak against you to get you to bet, then re-steal the pot.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Bluffing would be irrational strategy there. Playing as if you had cards, when you didn't

[–]RICCIedm[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

well he in fact mentions Spock in the first video. If Spock has no emotions, what motivates him to go into trips in space? Why does he engage in conversation with people?

[–]2Sepean1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

What motivates the AI in a computer game to move its troops around? What motivates a chat bot?

Are the electrochemical processes in your brain controlled by your emotions or are your emotions emergent properties of those processes? Do you think that what you do and want and think is anything more than just purely physical machinery ticking along inside your skull?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link


A good example is poker. You must randomize your play somewhat in order to remain somewhat unpredictable. Unfortunately, humans are really bad at being truly random.

[–]2Sepean0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

When I had a wristwatch I used the second's hand for it; divide the disk into options in your head, look at the watch, it is a super fast and easy way to decide randomly.

[–]Lt_Muffintoes0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy Link

Being rational is NEVER unoptimal.

Sadly not true.

Being rational with regards to reality is always optimal. Knowing how gravity works prevents you from jumping off a roof because it's quicker than the stairs.

Within human tribes, absolute rationality gets you killed, or gene-deathed eg defying the church, or global warming cultists using sound logic and empirical evidence can hurt your reproductive chances.

[–]2Sepean4 points5 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

A rational person would realise that speaking uncomfortable truths gets you in trouble and keep his mouth shut. An irrational person would let his desire to tell the truth overcome him and blabber to everyone about his insights.

[–]Lt_Muffintoes-2 points-1 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

And when they question you to ensure that your irrationality conforms to theirs? When they demand that you mutilate your helpless, innocent baby son's most intimate bodypart or face extinction? A perfectly rational mind would break.

[–]2Sepean1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Rational choices are defined as those that lead to the highest expected utility. There may be situations where you prefer extinction to living with something and that makes suicide rational in that case.

[–]Lt_Muffintoes-2 points-1 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Your definition is incorrect. Rationality means that data trumps theory.

Choices which lead to the highest utility are evolutionarily beneficial, but not necessarily rational.

A "rational suicide" ends that genetic lineage, and thus genesets which produce perfectly rational minds in social contexts are selected against.

Since we are a product of evolution, you would expect rational behaviour toward reality and irrational behaviour within the tribe.

[–]2Sepean0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

My definition is correct (though the formal definition is longer).

Your post is wrong, and I have no desire to discuss this. I you are interested in decision theory I can recommend Rational Choice in an Uncertain World.

[–]Lt_Muffintoes3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I find your title insulting. No one is advocating to be an emotionless alpha robot.

[–]ItIsMyPrivilege0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Didn't really read it all because Yolo but nobody is saying you should be a sperg or something. Yeah sometimes being rational is optimal sometimes faking irrationality is more optimal.

You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2021. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter