This is why politicians and people clash. People with no public responsibilities have no problem
taking rational positions; there is not cost to them, as opposed to politicians, who can afford to
adhere to rationality and principles. This is an insoluble problem and a main reason for the sluggishness and compromises and sidelining of principles. It becomes dangerous when people adhere to ideology, religion, biases and peer group pressure, as witness what is going on today in this country. The problem/puzzle is how this can serve democracy and the rule of law. It is now
in the process of overturning these. And when rational democratic principles or a moral code are thrown out the window, anything goes. The prizing of anti democratic principles and structures over a rational and moral code that serves no one faction is what we face today.
Great piece, Sarah! I’ve been thinking a lot about how the concept of dynamic balance is distinct from pure opposition. I largely agree with your distinction between reasonableness / rationality, though I think reasonableness has become even more essential in today’s conspiracy addled internet. Reasonableness acts as a necessary guardrail to prevent rational arguments from being twisted into grossly misleading / harmful narratives. This really shows up in highly partisan environments, where reasonableness becomes subjective, filtered through tribal lenses. Figures like Yuval Noah Harari and Jordan Peterson often say things that are objectively reasonable, but their words are interpreted differently by ideologically diverse groups, each filtering the message through their own biases. Here, reasonableness, rather than being a simple social construct, acts as a buffer that helps ensure rationality doesn’t get hijacked. Conspiracy theories are often built on the union of two facts to create an untruth, and reason is one of the few mechanisms we have for unraveling this act.
Perhaps reasonableness and rationality aren’t mutually exclusive. Reasonableness does require social legibility, but it often incorporates rationality to varying degrees. Many smart people find ways to balance both, using rational thinking to shape their ideas while ensuring they’re presented in a way that’s understandable (if not always fully acceptable) to a wider audience. I may also be worth noting that reasonableness, when defined as legibility, may help prevent overly abstract thinking that alienates people. Public legibility forces intellectuals to engage with other perspectives and ensure their arguments aren’t built on niche, technical jargon.
This is why I have unbounded respect for individuals (like you!) who manage to build respect among audiences they frequently disappoint by undermining cherished narratives. It frees them to speak their mind without the need to pander, allowing for a more genuine pursuit of truth.
I'm not sure I follow what you mean here: "Figures like Yuval Noah Harari and Jordan Peterson often say things that are objectively reasonable, but their words are interpreted differently by ideologically diverse groups, each filtering the message through their own biases. Here, reasonableness, rather than being a simple social construct, acts as a buffer that helps ensure rationality doesn’t get hijacked."
Wouldn't the various contextual interpretations/biases of their words be an example of *reasonableness* getting hijacked?
I do agree with you though, that reasonableness and rationality aren't mutually exclusive, and those tend to be the easy cases. And also that better communication can ease tensions between the two. I wish I had that kind of skill!
Sarah, to your point, I agree that contextual interpretations and biases can hijack both rationality and reasonableness. In that sense, reasonableness isn’t always a reliable buffer since it can be co opted by social pressures or cultural filters. I think I was trying to say that in the best-case scenario, reasonableness should serve as a form of legibility that helps prevent the most egregious distortions of rational arguments. But, of course, this legibility is subjective, and the very biases that make reasonableness socially acceptable can sometimes also lead to misinterpretation or ideological manipulation. So, I agree with you that these various interpretations could indeed be examples of reasonableness getting hijacked - especially when people are quick to twist an argument to fit their own worldview. In hindsight, I think I could have framed this more as an ongoing tension between the two, where reasonableness is not always a defence against distortion, but rather an imperfect tool we try to use to keep ideas grounded.
And yes, I also think the best communicators manage to navigate this tightrope well - ensuring they balance reasonableness and rationality while avoiding the traps of pandering or oversimplification. It’s a rare skill!
This is why politicians and people clash. People with no public responsibilities have no problem
taking rational positions; there is not cost to them, as opposed to politicians, who can afford to
adhere to rationality and principles. This is an insoluble problem and a main reason for the sluggishness and compromises and sidelining of principles. It becomes dangerous when people adhere to ideology, religion, biases and peer group pressure, as witness what is going on today in this country. The problem/puzzle is how this can serve democracy and the rule of law. It is now
in the process of overturning these. And when rational democratic principles or a moral code are thrown out the window, anything goes. The prizing of anti democratic principles and structures over a rational and moral code that serves no one faction is what we face today.
Great piece, Sarah! I’ve been thinking a lot about how the concept of dynamic balance is distinct from pure opposition. I largely agree with your distinction between reasonableness / rationality, though I think reasonableness has become even more essential in today’s conspiracy addled internet. Reasonableness acts as a necessary guardrail to prevent rational arguments from being twisted into grossly misleading / harmful narratives. This really shows up in highly partisan environments, where reasonableness becomes subjective, filtered through tribal lenses. Figures like Yuval Noah Harari and Jordan Peterson often say things that are objectively reasonable, but their words are interpreted differently by ideologically diverse groups, each filtering the message through their own biases. Here, reasonableness, rather than being a simple social construct, acts as a buffer that helps ensure rationality doesn’t get hijacked. Conspiracy theories are often built on the union of two facts to create an untruth, and reason is one of the few mechanisms we have for unraveling this act.
Perhaps reasonableness and rationality aren’t mutually exclusive. Reasonableness does require social legibility, but it often incorporates rationality to varying degrees. Many smart people find ways to balance both, using rational thinking to shape their ideas while ensuring they’re presented in a way that’s understandable (if not always fully acceptable) to a wider audience. I may also be worth noting that reasonableness, when defined as legibility, may help prevent overly abstract thinking that alienates people. Public legibility forces intellectuals to engage with other perspectives and ensure their arguments aren’t built on niche, technical jargon.
This is why I have unbounded respect for individuals (like you!) who manage to build respect among audiences they frequently disappoint by undermining cherished narratives. It frees them to speak their mind without the need to pander, allowing for a more genuine pursuit of truth.
Thanks Clyde!
I'm not sure I follow what you mean here: "Figures like Yuval Noah Harari and Jordan Peterson often say things that are objectively reasonable, but their words are interpreted differently by ideologically diverse groups, each filtering the message through their own biases. Here, reasonableness, rather than being a simple social construct, acts as a buffer that helps ensure rationality doesn’t get hijacked."
Wouldn't the various contextual interpretations/biases of their words be an example of *reasonableness* getting hijacked?
I do agree with you though, that reasonableness and rationality aren't mutually exclusive, and those tend to be the easy cases. And also that better communication can ease tensions between the two. I wish I had that kind of skill!
Sarah, to your point, I agree that contextual interpretations and biases can hijack both rationality and reasonableness. In that sense, reasonableness isn’t always a reliable buffer since it can be co opted by social pressures or cultural filters. I think I was trying to say that in the best-case scenario, reasonableness should serve as a form of legibility that helps prevent the most egregious distortions of rational arguments. But, of course, this legibility is subjective, and the very biases that make reasonableness socially acceptable can sometimes also lead to misinterpretation or ideological manipulation. So, I agree with you that these various interpretations could indeed be examples of reasonableness getting hijacked - especially when people are quick to twist an argument to fit their own worldview. In hindsight, I think I could have framed this more as an ongoing tension between the two, where reasonableness is not always a defence against distortion, but rather an imperfect tool we try to use to keep ideas grounded.
And yes, I also think the best communicators manage to navigate this tightrope well - ensuring they balance reasonableness and rationality while avoiding the traps of pandering or oversimplification. It’s a rare skill!
please correct this! politicians who CANT afford to adhere to rationality and principles'
also: "no cost'