we lie with our clothes the same way we lie with our words. whether we're trying to conceal wisdom, confidence, wealth, strength, compatibility, etc... there's a distribution to the potential gain and chance of getting "called out". That's assuming we're making a concious choice. A big portion of it is effective marketing making us insecure about all those things we try to conceal first, whether we are missing in any of those deparments or not. I think it's much more subconsious that we'd like to admit, particulalry if we think we're so rational.

Even if man really were nothing but a piano-key, even if this were proved to him by natural science and mathematics, even then he would not become reasonable, but would purposely do something perverse out of simple ingratitude, simply to gain his point.

—Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Notes from the Underground

(Self-promotion: this is the epigraph to the novella I'm working on, which is not really about rationality but is about what we're pleased to call "human nature", and which you may read the beginning of here if so inclined.)

simply saying that you've talked about a weakness doesn't erradicate it.

Presence of discussion about the problem doesn't make the problem go away. But it is what makes your assertion about the presence of the problem useless: it's known, it's acknowledged, it's discussed, nothing to be gained by rehashing the issue without making progress.

Studies of patients with split brains have allowed us to begin to understand the functions and relative roles of different parts of our thinking organ. The left hemisphere, usually referred to as the "rational" side, is actually the rationalizing one, what neurobiologists call "the left interpreter." It is in charge of holding onto one person's current paradigm and worldview, no matter what the evidence. The left brain will distort facts if they conflict with the current held viewpoint. We like to think of ourselves as rational animals, but perhaps it would be more accurate to describe ourselves as rationalizing animals. However reasonable a view may be, it’s possible that we have acquired it for wholly irrational reasons and are now simply rationalizing it in order to maintain our self-image as consistent, rational, and moral. It’s not just a question of rationalization, either — we appear capable of making up complete falsehoods as part of this.

Massimo Pigliucci continues in the Summer 2003 issue of Free Inquiry:

In fact, the left brain can literally make up stories if the evidence is scarce or contradictory. A typical experiment was with a patient characterized by a complete severance of the corpus callosum (which connects the two hemispheres in normal individuals). He was shown a chicken leg to the right half of the visual field (which is controlled by the left brain) and was asked to pick a corresponding object. Logically enough, he picked a chicken head. The subject was then shown a house with snow to the left field (controlled by the right brain) and, also logically, chose a shovel.

The individual was then asked to explain why he picked a chicken head and a shovel. Notice that there was no communication between the two hemispheres, and that the only hemisphere that can respond verbally is the left one. Astonishingly, the left hemisphere made up a story to explain the facts while being ignorant of half of them: the shovel was necessary to clean the chicken excrement! I never cease to be amazed at the sorts of things that these experiments on cognition and brain function reveal. I’m sure that the average person would not have thought the above situation to be likely, but it clearly happened: a person made a choice for entirely sensible reasons, but because their brain was unable to understand or articulate them, it made up entirely new reasons and created a story around them.

Simply amazing — and all the more so because the belief being rationalized here was so obviously reasonable and appropriate in the first place. It’s bad enough that a person might rationalize bad beliefs, but apparently we rationalize good beliefs as well. How often do you suppose this happens? How many of our beliefs, especially the very good ones, are rational<i>ized rather than rational?

Should be perhaps change our beliefs about qualifies as “rational”? If we did, wouldn’t that be a rationalization as well?

We don't "trust" ourselves not to rationalize, we acknowledge the problem and fight it.

If you're trying to make the point that truth-seeking isn't always beneficial, we know that too. I'm too lazy to give you a large list of links, but the first ever post by Robin and the second ever post by Eliezer discuss the issue. I'd estimate the number of posts dealing with this exact topic to be somewhere between 10 and 100 (including my own first post on LW when I was much stupider than now), so you may find it interesting to browse the archives for a while.

This thought is very pervasive to OB/LW: see here, here, here, here, here, here, or use Google. Downvoted because you're quoting your own LW comment, violating two of the guidelines above.

"We are not rational, we're rationalizing". (hope this is still in the spirit of the blog...i think)

Fortunately, this is a case where the least convenient possible world is quite unlike the real world, because modern wars are fought less with infantry and more with money and technology. As technology advances, military robots get cheaper, and larger portions of the military move to greater distances from the battlefield. If current trends continue, wars will be fought entirely between machines, until one side runs out of robots and is forced to surrender (or else fight man-vs-machine, which, in spite of what happens in movies, is probably fruitless suicide).

1. not all costs are financial. 2. controlling habit patterns 3 and most importantly its a BAD example. If i wanna see a movie and i don't want to see it taht night, i know i'll want to see it in the future, so you go to see it to avoid a FUTURE cost. This blog reminds me of LTCM.

Check out Gladwell's new book - Outliers. Our success cannot be attributed to our individuality to the degree that most American's think it can. There are huge cultural influences, arbitrary society rules, birth year, etc... There's a chapter on why high IQ only matters to a certain point. Once you're "inteligent enough", practical wisdom takes over in determination of success. I don't think akrasia has that much to do with it. We live in a world of lower inteligence and have to play by those rules. It pays to be ONE step ahead of the mob, not 10! You cannot make money in the stock market by being 10 steps ahead. You'd be shorting stocks into oblivious in the 90's and 2006-2007, while the mob was getting more and mroe exuberant. By the same token i don't think success is a good measuring stick for rationality. Success depends on irrational subjects' interpretation and understanding of your actions, which cannot happen by definition. Unless in your endevours outside your brain you dumb it down to be one step ahead instead of ten, but then you gotta think like a dummy, which is not a skill of rationality.