Ads
related to: rational vs irrational behavior analysis examples for kids free
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Irrational behavior can be useful when used tactically in certain conflict, game and escape situations. The moves of an irrational opponent are not (or only very limitedly) predictable. An irrational negotiator cannot be put under rational pressure. [55] An indirect tactic is the rational use of the irrationalism of third parties.
[1] [2] The concept of irrationality is especially important in Albert Ellis's rational emotive behavior therapy, where it is characterized specifically as the tendency and leaning that humans have to act, emote and think in ways that are inflexible, unrealistic, absolutist and most importantly self-defeating and socially defeating and destructive.
Rationalization encourages irrational or unacceptable behavior, motives, or feelings and often involves ad hoc hypothesizing. This process ranges from fully conscious (e.g. to present an external defense against ridicule from others) to mostly unconscious (e.g. to create a block against internal feelings of guilt or shame).
The difference between the two is that actions are intentional behavior, i.e. they are performed for a purpose and guided by it. In this regard, intentional behavior like driving a car is either rational or irrational while non-intentional behavior like sneezing is outside the domain of rationality. [6] [63] [64]
Rational analysis is a theoretical framework, methodology, and research program in cognitive science that has been developed by John Anderson. [ 1 ] [ 2 ] The goal of rational analysis as a research program is to explain the function and purpose of cognitive processes and to discover the structure of the mind.
Rational irrationality is not doublethink and does not state that the individual deliberately chooses to believe something he or she knows to be false. Rather, the theory is that when the costs of having erroneous beliefs are low, people relax their intellectual standards and allow themselves to be more easily influenced by fallacious reasoning, cognitive biases, and emotional appeals.